G.R. No. L-5727 February 12, 1954
FRANCISCO FLORES and JACINTA PASTORAL, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICTOR PLASINA, JUANA SAFRANCA and PAZ Q. PABELLO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 12, 1937, a homestead patent was granted to Pedro Flores, and Original Certificate of Title No. 4318 was issued in his name. On March 28, 1938, Pedro Flores executed a document transferring an 8-hectare portion of the land to his brother, Francisco Flores, but this document was never registered or annotated on the title. On March 21, 1944, Pedro Flores sold the entire land to spouses Victor Plasina and Juana Safranca for P6,000. Subsequently, on May 6, 1944, the spouses sold their rights to Paz Q. Pabello for P10,000. Pedro Flores died on January 7, 1947, leaving no heirs except his widow, who also predeceased him. Francisco Flores was convicted of homicide related to his brother’s death and was imprisoned but released on parole on September 8, 1950. On February 19, 1951, Francisco Flores and his wife filed an action to recover the 8-hectare portion and to redeem the rest of the property as heirs under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 .

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellees, as purchasers of the land, are bound by the unregistered document transferring an 8-hectare portion to Francisco Flores.
2. Whether the appellants, as heirs of Pedro Flores, are entitled to repurchase the property under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , and if such right has prescribed.

RULING

1. The appellees are not bound by the unregistered transfer of the 8-hectare portion. The Court upheld the lower court’s factual finding that the appellees acted in good faith, as they relied on the clean certificate of title presented by Pedro Flores during the sale, which showed no encumbrance. Under the Torrens system, a purchaser is only charged with notice of burdens noted on the certificate of title and has no duty to look beyond it.
2. The appellants’ right to repurchase has prescribed. The sale by Pedro Flores occurred on March 21, 1944, and the subsequent sale to Paz Q. Pabello was on May 6, 1944. The action to redeem was filed only on February 19, 1951, which is beyond the five-year redemption period provided by Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 . The appellants did not tender a repurchase offer prior to filing the action. The imprisonment of Francisco Flores did not interrupt the prescriptive period, as it is not a ground for interruption under the law. The sale was valid as it occurred after the five-year prohibition period from the grant of the patent, and the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (under Section 118) did not render the sale null and void, as such requirement is merely directory. The decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.