G.R. No. L-6088 February 25, 1954
CATALINA DE LOS SANTOS, in her capacity as administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Julio Sarabillo, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MIDSAYAP, Most Rev. LUIS DEL ROSARIO and Rev. GERARD MONGEAU, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On December 9, 1938, a homestead patent was granted to Julio Sarabillo, and Original Certificate of Title No. RP-269 (1674) was issued on March 17, 1939. On December 31, 1940, Sarabillo sold two hectares of this homestead land to the Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap for P800, stipulating the sale was for educational and charitable purposes and subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The request for approval was submitted in December 1947, and approval was granted on March 26, 1949. The deed was registered on March 29, 1950, and annotated on the back of Sarabillo’s title. Julio Sarabillo died, and Catalina de los Santos was appointed administratrix of his estate. She filed an action to declare the sale null and void for violating Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as the sale occurred within five years from the patent’s issuance. The defendants argued the sale was valid for educational/charitable purposes and approved by the Secretary, and alternatively, that the pari delicto doctrine applied and any nullity would cause reversion to the State, not return to the estate. The trial court declared the sale null and void, ordering the plaintiff to reimburse the purchase price and the value of improvements (P800 + P601) with interest, and the defendants to vacate the land.

ISSUE

1. Whether the sale of the homestead land within five years from the patent’s issuance is null and void despite approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and its intended use for educational and charitable purposes.
2. Whether the pari delicto doctrine prevents the administratrix from seeking nullification of the sale.
3. Whether, upon nullification of the sale, the land reverts to the State, making the State, not the administratrix, the proper party to institute the action.

RULING

1. The sale is null and void. The sale was executed on December 31, 1940, less than five years from the patent’s issuance on December 9, 1938, violating the mandatory prohibition in Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 . The subsequent approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1949 and the registration in 1950 could not validate the sale. The approval is merely a formality for sales made after five years but within 25 years and does not cure a sale made within the prohibited period. The purpose of the law is to preserve the homestead for the family of the homesteader. The authority under Section 121 for corporations to acquire homesteads for educational, religious, or charitable purposes is subject to the five-year prohibition in Section 118.
2. The pari delicto doctrine does not apply. While generally, parties in pari delicto cannot seek relief, an exception exists when public policy is advanced by allowing one party to sue. The homestead law aims to keep land for the homesteader’s family, a fundamental public policy. Therefore, the administratrix, as heir, is not barred from seeking nullification to re-acquire the land for the family’s home and cultivation. This right cannot be waived.
3. The administratrix is the proper party to seek nullification and possession. While Section 124 of the Public Land Act states that a void conveyance causes reversion to the State, the issue of reversion is between the State and the grantee or heirs. Until the government acts to assert title, the question is who has a better right to possession. Upon annulment, the purchaser has no right to retain possession against the vendor’s heirs. The defendants are like intruders and must vacate in favor of the administratrix.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.