Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11024)
Facts:
Alfonso Angeles, et al. v. The Court of Appeals, Gregorio Sta. Ines and Anastacia Divino, G.R. No. L-11024, January 31, 1958, Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the heirs of Juan Angeles; the respondents are Gregorio Sta. Ines and Anastacia Divino, purchasers and possessors of the homestead, and the Court of Appeals (named as a respondent in the certiorari appeal). On March 12, 1935 a homestead patent (No. 31613) was issued for a parcel in Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija (about 13.6696 hectares), and Original Certificate of Title No. 4906 was issued to Juan Angeles on March 28, 1935.
On May 28, 1937 Juan Angeles sold the homestead to respondents Sta. Ines and Divino, who took possession. Juan Angeles died in 1938. In 1950 (complaint filed June 12, 1950) his heirs (petitioners here) sued in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to recover possession on the ground that the sale was void under the homestead law (Sec. 116, Act No. 2874) because it occurred within five years from issuance of the patent. Plaintiffs alleged the homestead produced about 200 cavans of palay per year and sought recovery of possession and damages (200 cavans per year at P12 per cavan from 1938).
Respondents answered, alleging purchase for value and in good faith, claiming plaintiffs had acquiesced, and asserting defenses of laches and prescription (pointing to delay of some 12–13 years), among others; they alternatively sought reimbursement for improvements made (about P6,000 claimed) if the sale were declared void.
The trial court (Court of First Instance) found the sale null and void because the five-year prohibition had not elapsed, yet concluded both vendor and vendees knew the sale was void and therefore, under Article 364 of the Civil Code of Spain, treated them as having acted in good faith for purposes of the fruits; it also held that plaintiffs’ action had prescribed under Section 40 of Act No. 190. The trial court ordered that the sale be declared null and void but directed plaintiffs to return the purchase price of P2,500 to defendants and to reimburse defendants P3,000 for leveling and a dike; the improvements would constitute a lien on the land and defendants would return possession upon receiving P2,500.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Relying on Article 1306(1) of the Spanish Civil Code (the in pari delicto doctrine), the Court of Appeals held that when both parties are guilty neither may recover, and therefore dismissed the complaint and counterclaim without pronouncement as to costs.
The heirs appe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the doctrine of in pari delicto (Article 1306, par. 1, Spanish Civil Code) applicable to a sale of a homestead made in violation of the homestead law?
- Has the heir-plaintiffs’ action to recover the homestead prescribed such that it is extinguished by lapse of time?
- If the sale is void, what are the appropriate remedies as to (a) the purchase price paid, (b) the products gathered from the land, and (c)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)