Title
Beniga vs. Bugas
Case
G.R. No. L-28918
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1970
A donation of land acquired under free patent was declared void for violating the 5-year prohibitory period; accountability for land fruits remanded for determination.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28918)

Facts:

  1. Land in Controversy:
    The disputed land is a portion of a parcel located in Barrio Magsirawag (Guintomoyan), Jimenez, Misamis Occidental. It is bounded by Salimpono River (North), Magsirawang Brook (South), V. Baol and R. Mabascog (East), and D. Malon, A. Beniga, and M. Luzing (West). The land has an area of 2.1680 hectares and is covered by Tax Declaration No. 71458 in the name of the late Antonio Mabascog.

  2. Free Patent Issuance:
    The land is part of Lot 2031, Pls-646, covered by Free Patent No. 232966, issued on May 3, 1963. The patentee, Antonio Mabascog, died on September 5, 1966.

  3. Donation of the Land:
    Before his death, Antonio Mabascog donated the disputed portion of the land to Rufina Bugas on September 22, 1965. At the time of the donation, neither the donor nor the donee was aware of the issuance of the free patent. Rufina Bugas took possession of the property after the donation.

  4. Heirs of Antonio Mabascog:
    Antonio Mabascog was a widower without descendants or ascendants. His heirs are the plaintiffs: Paciencia Beniga, Anselmo Burlat, Dionisia Melon, Buenaventura Vale, Agapito Vale, Alfonso Vale, Matea Vale, and Manuel Vale. They are the children of Antonio Mabascog's four deceased sisters.

  5. Lower Court Decision:
    The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental declared the donation null and void, ruling that it violated the 5-year prohibitory period against alienation of lands acquired under free patent, as provided under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended. The court also held that Rufina Bugas was in good faith and thus not accountable for the fruits of the land.

Issue:

  1. Validity of the Donation:
    Whether the donation of the land by Antonio Mabascog to Rufina Bugas is valid, considering the 5-year prohibitory period under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.

  2. Computation of the Prohibitory Period:
    Whether the 5-year prohibitory period should be computed from the date of issuance of the free patent (May 3, 1963) or from the date of its registration (January 13, 1966).

  3. Accountability for Fruits of the Land:
    Whether Rufina Bugas should be held accountable for the fruits of the land from the time she received judicial summons.

Ruling:

  1. Nullity of the Donation:
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision declaring the donation null and void. The donation violated the 5-year prohibitory period under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which prohibits the alienation of lands acquired under free patent from the date of approval of the application up to five years after the issuance of the patent.

  2. Computation of the Prohibitory Period:
    The Court ruled that the 5-year prohibitory period begins from the date of issuance of the patent (May 3, 1963), not from the date of its registration (January 13, 1966). The donation on September 22, 1965, was clearly within the prohibited period.

  3. Accountability for Fruits of the Land:
    The Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the value of the fruits of the land that Rufina Bugas should account for from the time she received judicial summons. The lower court did not make a finding on the amount of produce, necessitating further proceedings.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.