Title
Eugenio vs. Perdido
Case
G.R. No. L-7083
Decision Date
May 19, 1955
Heirs challenged a 1932 homestead sale as void, claiming it violated a 5-year prohibition; SC ruled sale null, allowing recovery upon repayment.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7083)

Facts:

Juan Eugenio and Basilia Eugenio v. Silvina Perdido et al., G.R. No. L-7083, May 19, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.

On November 1, 1927 a Homestead Patent (No. 10847) was issued in the name of Teodoro Eugenio; the patent was recorded in the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya and an Original Certificate of Title (No. 62, dated December 5, 1927) was issued in his name. On March 12, 1932 Teodoro Eugenio executed a deed of sale, in the presence of his children Juan Eugenio and Basilia Eugenio (the petitioners), conveying the homestead to Silvina Perdido and her husband Clemente Sadang for P1,300, and delivery of possession followed.

On May 4, 1949 petitioners filed an action to recover the land, alleging the 1932 instrument was void insofar as it purported to convey the homestead — alternatively characterizing the transaction as a mortgage — and asserting they had attempted to repay the purported debt. The trial court held the 1932 contract to be a sale, but because it was executed within five years from issuance of the homestead patent it was void under the Homestead Law (Act No. 2874); the trial court therefore ordered return of the property upon repayment of P1,300 with interest.

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that petitioners lacked personality to attack the validity of the sale and that they merely had a right to repurchase which they failed to exercise within five years from March 12, 1932. Denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration prompted this petition for review on certiorari to th...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Is the petitioners’ action to annul the 1932 sale prescribed, or is it imprescriptible?
  • Do petitioners have legal personality to attack the 1932 sale and recover the homestead, or is the right of reversion solely the State’s?
  • Do doctrines of estoppel or in pari delicto bar petitioners from recovering the homestead?
  • Can a subsequent acquisition of a complete homestead title (allegedly obtained November 1...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.