Case Digest (G.R. No. 48188)
Facts:
Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. Pantaleon de las Ama and Graciano Alino, G.R. No. 48188, October 23, 1942, the Supreme Court, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.The homesteader was Pantaleon de las Ama, who received a homestead patent for a 16-hectare parcel in Talavera, Nueva Ecija on January 17, 1929. On June 30, 1933 de las Ama incurred a debt of P930 to Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. That obligation was reduced to judgment; on September 24, 1934 the provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija levied execution on the homestead and sold the property at public auction, adjudicating it to Puyat as highest bidder for P569.61. After the statutory lapse of one year a final deed of sale was executed by the sheriff in favor of Puyat. The levy and sale were annotated on the back of the certificate of title.
On March 2, 1935 de las Ama executed a deed of sale conveying the parcel to Graciano Alino for P2,400, subject to a P417.76 mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank which Alino assumed and later paid. Alino registered the deed on June 8, 1939 and received Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15118 in his name; the title carried the prior annotations of the sheriff’s levy and sale in favor of Puyat as an encumbrance.
In the cadastral proceedings, on October 19, 1939 Puyat filed an amended motion seeking cancellation of Alino’s certificate of title and issuance of title in Puyat’s name based on the sheriff’s sale. Alino filed a countermotion asking the register of deeds to cancel the annotations of levy and sale on TCT No. 15118. Judge Potenciano Pecso...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the sheriff’s levy, levy sale, and adjudication in favor of Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. valid despite the five-year protection afforded homestead patents under Act No. 2874 as amended?
- Was Graciano Alino’s title invalid because, despite the March 2, 1935 deed, the sale in reality took place within the five-year protected period (by rea...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)