Title
Menil vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-43668-69
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1978
Agueda Garan sold homestead land within the 5-year prohibitive period, rendering the sale void. Subsequent transactions and court rulings upheld the invalidity, restoring land to Garan while validating Menil's mortgage and requiring reimbursement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71510)

Background Facts

On November 3, 1955, Agueda Garan acquired a homestead patent for a specific parcel of land, followed by the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 220 on February 4, 1956. Petitioner Potenciano Menil purchased the land from Garan on May 7, 1960, for P415.00, but neither party registered this first deed of sale. Subsequently, another deed of sale was executed on March 3, 1964, which was later registered, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-60 in favor of Potenciano Menil. He subsequently mortgaged this land to the Development Bank of the Philippines in February 1966.

Legal Proceedings

Ownership issues arose when, in 1967, Garan and others forcibly took possession of the land, prompting petitioners to file a Civil Case No. 1692 for "Quieting of Title," which was dismissed by the court. However, the decision left ambiguous the issue of possession, leading the petitioners to initiate Civil Case No. 1810 for "Recovery of Possession," while the respondents filed Civil Case No. 1816 for reconveyance of the same land. These cases were jointly heard, ultimately resulting in a judgment favoring the petitioners, but the appellate court later reversed this decision.

Appellate Court's Initial Decision and Reconsiderations

The appellate court's decision on April 18, 1975, upheld the lower court's ruling but later, on September 3, 1975, asserted that the original sale to Menil was null and void due to the prohibition under Section 118 of the Public Land Act which restricts such transactions within five years of the patent. The court ordered the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-60 and the reissuance of the land title to Garan, along with reimbursement to Menil.

Arguments on Validity of Sale and Subsequent Approval

Petitioners argued that the subsequent approval of the sale and the confirmatory deed executed post the five-year period justified the validity of the original sale. However, the appellate court dismissed this claim, citing prior court rulings, including the case of Manzano vs. Ocampo, emphasizing that agreements made in violation of the law do not become valid through subsequent approvals. The court reinforced that the prohibition aimed to preserve the homesteader's land in their family.

Final Ruling and Obligations

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's resolution, leaving the decision that declared the sale of homestead land to petitioners void. The court mandated the cancellation of Transfer

...continue reading

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.