Decolongon v. Court Of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gregorio Cuenca was an applicant for a homestead. An order for the issuance of a patent was made on October 10, 1951. The patent was issued on October 12, 1971, and OCT No. P-41 was issued in his name. Gregorio died on January 3, 1971, and his wife Aurelia died on April 14, 1971. On January 24, 1972, Andrea Cuenca, claiming to be the sole heir, executed a declaration of heirship in her favor, leading to the cancellation of the title and its placement in her name on May 15, 1972. However, Gregorio Cuenca had brothers and sisters, including Felicidad Cuenca. Felicidad contended that on May 16, 1966, Gregorio had executed a notarial deed relinquishing and transferring all his rights to the homestead to her in consideration of P1,000.00, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Procedural History: Felicidad Cuenca and other siblings filed a civil case for reconveyance and damages against Andrea Decolongon and her husband. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Andrea Decolongon. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, sustaining the validity of the deed of relinquishment (Exhibit 'D'), ordering the defendants' title to be set aside and condemning them to reconvey, without prejudice to final action by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the plaintiffs' title. The Petition: Andrea Cuenca filed a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the deed of relinquishment was void.
Issue(s)
Whether the deed of relinquishment executed by Gregorio Cuenca in favor of Felicidad Cuenca is valid, considering the five-year prohibition period against alienation of homesteads. Whether the five-year prohibition period against alienation of homesteads is computed from the date of the order for issuance of patent or from the date of the actual issuance of the patent or registration of title. Whether the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources renders the deed of relinquishment void.
Ruling
The petition for review is denied, and the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the deed of relinquishment and the computation of the five-year prohibition period: The Court reiterated the ruling in Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Davao and Minlay v. Sandoval, stating that once the order for the issuance of a patent is promulgated, the applicant acquires a vested property right and equitable ownership, even if the paramount title remains with the government. The Court clarified that for the purpose of computing the five-year prohibition against alienation, the patent is deemed issued upon the promulgation of the order for its issuance by the Director of Lands, not from the date of registration or issuance of the certificate of title. In this case, the order for issuance was dated October 10, 1951, and the deed of relinquishment was executed on May 16, 1966. This means the transfer occurred more than five years after the order for issuance, specifically fourteen years, seven months, and six days had elapsed. Therefore, the deed of relinquishment was executed outside the prohibited period, making it valid in this regard. On the computation of the five-year prohibition period: The Court reiterated the ruling in Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Davao and Minlay v. Sandoval, stating that once the order for the issuance of a patent is promulgated, the applicant acquires a vested property right and equitable ownership, even if the paramount title remains with the government. The Court clarified that for the purpose of computing the five-year prohibition against alienation, the patent is deemed issued upon the promulgation of the order for its issuance by the Director of Lands, not from the date of registration or issuance of the certificate of title. On the effect of the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources: The Court affirmed its previous rulings, such as in Raffiñan v. Abel, that the requirement for the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the alienation or transfer of a homestead between five and twenty-five years after the issuance of title is merely directory. Consequently, the absence of such approval does not invalidate the alienation, transfer, or conveyance.
Main Doctrine
For the purpose of computing the five-year prohibition against alienation of homesteads, the patent is deemed issued upon promulgation of the order for its issuance by the Director of Lands, not from the date of registration or issuance of the certificate of title. The requirement for the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for alienation of homesteads between five and twenty-five years after issuance of title is merely directory.