Spouses Tupas v. Spouses Damasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Benjamin Tupas and Leonor Baldonado acquired a parcel of land under homestead provisions. On March 8, 1951, Homestead Patent No. V-240 was issued, and on July 8, 1952, Original Certificate of Title No. V-1042 was issued in their names. On November 30, 1951, they sold the land to Juanita Bulaong, who was then eleven years old and represented by her father, Eusebio Bulaong. A second Deed of Sale was executed on May 1, 1957, for the same consideration. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5281 was issued in Juanita Bulaong's name on December 16, 1957. Meanwhile, Benjamin Tupas obtained a crop loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Due to non-payment, PNB instituted a collection case, and a writ of preliminary attachment was annotated on the Tupas' title on August 23, 1954. On April 4, 1959, the land was sold at public auction to PNB for P6,400.00, with the sheriff executing a certificate of sale on April 6, 1959, stating the redemption period expired on April 4, 1960. This certificate was registered on August 26, 1959. On March 26, 1960, Juanita Bulaong (married to Daniel Damasco) filed an action against PNB for recovery of ownership, later amended to quieting of title. This case was withdrawn after the Damascos agreed to purchase the land from PNB. On June 4, 1964, Juanita Bulaong Damasco and Daniel Damasco executed a Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the land to Eusebio Bulaong for P1.00, stating Eusebio had defrayed all expenses. On September 23, 1964, PNB executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Daniel Damasco and Juanita Bulaong for P10,089.35. Title was consolidated in PNB's name on March 2, 1965, and TCT No. T-13103 was issued. Subsequently, TCT No. 13104 was issued in the names of Daniel Damasco and Juanita Bulaong. On April 26, 1965, Eusebio Bulaong filed a case against the Damascos for recovery of real property, and a decision was rendered holding that Eusebio Bulaong, not the Damascos, purchased the land from PNB. This decision became final. Procedural History: On June 10, 1965, Spouses Tupas filed an action for "Repurchase of Land Under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141" against the Damascos, Register of Deeds, and PNB. The complaint was amended multiple times, eventually styled as "An Action to Declare a Levy and Execution and Public Auction Sale and a Document as Patent Nullity and Recovery of a Parcel of Land." The trial court initially dismissed the complaint on October 12, 1968, ruling that the five-year period to repurchase had expired. However, on January 8, 1969, the trial court reconsidered and set aside its previous decision, annulling the sale by PNB to the Damascos, ordering PNB to allow the plaintiffs to repurchase the property for P6,400.00 plus interest, and ordering PNB to return the purchase price and expenses to Eusebio Bulaong. The trial court reasoned that the five-year period should be counted from the registration of the affidavit of consolidation of ownership on March 17, 1965, or from August 25, 1960 (expiration of redemption period), making the complaint filed on June 10, 1965, timely. The Petition: Defendants PNB and Spouses Eusebio Bulaong and Consuelo S. Bulaong appealed the reconsidered decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to purely legal questions, specifically the starting point of the five-year repurchase period under Section 119 of the Public Land Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the five-year period to repurchase under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141 should be counted from the date of the execution sale or from the expiration of the redemption period; and whether the plaintiffs-appellees demonstrated an intent to preserve the homestead for themselves and their family. Whether the plaintiffs-appellees filed their action for repurchase within the statutory five-year period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the five-year period for repurchase under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141 commenced from the date of the execution sale, not from the expiration of the redemption period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the starting point of the five-year repurchase period and the intent to preserve the homestead: The Court clarified that Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141 provides that "Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance." The conveyance in this case occurred on April 4, 1959, when the sheriff executed the certificate of sale in favor of the Philippine National Bank after the public auction. Therefore, the five-year period to repurchase commenced on April 4, 1959. While acknowledging the policy behind Section 119 to enable homesteaders to preserve their land, the Court noted that this principle no longer applied in this case because the initial sale of the homestead by the appellees even before the expiration of the five-year prohibited period indicated a lack of intent on their part to preserve the homestead for themselves and their family, as established in Vargas vs. Court of Appeals. On whether the action was filed within the statutory period: The plaintiffs-appellees filed their complaint for repurchase on June 10, 1965. Counting five years from April 4, 1959, the repurchase period expired on April 4, 1964. Even if the period were counted from the expiration of the one-year redemption period, which was April 4, 1960, the five-year period would expire on April 4, 1965. In either computation, the filing of the complaint on June 10, 1965, was clearly beyond the statutory five-year period prescribed by Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141.
Main Doctrine
The five-year period for repurchase under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141 begins to run from the date of the conveyance or foreclosure sale, not from the expiration of the redemption period.