Salenillas v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the right of repurchase for a property originally acquired by the spouses Florencia H. de Enciso and Miguel Enciso through a free patent. The Enciso spouses sold this property to the petitioners, Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas, who are Elena's parents. Subsequently, the petitioners mortgaged the property twice, first to the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc., and then to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Due to failure to pay the loan to PNB, the property was foreclosed and sold at a public auction. 2. Procedural History: Following the foreclosure sale where private respondent William Guerra emerged as the highest bidder, a Sheriff's Final Deed was executed in his favor. PNB then filed a motion for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camarines Norte, which was granted by Judge Raymundo Seva. When the petitioners refused to vacate, offering to repurchase the property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, the RTC issued an alias writ of possession. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that the repurchase period had prescribed, and later denied their motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari of the CA's decision, arguing that their right to repurchase the property under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, has not prescribed. They contend that, as a legal heir (daughter of the original patentees), Elena Salenillas possesses the right to repurchase, and that the five-year period for repurchase should be counted from the expiration of the redemption period after the foreclosure sale, not from the initial conveyance or mortgage. They cite Paras vs. Court of Appeals and Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank to support their claim that the period begins after the foreclosure sale and the execution of the Sheriff's Final Deed, asserting their offers to repurchase were timely.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, as daughter and son-in-law of the original patentees, are considered "legal heirs" within the meaning of Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) for the purpose of repurchasing the property. Whether the five-year period to repurchase the property, which was sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, had already prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent is directed to reconvey the subject property to the petitioners upon their return of the purchase price, assessments, and taxes paid, with interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to repurchase as legal heirs: The Court ruled that petitioner Elena Salenillas, being a child of the original patentees, is undeniably a "legal heir" under Section 119 of the Public Land Act. The law makes no distinction regarding the mode of acquisition by legal heirs, thus, the contention that acquiring the property by sale disqualifies them from repurchasing is without legal basis. The purpose of Section 119 is to give the patentee and his family a chance to preserve the land granted by the State. Allowing the daughter and her husband to repurchase aligns with this spirit. The principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish) applies. The Court emphasized that between two statutory interpretations, the one that better serves the purpose of the law should prevail. Therefore, the petitioners, through Elena's status as a legal heir, possess the right to repurchase. On the prescription of the repurchase period: The Court distinguished the present case from Monge, et al. vs. Angeles, et al., noting that Monge involved a pacto de retro sale, not a foreclosure sale. In a pacto de retro sale, title vests immediately in the vendee, subject to the resolutory condition of repurchase. In contrast, this case involves a property originally granted under free patent, subsequently mortgaged and foreclosed. The Court applied the rulings in Paras vs. Court of Appeals and Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank, et al., which are factually similar. These cases established that for properties sold at public auction or foreclosure sale under Act 3135, the five-year period to repurchase begins on the day after the expiration of the period of redemption, which is when the Sheriff's Final Deed is executed, formally transferring the property to the purchaser. In this case, the mortgaged property was sold at public auction on February 27, 1981, and the Sheriff's Final Deed was issued on July 12, 1983. The petitioners' offers to repurchase, on November 17, 1983, and August 31, 1984, were both made within the five-year period prescribed by law. Therefore, their right to repurchase had not prescribed.
Main Doctrine
A daughter of the patentee is considered a legal heir for purposes of Section 119 of the Public Land Act, and the five-year period to repurchase property sold at a foreclosure sale begins after the expiration of the redemption period when the Sheriff's Final Deed is executed.