De Romero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugenio Romero bought rights to 12 hectares of public land. His homestead application was disapproved as he already applied for 24 hectares. The application was placed in the name of his eldest son, Eutiquio, then transferred to Lutero Romero, and later to Ricardo Romero. Eugenio Romero died in 1948. In 1961, his widow Teodora caused the land to be subdivided among six children, with Lutero, Ricardo, Mindalina, Lucita, Presentacion, and Gloriosa receiving approximately 2 hectares each. Ricardo conveyed his share to Lucita and Gloriosa. Mindalina left her share with her mother and sister Presentacion. Lutero occupied Mindalina's share, totaling 4 hectares, with consent. Lutero Romero obtained a homestead patent for the land on April 7, 1967, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-2,261 was issued in his name on April 26, 1967. On January 17, 1969, Lutero executed three affidavits of sale, selling 3 hectares each to Gloriosa, Presentacion (and husband Sabdullah Mama), and Lucita (and husband Meliton Pacas) for P3,000.00 each. Lutero claimed he was forced to sign these affidavits by Mayor Pablito Abragan and that he was not paid. He repudiated these affidavits on August 12, 1974. Lutero Romero obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) on December 3, 1975, mortgaging the land. Procedural History: Petitioners (Teodora Saltiga De Romero, Presentacion Romero Mama, Lucita Romero Pacas, Gloriosa Romero Rasonable, and Mindalina Romero Nuenay) filed Civil Case No. 591 against Lutero Romero and DBP for reconveyance of their shares. Lutero Romero and Natividad S. Romero filed Civil Case No. 1056 against Lucita Romero-Pacas, Meliton Pacas, Presentacion Romero-Mama, Sabdullah Mama, Gloriosa Romero Rasonable, and Dionisio Rasonable for annulment of the three affidavits of sale. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Norte, Branch 7, declared the three affidavits of sale null and void, ordered the surrender of possession of the portions of Lot 23 to Lutero Romero, ordered the cancellation of tax declarations in the names of the defendants and restoration of Lutero's tax declaration, and awarded actual and moral damages to Lutero. The RTC decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising whether Lutero Romero is a trustee of Lot 23 Pls-35 for the benefit of Eugenio Romero's heirs and whether their cause of action can stand with or without the three affidavits of sale.
Issue(s)
Whether Lutero Romero holds Lot 23 Pls-35 in trust for the benefit of the heirs of Eugenio Romero. Whether the three affidavits of sale executed by Lutero Romero are valid and confer a cause of action upon the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC's declaration of the three affidavits of sale as null and void and ordering the surrender of possession of the portions of Lot 23 to Lutero Romero is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Lutero Romero holds Lot 23 Pls-35 in trust for the benefit of the heirs of Eugenio Romero: The Court held that petitioners failed to present evidence to prove the existence of a trust. Even if a trust were proven, its validity would be doubtful because it would promote a direct violation of the Public Land Act. The Public Land Act requires homestead applicants to occupy and cultivate the land for their own benefit, not for others. Eugenio Romero was disqualified from acquiring additional land as he had already applied for the maximum limit of 24 hectares. Upholding the theory of a trust would abet a circumvention of statutory prohibitions under the Public Land Act. Therefore, there is no legal or factual basis to sustain the contention that Lutero Romero held the lot in trust for the heirs of Eugenio Romero. On the validity of the three affidavits of sale: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' declaration that the three conveyances were void. Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (The Public Land Act) prohibits the alienation of a homestead within five years from the issuance of the patent and grant. The sales in question were made on January 17, 1969, less than two years after the issuance of Lutero's title on April 7, 1967. Thus, the sales were clearly void. Furthermore, it was established that the supposed vendees never paid any consideration for the supposed sale of the lots they occupied, indicating the sales were simulated. The Court reiterated that the conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-year prohibitory period is null and void and cannot be enforced, as it is against public policy.
Main Doctrine
A trust will not be created when, for the purpose of evading the law prohibiting one from taking or holding real property, he takes a conveyance thereof in the name of a third person. Furthermore, conveyances of homesteads within five years from the issuance of the patent are null and void.