Villacorta v. Ulanday
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Barinto was granted homestead patent No. 21064 on December 16, 1932, which was transcribed in the registration book on April 12, 1937. On August 26, 1937, Barinto executed a deed of sale of the land to defendant Vicente Ulanday. Barinto later claimed he signed the deed believing it was a power of attorney. On March 13, 1939, Barinto sold the same land to plaintiff Joaquin Villacorta for P1,600. Villacorta registered the deed and obtained a transfer certificate of title. Procedural History: Villacorta filed an action to recover possession of the land and enjoin Ulanday from molesting him. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Villacorta's purchase was null and void because it occurred within five years from the registration of the homestead patent, citing Section 116 of Act No. 2874. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed, questioning whether the five-year period should be counted from the issuance of the patent or its registration.
Issue(s)
Whether the five-year period of inalienability under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 should be counted from the date of issuance of the homestead patent or from the date of its registration. Whether the sale made by Domingo Barinto to Vicente Ulanday, being within the five-year period from the issuance of the patent, automatically reverted the land to the Government, thereby rendering Barinto unable to sell it to Joaquin Villacorta.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. It declared the title of the plaintiff, Joaquin Villacorta, to the land valid and ordered the defendant, Vicente Ulanday, to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff, perpetually enjoining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the counting of the five-year period: The Court held that the five-year period of inalienability under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 should be counted from the date of the issuance of the homestead patent, not from the date of its registration. This interpretation is supported by the express wording of the homestead patent itself, which states that the land is inalienable for five years "from the date of this patent." The Court clarified that the English text, which is controlling, uses "patent," while the Spanish text's use of "titulo" might have caused confusion, leading to the erroneous supposition that the certificate of title was the reference point. The Court reaffirmed its ruling in Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija vs. Director of Lands on this matter. On the automatic reversion of the land: The Court rejected the contention that the land automatically reverted to the Government upon the sale made in violation of Section 116. The Court stated that reversion contemplated in Section 122 of the Public Land Act is not automatic and requires the Government to take action to cancel the patent and title. Furthermore, the Court held that Ulanday, as a party to an unlawful contract, cannot take advantage of his own violation of the law to claim that Barinto had no right to sell the land to Villacorta. Therefore, the sale to Villacorta, made after the lapse of the five-year period from the patent's issuance, was declared valid.
Main Doctrine
The five-year prohibition against alienation of lands acquired under homestead provisions, as provided in Section 116 of Act No. 2874, is counted from the date of the issuance of the patent, not from the date of its registration.