FLORENTINO PASCUAL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE TALENS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This litigation calls for application or interpretation of section 117 of Act
No. 2874, which for convenience is herein quoted:

“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, for a period of five years from the date of the
conveyance.”

When a legal heir of the homesteader acquires title to the homestead, and
subsequently sells it, may the said heir invoke the above section to establish
his right to repurchase such homestead? That is the question squarely raised in
this expediente.

The facts are these: (1) Under the provisions of Act No. 2874, Sinforoso
Pascua obtained ownership of a homestead of about twenty-two hectares in
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija by Patent No. 32910 dated June 3, 1935, duly registered in
the provincial register of deeds as original certificate of title No. 2736. (2)
On March 23, 1936, Florentino Pascua acquired said homestead by inheritance, a
transfer certificate of title No. 11253 having been issued to him. (3) On August
2, 1940, Florentino Pascua (herein plaintiff) sold the above-mentioned land to
Jose Talens (the defendant) for the sum of P1,180.00. (4) In 1943, plaintiff
demanded reconveyance of the land pursuant to section 117 of Act No. 2874. The
defendant having refused, this action was interposed in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija. (5) That court found for the plaintiff and rendered
appropriate orders. Hence this appeal by defendant, who has all the time
maintained that section 117 is not applicable to the situation.

We are not advised of any previous ruling of this Court on the matter.
However, the solution of the question is not hard to seek, if the section is
carefully analyzed in the light of the purposes of the Public Land Act.

It is well-known that the homestead laws were designed to distribute
disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their
home and cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits
the sale or encumbrance of the homestead (Section 116) within five years after
the grant of the patent After that five-year period the law impliedly permits
alienation of the homestead; but in line with the primordial purpose to favor
the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or
conveyance (Section 117), shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the
homesteader, his widow or heirs within five years. This section 117 is
undoubtedly a complement of section 116. It aims to preserve and keep in the
family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had
gratuitously given to him. It would, therefore, be in keeping with this
fundamental idea to hold, as we hold, that the right to repurchase exists not
only when the original homesteader makes the conveyance, but also when it is
made by his widow or heirs. This construction is clearly deducible from the
terms of the statute.

Wherefore, the appealed decision will be affirmed, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, and Tuason,
JJ., concur.