JUANITA RIVERA, PETITIONER, VS. SILVINO CURAMEN, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals the dispositive part of which is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs Dominga Barcelona Justine Curamen and Felicidad Curamen, and against the defendants Juanita Curitana and her minor children namely Ruperto,
Darwin, Regalado and Erlinda,
all surnamed Rivera, directing the said defendants:

1.  To reconvey
all the three parcels of land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint as
covered by Original Certifi­cates of Title Nos. 
P-594 and 6289 and/or all their rights and interests therein to the
plaintiffs upon payment by the plaintiffs of the sum of “4,000.00 together
with whatever amounts might have been paid by the defendants to the R.F.C., now
D.B.P., on account of the mortgage;

2.  To execute the necessary
deed of re-conveyance and such other instruments to effect the said reconveyance within five days from receipt of the
aforementioned amounts from the plaintiffs; and

3.  To
pay the plaintiffs P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs.”

Silvino Curamen
commenced the present action for reconveyance on May 18, 1957 against the spouses
Ernesto Rivera and Juanita Curitana.  Upon his death during the pendency
of the case below, he was substituted as party plaintiff by his daughters Justina and Felicidad.  Whether or not his widow was also made a
party is now in question.

 Rivera also died on December 18, 1958, for which reason
his minor children Ruperto, Darwin, Regalado and Erlinda were
substituted in his place, and because of their minority their mother was
appointed as their guardian ad litem.

It is not disputed that pursuant to a free patent issued on March 22, 1950, original certificate
of title No. P-594 was issued.  On the same date in the name of Silvino Curamen, married to Dominga
Barcelona, covering lots 1 and 2, F-61908, both situated in Pantabañgan,
Nueva Ecija, containing an
area of 6.6775 hectares.

Pursuant to a homestead title issued on November 1, 1938 in the name of Silvino Curamen, widower, over
another parcel of land with an area of 20.5278 hectares, situated in the same
municipality, original certificate of title No. H-6289
was likewise issued on the same date in his name.

On November 21, 1950,
the Curamen spouses mortgaged the three parcels of
land abovementioned to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation – hereinafter
referred to as the RFC – to secure payment of a 73,500.00 loan payable within
five years.  The deed of mortgage was
registered in accordance with law. 
Because the mortgagors failed to pay the amortizations due, the RFC
foreclosed the mortgage and the properties were sold at public auction on September 9, 1955, with the RFC as the
highest bidder.  The certificate and
final deed of sale executed in the latter’s favor were registered on September
1, 1965, and, as a result, the original certificates of title covering the
mortgaged properties were cancelled and transfer certificates of title Nos.
NT-20845 and 20846 were issued in favor of the RFC.

It is also admitted that on April 1, 1955 the Curamen
spouses sold their right to repurchase the properties to the Rivera spouses for
the sum of P4,000.00), but under the condition that the latter would continue
to pay the mortgage obligation to the RFC – presumably for the purpose of re­purchasing
the properties.  In this connection the
trial court found by admission made on the witness stand by Juanita Curitana – that she was still paying the mortgage debt to
the RFC up the time of the trial.

Subsequently, the Curamens sought to
repurchase the properties their right to repurchase them by offering to the Riveras the sum of P4,000.00
together with whatever amounts the latter had already paid to the RFC on
account of the mortgage obligation, and demanded execution of the proper deed
of reconveyance. 
Because the Riveras ignored this demand, the present  action was
instituted.

As reason for their refusal, the Riveras
relied, in part, upon a quit claim deed allegedly executed by Domingo Barcelona
on October 27, 1958,
whereby, for the total sum of P74,000.00, she ceded
and transferred to them her rights and interest in the properties in question.  His Honor, the trial judge, while not ruling
expressly that the deed was void, expressed doubts as to its authenticity or voluntariness by making the observation that the document
was only thumbmarked by Dominga
Barcelona who was admittedly illiterate and about 75 years of age at the time
of its alleged execution in Caranglan, Nueva Ecija, and appears to have
been acknowledged only on October 30, 1958 before a Notary Public in Manila.

Petitioner Juanita Curitana denied that
Silvino Curamen had ever
offered to repurchase said lands from her and her husband, and further claimed
that because in 1955 said lands were still uncultivated they had to spend
P1;500.00 for clearing, and P5,000.00 for irrigation canals.

According to the lower court, however, her testimony regarding
expenditures for the improvement of the properties, was “not worthy of
belief, because she was in no financial position to accumulate such cash for
such expenses”, she being only a sari-sari store-owner with an operating
capital of P200 to P500 from 1948 to 1955. 
The court further observed that she never claimed that she and her
husband had tenants working for them, and had further admitted that she herself
had never gone to the lands in question before 1955.

The foregoing findings and conclusions of the trial court having
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are now beyond
our power to review.

We shall now, therefore limit ourselves to considering the main
questions raised by petitioner, namely, that the Court of Appeals erred:  in holding that Dominga
Barcelona is not one of the plaintiffs (below) in this case, as well as in
altogether disregarding the quit-claim deed executed by her; and finally, in
affirming in toto the decision of the lower
court.

The first two questions are interrelated, and the last depends,
more or less entirely upon their resolution.

There is some confusion in the record on the question of whether
or not Dominga Barcelona was really made a party in
this case upon the death of her husband. 
This matter, however, is not decisive of the merits of this appeal.  Neither is the quit-claim allegedly executed
by her, con­sidering our view regarding its legal effect upon the right of the
other respondents herein to repurchase the properties in question.

Under the law, every conveyance of land acquired under the free
patent or homestead provisions of existing laws shall be subject to repurchase
by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, within five years from the date of
the conveyance.  Assuming that the
original grantees, Silvino Curamen
And his widow, had lost their right to repurchase the properties – in the case
of the first because of the sale of his right to repurchase made on April 1,
1955, and in that of the second because of the quit-claim already referred to –
it does not necessarily follow that their legal heirs had likewise lost their
right to repurchase or that they would be entitled to repurchase only their
share as heirs of their deceased father who died after instituting the present
case for reconveyance.  The law clearly grants them the right to
repurchase the property covered by a free patent or a homestead title
within five years from the date of the conveyance.  Speaking specifically of
the present case, that right is not limited to the repurchase of the share
corresponding to their father only, because the latter is already dead, but
refers to the repurchase of the property meaning the whole of it.  This, in our opinion, is the only logical
meaning to be given to the law which because its purpose is to enable the
family of the applicant or grantee to keep their homestead (Lusted vs. Piñol, et al., C. R. L-10825, September 27, 1957) -must be
liberally construed in order to carry out that purpose.

The quit-claim executed by Dominga
Barcelona can not have the effect of depriving her children of their right to
repurchase.  Assuming that it is valid,
it binds her alone.

The record is not clear as to whether or not at the time the
appealed decision was rendered the defendants in that court had already
repurchased the properties from the RFC. 
Said decision, however, would seem to imply that they had done so
because its dispositive part orders said defendants
to reconvey to the plaintiffs all the three parcels
of land described, in the complaint and/or all their rights and interest
therein, under the conditions therein setforth.  But if such is not the case, the proper
relief to be granted to the heirs of Curamen is to
require Juanita Curitana Rivera and her co-parties to
reconvey to the plaintiffs below the right to repurchase
the pro­perties from the RFC from whom they may proceed to re­purchase the
properties.

MODIFIED AS ABOVE INDICATED, the decision appealed from is
affirmed in all other respects.  With costs.

Concepcion, (CJ).,
Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., dids not take part.