EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, AS REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

This is an original petition presented in
the Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus. Its purpose is to secure an
order of this court requiring the respondent to register in the
registry of deeds of the Province of Nueva Ecija a deed of absolute
sale of a piece or parcel of land, which deed, at the time it was
presented for registry, was accompanied with the “Owner’s Duplicate
Certificate” No. 446 of Bonifacio Inepto. To the petition the
respondent demurred.

The admitted facts as found in the petition may be stated as follows:

(1) That on the 24th day of January, 1918, one Bonifacio Inepto
obtained from the Bureau of Lands a homestead patent (No. 1391) to a
certain piece or parcel of land particularly described in the petition;

(2) Said homestead patent No. 1391 was duly registered in the
office of the register of deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija on the
19th day of February, 1919, as certificate of title No. 464;

(3) That on the 30th day of March, 1920, the said Bonifacio Inepto
sold and transferred to the petitioner herein the land in question and
executed and delivered on the same date a deed of absolute sale in
favor of the petitioner herein;

(4) That on the 31st day of March, 1920, the petitioner herein
presented to the respondent, in his capacity as register of deeds of
the Province of Nueva Ecija, the said deed of absolute sale, and later,
on the 17th day of April, 1920, filed with the respondent the “Owner’s
Duplicate Certificate” No. 464, and requested that said deed of
absolute sale be registered in the registry of deeds in the name of the
petitioner herein, and also, that the respondent herein issue in favor
of the petitioner a “certificate of transfer” of said land;

(5) That on the 5th day of May, 1920, the respondent herein
unlawfully neglected and refused to register said absolute deed of sale
and to issue to the petitioner the corresponding “certificate of
transfer;”

(6) That on the 11th day of May, 1920, the petitioner herein asked
the respondent for a reconsideration of his decision denying to him his
request as indicated in the preceding paragraph.

The demurrer of the respondent is based upon the provisions of Act
No. 2874, and particularly section 116 of said Act, which provides that
“lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not
be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval
of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date
of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said
period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or
pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.”

The argument of the respondent is that in view of said quoted
section, the original patentee, Bonifacio Inepto, was prohibited, for a
term of five years from the issuance of said patent, from encumbering
or alienating the land in question. The respondent, however, has
overlooked the fact that said Act No. 2874 applies to public lands only
(Central Capiz vs. Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883), and that it was
not in force at the time the Bureau of Lands issued the homestead
patent in question to Bonifacio Inepto. Said patent was issued on the
24th day of January, 1918, whereas Act No. 2874 was not adopted until
the 29th day of November, 1919, long after the patent in question was
issued by the Government. Said Act No. 2874 has no retroactive effect
or operation, and inasmuch as it applies to public lands only, it could
have no effect upon private lands at the time of its adoption.

For the foregoing reasons, and with special reference to the
provisions of section 194 of Act No. 2711 and the decision of this
court in the case of Garcia Sanchez vs. Rosauro (40 Phil.,
231), we are of the opinion and so decide that the demurrer should be
and is hereby overruled, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that,
unless the respondent answers within the period of five days from the
notice hereof, the remedy prayed for be granted. So ordered.

Araullo, Street, Avancena, and Villamor, JJ., concur.