SEVERINO GAYAPANAO, TEODORO GAYAPANAO, LAURO GAYAPANAO, SALVADOR GAYAPANAO, RAYMUNDA GAYAPANAO-RAMOS, HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO GAYAPANAO AND HEIRS OF ROBERTO GAYAPANAO, PETITIONERS, V…

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioners
Severino Gayapanao and his siblings question the decision of the then
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)^[1] in AC-G.R.
No. CV-59589, entitled “Severino Gayapanao, et al. vs. Simeona
Gayapanao-Novenario” upholding the validity of the sale of two (2)
hectares of the ten-hectare homestead land by their father in favor of their
sister Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario.

Briefly, the facts of the case as found by the Appellate Court
are as follows:^[2]

“xxx xxx xxx the 2-hectare land subject of this case is part
and parcel of a homestead lot registered in the name of Constantino Gayapanao
under Original Certificate of Title No. 3625 (Exhibits B and 2, Plaintiffs’
Folder of Exhibits, p. 2). The
homestead application of the late Constantino Gayapanao over the said lot was
approved on September 7, 1931 (Exhibit C, Ibid., p. 5) and the final
order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of patent was issued on December
10, 1937, (Exhibit A, Ibid., p. 1). On July 13, 1939,
the Homestead Patent Title was issued in
the name of Constantino Gayapanao married to Aurelia Maamo (Exhibit D, Ibid., p. 2). On November
15, 1938, the late Constantino Gayapanao executed a private deed entitled
“Kasulatan ng Bilihan” in favor of Serafin Novenario and his wife,
Simeona Gayapanao over 20,000 square meters of the homestead land (Exhibit 4,
Defendants’ Folder of Exhibits, p. 8).

“Constantino Gayapanao and his wife Aurelia Maamo died
intestate on December 22, 1942 and September 29, 1966, respectively (Record on
Appeal, p. 70). x x x”

On January 2, 1974, Severino, Teodoro, Roberto, Salvador, and
Lauro, all surnamed Gayapanao, Raymunda Gayapanao-Ramos and the heirs of
Eleuterio Gayapanao filed before the then Court of First Instance of Oriental
Mindoro Civil Case No. R-317, a Complaint for Partition and Accounting with
Prayer for Appointment of Receiver against their sisters Gloria Gayapanao­-Saet
and Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario (private respondent herein) who were then
occupying the subject homestead lot. Both defendants filed their Answer to the complaint.

On March 11, 1975, the court a quo rendered a decision,^[3]
declaring as null and void Exhibit 4, the contract of sale between Simeona
Gayapanao-Novenario and her father Constantino Gayapanao for having been
executed within the five-year prohibitory period provided under Section 118 of
the Public Land Law,^[4] and at the same time declaring as valid
Exhibit 5, the deed of sale executed by Teodoro Gayapanao in favor of his
sister Gloria Gayapanao-Saet covering the former’s hereditary share in the
homestead lot. Accordingly, the lower
court ruled as follows:^[5]

“WHEREFORE, in view of the above findings, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:

“A. Adjudicating unto plaintiffs SEVERINO,
ROBERTO, SALVADOR, LAURO, RAYMUNDA and the heirs of ELEUTERIO, all surnamed
Gayapanao and Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario – one ninth 1/9 each of the intestate
estate of the deceased Constantino and Aurelia Maamo covered in and embraced by
Original Certificate of Title No. 3625 and the remaining two-ninths (2/9) to
Gloria Gayapanao-Saet, she having purchased the one-ninth (1/9) hereditary
share of plaintiff Teodoro Gayapanao;

“B.   Authorizing the herein parties to agree among
themselves to cause the relocated survey of the entire land in question covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. 3625 so that their respective shares may
be properly delineated;

“C.   Ordering the parties to submit the necessary
project of partition after the
relocation survey has been executed not later than three (3) months after entry
of this judgment in order to terminate this proceeding;

“D.   Declaring as null and void document marked
Exhibit “4”, the same having
been executed one year prior to the issuance of the patent, but Exhibit
“5” is confirmed and declared valid.

“WITHOUT special findings as to costs.

“IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario moved to reconsider, but failed. She then sought relief before the IAC which, finding the sale in
her favor to be perfectly valid, set aside the decision of the lower court and
entered a new one dismissing the complaint against her.^[6]

Hence, this appeal filed by Severino Gayapanao, et al. after
their motion for reconsideration was denied^[7] by
the respondent appellate court.

In upholding the sale of a portion of the homestead lot by
Constantino Gayapanao to his daughter, herein private respondent Simeona
Gayapanao-Novenario, the respondent court interpreted the prohibition against
the alienation or encumbrance of the homestead land under Section 118 of the
Public Land Law as referring to an alienation or encumbrance in favor of a
third person outside the family circle of the original homesteader. Since, according to the appellate court, the
conveyance involved herein was made in favor
of Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario, who is one of the nine (9) children of the
original homesteader and who is the “continuity of the personality of her
father for all legal intents and purposes,” such sale is “not in
contravention of the avowed policy of the State, which is to preserve and keep
to the homesteader and his family the land granted to him by the State.”^[8]

We rule otherwise. The
pertinent portion of Section 118 of the Public Land Law provides:^[9]

“Except in
favor of the government or any of its
branches, units or institutions land acquired under
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 provision of law which prohibits the sale or encumbrance of
the homestead within five years after the grant is mandatory. From the date of the approval of the
application and for a term of five (5) years from and after the date of
issuance of the patent or grant, lands acquired under free patent or homestead
provisions cannot be subject to encumbrance or alienation, nor shall they
become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the
expiration of said period. The only
exception mentioned by the law is the sale or encumbrance in favor of the
government or any of its branches, units or institutions.

In a number of cases, we have consistently ruled that a sale of
homestead within the five (5) year prohibitive period is void ab initio
and the same cannot be ratified nor can it acquire validity through the passage
of time.

In the case of Arsenal vs. IAC,^[10]
we said:

“The above provisions of law are clear and explicit. A contract which purports to alienate,
transfer, convey or encumber any homestead within the prohibitory period of
five (5) years from the date of issuance of the patent is void from its
execution. In a number of cases, this
Court has held that such provision is mandatory (De los Santos vs. Roman
Catholic Church of Midsayap, 94 Phil. 405).”

It is dangerous precedent to allow the sale of a homestead during
the five-year prohibition to anyone, even to the homesteader’s own son or
daughter. As aptly put by the
petitioners, a clever homesteader who wants to circumvent the ban may simply
sell the lot to his descendant and the latter after registering the same in his
name would sell it to a third person. This way, public policy would not be subserved.

Moreover, the sale to a descendant is not one of the exceptions
contemplated by law. Only the
government or any of its branches, units or institutions is given the right to
acquire homestead by purchase at any time and even during the five-year
prohibitory period. To hold valid the
sale at bar would be to throw the door open to schemes and subterfuges which
would defeat the law prohibiting the alienation of homestead within five (5)
years from the issuance of the
patent.

The respondent Court cited the case of Lasud v. Lasud,^[11]
in support of its decision. Said case
is not applicable to the case at bar, considering that the plaintiff, Sigbe
Lasud sold the inherited homestead to his brother Santay Lasud and the latter’s
wife twenty-one (21) years after the patent was issued to his father the
homesteader. On the other hand, the
questioned conveyance in the case at bar was done within the five year
prohibitory period. Furthermore, what
was involved in the Lasud case is the right of therein plaintiff under Section
119 of the Public Land Law to redeem the portion sold. In contrast, the case at bar centers on
Section 118 of the same law.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of
Appeals, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
decision in Civil Case No. R-317 of the then Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro is REINSTATED. Costs
against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and
Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Crisolito Pascual and concurred in by Justices Edgardo L.
Paras and Serafin E. Camilon.

^[2]
Decision, Annex “A”,
Petition, pp. 20-21, Rollo, emphasis supplied.

^[3]
Penned by Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza.

^[4]
Commonwealth Act No. 141.

^[5]
Record on Appeal, pp. 77-78, Annex
“C”, Petition, p. 25, Rollo.

^[6]
p. 23, Rollo.

^[7]
Per resolution dated March 20, 1984.

^[8]
Decision, p. 22, Rollo.

^[9]
Emphasis supplied.

^[10]
143 SCRA 49.

^[11]
10 SCRA 425