Circumventing the law

The conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void and cannot be enforced (Section 118, Public Land Act). This case is an example of such conveyance.

The case involves a 13,552 square meter portion of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 11880 in the names of the heirs of Enteng, namely Leo, Ben, Dolly and Virgie (the heirs). Said OCT was issued pursuant to Homestead Patent No. 138892 given on November 12, 1973 upon application by Enteng before his death.

On December 20, 1976, the heirs, together with their mother Isa, executed a Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim wherein they agreed to “sell, cede, convey, grant and transfer by way of Quitclaim” the subject property to Vic. Then on February 20, 1977, Vic in turn sold the property to Mar, a tenant of Vic who had been working on said property, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Later on Isa and Virgie even executed an affidavit attesting that they indeed conveyed the subject property to Vic through the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim, and that Vic and his predecessors in interest had been in possession of the subject property.

Thus on June 21, 1986, Mar already filed an action for ownership, quieting of title, partition and damages against the heirs praying that he be declared the true owner of the 13,552 square meter portion of the parcel of land covered by OCT 11880 and that the entire property covered by said title be partitioned already among them. Mar claimed that as Vic’s tenant he had been working on said property since time immemorial and that when he bought the property in 1977 from Vic, he already possessed the land as owner and paid the real property taxes thereon. In fact, the heirs through their mother Isa and sister, Virgie executed an affidavit acknowledging the erroneous inclusion of said land in their title.

Despite the heirs’ claim that they were only misled by Vic into signing the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim due to their lack of education, and that their OCT on the land had already become indefeasible one year after it was issued, the Regional Trial Court still ruled in favor of Mar ordering the heirs to recognize his ownership over the 13,552 square meter portion, to immediately re-convey the same to Mar, and to pay damages and attorney’s fees. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals which upheld the validity of the Deed of Confirmation. The CA dismissed the heirs’ assertion that they did not know the contents of the Deed in the light of their admission that they signed it after it was read to them. It further declared that the Deed merely confirmed the heirs’ non-ownership of said property and did not involve alienation or encumbrance as to be subject to the five year prohibition against alienation of a homestead. Was the CA correct?

No. The Deed is void for violating the five-year prohibitory period against alienation of lands acquired through homestead patent as provided in Section 118 of the Public Land Act. It did not merely confirm the heirs non-ownership of the subject property as declared by the CA. The Deed uses the words “sell,” “cede,” “grant,” and “transfer”. These words admit of no other interpretation than that the subject property was indeed being transferred to Vic. The use of the words “confirmation” and “quitclaim” in the title of the Deed was an obvious attempt to circumvent the prohibition imposed by law. Labeling the deed as a confirmation of non-ownership or as a quitclaim of rights would actually make no difference, as the effect would still be alienation or conveyance of the property. This act of conveyance would still fall within the ambit of the prohibition. To validate such arrangement would throw the door open to all possible fraudulent subterfuge and schemes that persons interested in land given to homesteader may devise to circumvent and defeat the prohibition. The homestead law was enacted to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward in cleaning and cultivating it. Its basic objective is to provide home and decent living to a class of small independent landholders.

Furthermore, an OCT issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the promulgation of the Director of Land’s Order for the issuance of the patent. After the lapse of said period, the sole remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name is to file an action for re-conveyance based on fraud where he should prove by clear and convincing evidence, his title to the property, and the fact of fraud. In this case, Mar did not allege in his complaint and failed to prove that fraud attended the registration of the subject property in the name of the heirs or that he has title to said property (Flores etc et.al., vs. Bagaoisan, G.R. 173365, April 15, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]