Arsenal v. Iac

FRANCISCA ARSENAL and REMEDIO ARSENAL vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,

HEIRS OF TORCUATO SURALTA, and SPOUSES FILOMENO PALAOS and MAHINA LAGWAS
NO. 1-66696, 143 SCRA 40
JULY 14, 1986
GUTIERREZ, J
TOPIC: VOID AND INEXISTENT CONTRACT
FACTS:
 On January 7, 1954, the defendant Filomeno Palaos (Palaos) secured from the
Register of Deeds of Bukidnon O.C.T. No. P-290 for Lot 81, consisting of 87,829
sq.m. more or less by virtue of Homestead Patent No. V-23602 granted to him.
 On September 10, 1957, Filomeno Palaos and his wife sold four (4) hectares of
the said land for P890.00 by means of a deed of sale acknowledged before a
Notary. Plaintiff Suralta immediately took possession of the four-hectare portion
of Lot 81 above-mentioned cultivated and worked the same openly, continuously
in concept of owner. He built a house and introduced permanent improvements
thereon.
 On March 14, 1967, Palaos and his wife executed a notarial Deed of Sale in
consideration of P800.00, supposedly for the remaining three (3) hectares of
their land in favor of Arsenal without knowing that the document covered the
entirety of Lot 81 including the four-hectare previously deeded by them to
Suralta. The Arsenal took possession of the three-hectare portion but they never
disturbed the Suralta’s possession over the four-hectare portion.
 On March 6, 1974, Torcuato Suralta (Turalta) filed a case against Filomeno

Palaos, Mahina Lagwas, Francisca Arsenal, Remedio Arsenal and the Register of
Deeds of Bukidnon for the annulment of TCT No. 7879 issued to the Arsenal’s in
so far as it covers the four hectare previously sold to him.
 The Arsenals denied previous knowledge of the sale to Suralta of the land in
question and as a special defense, they assailed the validity of the purchase by
Suralta in 1957, pointing to the prohibition contained in the Public Land Law
against its disposal within the period of five years from the issuance of
homestead patent. They also questioned the legality of the sale made to Suralta
in 1957 for not having been approved by the Commission on National Integration
despite the fact that Palaos and his wife belong to the cultural minorities, are
illiterates, and do not understand English language in which the deed of sale in
favour of Suralta was written.
 On May 4, 1976, the trial court rendered judgment in favour of Suralta.
 On an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the trial court’s decision was
affirmed.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OTR NOT THE SALE OF FOUR-HECTARE PORTION OF HOMESTEAD TO
SURALTA AND HIS HEIRS IS VALID.
RULING:
A sale of homestead made within five years from issuance of its patent is null and void.
Being void, it was erroneous for the trial court to declare that the benefit of the
prohibition in the Public Land Act does not inure to any third party. Such a sweeping
declaration does not find support in the law or in precedents. A third person who is directly
affected by a void contract may set up its nullity. In this case, it is precisely the petitioner’s
interest in the disputed land which is in question
As to whether or not the execution by the respondents Palaos and Suralta of another
instrument in 1973 cured the defects in their previous contract, we reiterate the rule that an
alienation or sale of homestead executed within the five-year prohibitory period is void and
cannot be confirmed or ratified. This court has on several occasions ruled on the nature of
confirmatory sale and the public policy which proscribes it.
At first blush, the equities of the case seem to lean in favour of the Suralta who since
1957, has been in possession of the land which was almost acquired in an underhand manner
by the petitioners. We cannot, however, gloss over the fact that the respondent Suralta was
himself guilty of transgressing the law by entering, in 1957, into a transaction clearly prohibited
by law. It is a long standing principle that equity follows the law. Courts exercising equity
jurisdiction are bound by rules of law or public policy. (McCurdy v. County of Shiawassee, 118
N.W. 625). Thus, equity cannot give validity to a void contract. If on the basis of equity, we
uphold the respondent Suralta’s claim over the land which is anchored on the contracts
previously executed we would in effect foe giving life to a void contract.
Wherefore, the decision of Intermediate Appellate Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Judgement is hereby rendered:
a.) Declaring null and void the sale of four-hectare portion of the homestead to
respondent Torcuato Suralta and Heirs;
b.) Declaring null and void the sale of the same portion of land to petitioners Francisca
Arsenal and Remedio Arsenal.
c.) Ordering Register of Deeds of Bukidnon to cancel TCT No. T-7879 as to the disputed
four-hectare portion and to re-issue an Original Certificate of Title for the portion
designated as Lot 81-A of the Subdivision Plan LRC-PLD-198451 prepared by
Geodetic Engineer Benito P. Balbuena and approved by the Commission on Land
Registration, in favor of the respondents Filomeno Palaos and Mahina Lagwas;
d.) Ordering the respondents Filomeno Palaos and Mahina Lagwas to reimburse the
heirs of the respondent Torcuato Suralta the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY PESOS
(P890), the price of the sale. The value of any improvements made on the land and
the interests on the purchase price are compensated by the fruits the respondent
Suralta and his heirs received from their long possession of the homestead.

Arsenal v. Iac

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arsenal v. Iac

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arsenal v. Iac

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRANCISCA ARSENAL and REMEDIO ARSENAL vs.

THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,

TOPIC: VOID AND INEXISTENT CONTRACT

 On March 6, 1974, Torcuato Suralta (Turalta) filed a case against Filomeno

 On May 4, 1976, the trial court rendered judgment in favour of Suralta.

You might also like