Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 46813 January 11, 1940
FEDERICO OLIVEROS, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PEDRO PORCIONGCOLA and LUCIO GASPAR, defendants-appellees.
Jose Cando for appellant.
Basilio V. Castro for appellee.
LAUREL, J.:
Prior to May, 1926, Federico Oliveros applied for a homestead, and on November 20, 1931, obtained Homestead Patent No. 17117, covering a parcel of land situated in Muņoz, Nueva Ecija, and containing an area of 6 hectares, 1 are and 63 centares. This is the controverted property. Before the issuance of the patent, he sold all his right and interests in the land to defendant, Pedro Porciongcola, for P1,000 (Exhibit A.) The defendant took possession of the land. On January 19, 1937, the patentee, herein plaintiff, instituted an action against the defendant and another in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to recover the possession of the land, on the ground that the conveyance was illegal. The case having been submitted on an agreed statement of facts, the lower court, on October 14, 1937, rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
Wherefore, the court renders judgment ordering the defendant to return the possession of the land in question to the plaintiff upon payment by the latter to the defendant Pedro Porciongcola of the sum of P1,000. This judgment shall be annotated on the back of the Original Certificate of Title No. 4198 (Homestead Patent No. 17117) as an equitable lien on the land covered by said title for the sum of P1,000 in favor of Pedro Porciongcola. Should the plaintiff fail to the pay the said sum to said defendant within 90 days from the date this judgment becomes final, the defendant Pedro Porciongcola shall have the right to apply to this Court for writ of execution against the plaintiff and to have the land in question sold at public auction to satisfy the said sum of P1,000. No pronouncement as to costs.
The conveyance (Exhibit A) of the homestead by the plaintiff to the defendant having been effected in violation of the law, it is, in the language of section 21 of Act No. 2874, as amended, "null and void". While the defendant must return the land to the plaintiff, the latter cannot legally and equitably keep both the land and the purchase price of P1,000. (Art. 1303, Civil Code.)
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceņa, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
