Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

MENIL v.

CA

FACTS
Agueda Garan obtained a homestead patent over the land in question. Garan then
sold the land to Potenciano Menil, within the 5-year prohibitive period. The parties
did not register the deed of sale in the registry of deeds. Garan then executed
another deed of sale over the same parcel of land in favor of the same vendee, Menil
and for the same price of 415 pesos. The parties registered the second deed of sale
in the registry of deeds and the TCT with Garan was cancelled. Menil then
mortgaged the land to the DBP to secure an agricultural loan. Petitioners were in
possession of the land in question until sometime in 1967 when PR Garan, Calania,
Nayve Jr., Naybe and Calanias forcibly took possession of the said land and filed for a
queting of title.

GENERAL ISSUE
Whether or not the sale within the prohibitory period is null and void

CONTROLLING ISSUE
Whether or not the sale within the 5-year prohibitory period of homestead is null
and void

RULING: YES
The parties executed the contract less than the 5 years prohibited by law under Sec.
118 of CA 141 or the Public Land Act. Therefore, the homestead patent awarded to
PR Garan is null and void. The contention that there was subsequent approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the execution of the
confirmatory deed of sale which cured the defect of the sale is without merit. It
cannot be claimed that there are two contracts: one which is indisputably null and
void, and another, having been executed after the lapse of the 5-year prohibitory
period, which is valid.
It is evident from the whole record of the case that the homestead had long been in
the possession of the vendees upon the execution of the first contract of sale on May
7, 1960; likewise, the amount of P415.00 had long been paid to Agueda Garan on
that same occasion. We find no evidence to the contrary.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.

S-ar putea să vă placă și