Sallenillas vs. CA
FULL CASE
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989
ELENA SALENILLAS AND ERNARDINO SALENILLAS, petitioners, vs. !ONORALE COURT O" APPEALS an# !ONORALE RA$MUNDO SE%A, JUDGE O" RANC! 38 O" T!E REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COURT O" CAMARINES NORTE an# &ILLIAM GUERRA, respondents.
Jose L. Lapak for petitioners. Jose T. Atienza for private respondent. respondent.
SARMIENTO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari which certiorari which sees the reversal an! settin" asi!e of the !ecision 1 of the Court of #ppeals ' !is$issin" the petition for certiorari a"ainst certiorari a"ainst %u!"e Ra&$un!o Seva of the Re"ional Trial Court of Ca$arines Norte an! the private respon!ent' (illia$ (illia$ )uerra' involves a pure *uestion of law i.e.' the covera"e an! application of Section ++, of Co$$onwealth #ct No. +-+' as a$en!e!' n own otherwise as the Public an! #ct. The facts are un!ispute!.
Sallenillas vs. CA The propert& sub/ect $atter of the case was for$erl& covere! b& Ori"inal Certificate of Title No. P0+1-2' issue! b& virtue of 3ree Patent #pplication No. +,1456' in favor o f the spouses' 3lorencia 7. !e Enciso an! Mi"uel Enciso. The sai! ori"inal certificate of title was inscribe! in the Re"istration 8oo for the Province of Ca$arines Norte on Dece$ber +9' +,5+. On 3ebruar& 12' +,49' the patentees' the Enciso spouses' b& an #bsolute Dee! of Sale' sol! the propert& in favor of the petitioners' the spouses Elena Salenillas an! 8ernar!ino Salenillas for a consi!eration of P,99.99. Petitioner Elena Salenillas is a !au"hter of the Encisos. #s a result of the afore$entione! sale' Transfer Certificate of Title No. T02+9- of the Re"ister of Dee!s of Ca$arines Norte was issue! in the na$e of the Salenillas' cancellin" Ori"inal Certificate of Title No. P0+1-2. On %une :9' +,4+' the petitioners $ort"a"e! the propert& now covere! b& T.C.T. No. T02+9- with the Rural 8an of Daet' Inc. The $ort"a"e was subse*uentl& release! on Nove$ber 11' +,4: after the petitioners pai! the a$ount of P+'999.99. ater' or on Dece$ber -' +,46' the petitioners a"ain $ort"a"e! the propert&' this ti$e in favor of the Philippine National 8an 8ranch' Daet' Ca$arines Norte as securit& for a loan of P1'699.99. 3or failure of the petitioners to pa& their loan' e;tra/u!icial foreclosure procee!in"' pursuant to #ct No. :+:6' was institute! b& the Philippine National 8an a"ainst the $ort"a"e an! the propert& was sol! at a public auction hel! on 3ebruar& 14' +,2+. The private respon!ent' (illia$ )uerra' e$er"e! as the hi"hest bi!!er in the sai! public auction an! as a result thereof a s 3inal Dee!< was e;ecute! in favor of the private respon!ent. On #u"ust +4'+,2:' the Philippine National 8an file! with the Re"ional Trial Court of Ca$arines Norte at Daet' a $otion for a writ of possession. The public respon!ent' %u!"e Ra&$un!o Seva of the trial court' actin" on the $otion' issue! on Septe$ber 11' +,2: an or!er for the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the private respon!ent. (hen the !eput& sheriff of Ca$arines Norte however' atte$pte! on Nove$ber +4' +,2:' to place the propert& in the possession of the private respon!ent' the petitioners refuse! to vacate an! surren!er the possession of the sa$e an! instea! offere! to repurchase it un!er Section ++, of the Public an! #ct. On #u"ust +6' +,2-' another $otion' this ti$e for the issuance of an alias writ of possession was file! b & the private respon!ent with the trial court. The petitioners' on #u"ust :+' +,2-' oppose! the private respon!ents> $otion an! instea! $a!e a for$al offer to repurchase the propert&. Notwithstan!in" the petitioners> opposition an! for$al offer' the trial court /u!"e on October +1' +,2- issue! the alias writ of possession pra&e! for the private respon!ent. The petitioners $ove! for a reconsi!eration of the or!er but their $otion was !enie!. =n!eterre! b& their initial setbac' the petitioners elevate! the case to the respon!ent Court of #ppeals b& wa& of a petition for certiorari clai$in" that the respon!ent trial
Sallenillas vs. CA court /u!"e acte! with "rave abuse of !iscretion in issuin" the or!er !ate! O ctober +1' +,2- "rantin" the writ of possession' an! the or!er !ate! October 11' +,2-' !en&in" their $otion for reconsi!er consi!eration. In a resolution !ate! %anuar& 1:' +,26' the respon!ent appellate court "ave !ue course to the petition? re*uire! the parties to sub$it si$ultaneous $e$oran!a in support to the ir respective positions? an! restraine! the trial court an! the private respon!en t fro$ e;ecutin"' i$ple$entin" or otherwise "ivin" effect to the assaile! writ of possession until further or!ers fro$ the court. 3 7owever' in a !ecision pro$ul"ate! on Septe$ber +4' +,25' the respon!ent Court of #ppeals !is$isse! the case for lac of $erit. #ccor!in" to the appellate court@ It $ust be note! that when the ori"inal owner' 3lorencia 7. Enciso whose title' OCT No. P0+1-2' was issue! on #u"ust ,' +,5+' e;ecute! a !ee! of absolute sale on 3ebruar& 12' +,49 of the propert& covere! b& sai! title to spouses Elena Salenillas an! 8ernar!ino Salenillas' the five &ear perio! to repurchase the propert& provi!e! for in Section ++, of Co$$onwealth #ct No. +-+ as a$en!e! coul! have alrea!& starte!. Pro$ this fact alone' the petition shoul! have been !is$isse!. 7owever' "rantin" that the transfer fro$ parent to chil! for a no$inal su$ $a& not be the s !ecision' states that the sale of the conteste! propert& b & the patentees to the petitioners
Sallenillas vs. CA !is*ualifie! the latter fro$ bein" le"al heirs vis#a#vis the sai! propert&. #s such' the& Athe petitionersB no lon"er en/o& the ri"ht "rante! to heirs un!er the provisions of Section ++, of the Public an! #ct. 8 In fine' what nee! be !eter$ine! an! resolve! here are@ whether or not the petitioners have the ri"ht to repurchase the conteste! propert& un!er Section ++, of the Public an! #ct? an! assu$in" the answer to the *uestion is in the affir$ative' whether or not their ri"ht to repurchase ha! alrea!& prescribe!. (e rule for the petitioners. The& are "rante! b& the law the ri"ht to repurchase their propert& an! their ri"ht to !o so subsists. Section ++, of the Public an! #ct' as a$en!e!' provi!es in full@ Sec. ++,. Ever& conve&ance of lan! ac*uire! un!er the free patent or ho$estea! provisions' when proper' shall be sub/ect to repurchase b& the applicant' his wi!ow' or le"al heirs within a perio! of five &ears fro$ the !ate of the conve&ance. 3ro$ the fore"oin" le"al provision' it is e;plicit that onl & three classes of persons are bestowe! the ri"ht to repurchase the applicant0patentee' his wi!ow' or other le"al heirs. Conse*uentl&' the contention of the private respon!ent sustaine! b& the respon!ent appellate court that the petitioners !o not belon" to an& of those classes of repurchasers because the& ac*uire! the propert& not throu"h inheritance but b& sale' has no le"al basis. The petitioners0spouses are the !au"hter an! son0in0law of the Encisos' patentees of the conteste! propert&. #t the ver& least' petitioner Elena Salenillas' bein" a chil! of the Encisos' is a
Sallenillas vs. CA )ui!e! b& the sa$e purpose of the law' an! procee!in" to the other issue here raise!' we rule that the five0&ear perio! for the petitioners to repurchase their propert& ha! not &et prescribe!. The case of Monge et al. vs. Angeles, et al., 1* cite! as authorit& b& the respon!ent Court of #ppeals is inapplicable to the present controvers&. The facts obtainin" there are substantiall& !ifferent fro$ those in this case. In Monge the conve&ance involve! was a pacto de retro sale an! not a foreclosure sale. More i$portantl&' the *uestion raise! there was whether the five0&ear perio! provi!e! for in Section ++, s failure to re!ee$ it. 11 It is therefore un!erstan!able wh& the Court rule! there as it !i!. # sale on pacto de retro i$$e!iatel& vests title' ownership' an!' "enerall& possession over the propert& on the ven!ee a retro' sub/ect onl& to the ri"ht of the ven!or a retro to repurchase within the stipulate! perio!. It is an absolute sale with a resolutor& con!ition. The cases 1' pointe! to b& the petitioner in support of their position' on the other han!' present facts that are *uite i!entical to those in the case at bar. 8oth cases involve! properties the titles over which were obtaine! either throu"h ho$estea! or free patent. These properties were $ort"a"e! to a ban as collateral for loans' an!' upon failure of the owners to pa& their in!ebte!ness' the $ort"a"es were foreclose!. In both instances' the Court rule! that the five0&ear perio! to. repurchase a ho$estea! sol! at public auction or foreclosure sale un!er #ct :+:6 be"ins on the !a& after the e;piration of the perio! of re!e$ption when the !ee! of absolute sale is e;ecute! thereb& for$all& transferrin" the propert& to the purchaser' an! not otherwise. Tain" into account that the $ort"a"e was foreclose! an! the $ort"a"e! propert& sol! at a public auction to the private respon!ent on 3ebruar& 14' +,2+' with the s 3inal Dee!< issue! on %ul& +1' +,2:' the two offers of the petitioners to repurchase the first on Nove$ber +4' +, 2:' an! the secon!' for$all&' on #u"ust :+' +,2- were both $a!e within the prescribe! five0&ear perio!. Now' as re"ar!s the re!e$ption price' appl&in" Sec. :9 of Rule :, of the Revise! Rules of Court' the petitioners shoul! rei$burse the private respon!ent the a$ount of the purchase price at the public auction plus interest at the rate of one per centu$ per $onth up to Nove$ber +4' +,2:' to"ether with the a$ounts of assess$ents an! ta;es on the propert& that the private respon!ent $i"ht have pai! after purchase an! interest on the last na$e! a$ount at the sa$e rate as that on the purchase price. 13 (7ERE3ORE' the petition is )R#NTED. The Decision !ate! Septe$ber +4' +,25' an! the Resolution !ate! Ma& 4' +,24 of the Court of #ppeals' an! the Or!ers !ate! Septe$ber 11' +,2:' October +1' +,2-' an! October 11' +,2- of the Re"ional Trial Court
Sallenillas vs. CA of Daet' Ca$arines Norte' are hereb& REVERSED an! SET #SIDE' an! another one ENTERED !irectin" the private respon!ent to reconve& the sub/ect propert& an! to e;ecute the correspon!in" !ee! of reconve&ance therefor in favor of the petitioners upon the return to hi$ b& the latter of the purchase price an! the a$ounts' if an&' of assess$ents or ta;es he pai! plus interest of one A+B per centu$ per $onth on both a$ounts up to Nove$ber +4' +,2:. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melencio#'errera (Cairperson), Paras, Padilla and *egalado, JJ., concur.
CASE DIGEST
Sa++n-++a / CA 169 SCRA 8'9, G.R. No. 78687 0January 31, 1989
Sallenillas vs. CA Elena Salenillas an! 8ernar!ino Salenillas' petitioners, vs. 7onorable Court of #ppeals an! 7onorable Ra&$un!o Seva' %u!"e of 8ranch :2 of The Re"ional Trial Court of Ca$arines Norte an! (illia$ )uerra' respondents. Sar2-no,J.4
"a54
The propert& sub/ect $atter of the case which was issue! b& virtue of 3ree Patent was "rante! in favor of spouses 3lorencia 7. !e Enciso an! Mi"uel Enciso who were petitioner Elena Salenillas parents. The sai! ori"inal certificate of the title was inscribe! in the Re"istration 8oo for the province of Ca$arines Norte on Dece$ber +9' +,5+. On 3ebruar& 12' +,49' the Enciso spouses' b& an #bsolute !ee! of Sale' sol! the propert& in favor of the Salenillas spouses for a consi!eration of P,99.99. On Dece$ber -' +,4:' the propert& was $ort"a"e! to Philippine National 8an as a securit& for a loan a$ountin" to P1' 699.99. 3or failure to pa& their loan' the propert& was foreclose! b& the ban an! was bou"ht at a public auction b& private respon!ent' %ose #tienFa. Petitioner $aintains that the& have a ri"ht to repurchase the propert& an! their ri"ht to repurchase such propert& within five &ears un!er Sec ++, of the Public an! #ct has not &et prescribe!. 7owever' the private respon!ent conten!s that the sale of the propert& b& the patentees to the petitioners !is*ualifie! the latter fro$ bein" le"al heirs vis0G0vis the sai! propert&.
Iu4
+. (hether or not the petitioners have a ri"ht to repurchase the sub/ect propert& un!er Sec. ++, of the Public an! #ct 1. Provi!e! that the answer in the +st *uestion is in the affir$ative' whether or not their ri"ht to repurchase ha! alrea!& prescribe!.
!+#4
Sallenillas vs. CA The Supre$e Court rule! in favor of the petitioners. The& are "rante! b& law the ri"ht to repurchase their propert& an! their ri"ht to !o so subsist. Sec. ++, states that HEver& conve&ance of lan! ac*uire! un!er the free patent or ho$estea! provisions' when proper' shall be sub/ect to repurchase b& the applicant' his wi!ow' or le"al heirs within a perio! of five &ears fro$ the !ate of the conve&ance. Elena' bein" the !au"hter of the Encisos' is a le"al heir. 7er act of bu&in" the lan! fro$ her parents !oes not !is*ualif& her fro$ bein" a le"al heir. Moreover' to in!orse the !istinction $a!e b& the private respon!ent an! the appellate court woul! be to contravene the ver& purpose of Section ++, of the Public an! #ct which is to "ive the ho$estea!er or patentee ever& chance to preserve for hi$self an! his fa$il& the lan! that the State ha! "ratuitousl& "iven hi$ as a rewar! for his labor in clearin" an! cultivatin" it.
La-n Ma-24 •
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos J (here the law !oes not
!istin"uish' we shoul! not !istin"uish. It is e;plicitl& provi!e! un!er Sec. ++, of the Public an! #ct that there are three classes of persons who are bestowe! of the ri"ht to repurchase J the applicant' his wi!ow or other le"al heirs. Elena Salenillas bein" a !au"hter of the Encisos is a le"al heir an! is therefore *ualifie! to repurchase the sai! propert& re"ar!less of whether the& initiall& ac*uire! it throu"h inheritance or throu"h sale. 7er act of bu&in" the lan! !oes not !is*ualif& her fro$ bein" a Hle"al heir an! Sec. ++, of the Public an! #ct $aes no !istinction. •
Cessante ratione legis cessat et i!sa lex J (hen the reason of the law ceases'
the law itself ceases. The ver& purpose of Sec. ++, of the Public an! #ct is to "ive the patentee ever & chance to preserve for hi$self an! for his fa$il& the lan! that the State ha! "ratuitousl& "iven hi$ as a rewar! for his labor in clearin" an! cultivatin" it. To support the !istinction $a!e b& the private respon!ent an! the appellate court woul! be to infrin"e or to be in conflict with the ver& purpose of the sai! law. Consi!erin" that Salenillas is a !au"hter of the Enciso spouses' we cannot controvert that allowin" her an! her husban! to repurchase the propert& woul! be $ore in eepin" with the spirit of the law.
