SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 207964, September 16, 2015
SPOUSES ALFONSO ALCUITAS, SR. (DECEASED-REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND ESTELA ALCUITAS (FOR HERSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ALFONSO ALCUITAS, SR.), Petitioners, v. MINVILUZ C. VILLANUEVA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition is the June 14, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which reversed and set aside the May 31, 2002 Decision2
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City
(RTC), which dismissed the Complaint for Redemption
of Real Property under Commonwealth Act No. 141 filed by respondent
Minviluz C. Villanueva (Villanueva) against
petitioners Spouses Alfonso Alcuitas, Sr. and Estela Alcuitas
(Spouses Alcuitas).
The Factual Antecedents
Records show that Villanueva is the registered owner of a parcel of lot
containing an area of 712 square meters, more or less, and located at
Poblacion, Municipality of Buug, Province of Zamboanga del Sur,
originally covered by Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. P-32, 887 and issued by virtue of the grant of Free Patent No. IX-6-121.
Since June 1988, Spouses Alcuitas have been lessees over the subject
property operating therein a gasoline station with a term due to expire
by June 2009.3
On June 22, 1993, Villanueva mortgaged her parcel of land in favor of a
certain Lucas Datoy as security for the payment of her loan obligation
of P200,000.00. Villanueva reneged on her loan obligation so the
mortgage on the subject property was foreclosed under Act No. 3135, as
amended. When the property was put up for sale in a public auction,
Spouses Alcuitas bought it for P201,000.00.
The sheriff executed a definite deed of sale in favor of Spouses
Alcuitas after Villanueva's failure to redeem the subject property
within the one-year redemption under Act No. 3135. Accordingly, title
over the subject property was consolidated in favor of Spouses Alcuitas
and OCT No. P-32, 887 was cancelled and, finally, Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-32, 392 was issued in the name of Spouses Alcuitas.
Villanueva informed Spouses Alcuitas of her desire and intention to
redeem the subject property at the price of P201,000.00 but the latter
refused her offer. Villanueva then proceeded to tender the amount of
P201,000.00 as redemption price to Spouses Alcuitas and consigned said
amount in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pagadian City.
In view of the failure of both parties to settle the matter at the
barangay level, Villanueva filed a complaint for Redemption of Real
Property under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141
against the petitioners before the RTC.
On the other hand, Spouses Alcuitas averred that Villanueva is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation and intentional concealment when she failed to inform them about the mortgage of the subject property to Lucas Datoy
during the time when both parties entered into a contract of lease
covering the subject property; that they never refused to accede to
Villanueva's willingness to repurchase the subject property; that
redemption of the subject property was moot and academic because it had
been transferred in their names; that Villanueva failed to redeem the
subject property within the reglementary period; and that Villanueva
made no tender of payment.
Decision of the RTC
On May 31, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Spouses Alcuitas dismissing Villanueva's complaint.
It explained, among others, that Villanueva's right to repurchase the
subject property under Section 119 of C.A. No. 141 is baseless for the
following reasons:
1) It is indubitable that the subject property has been reclassified from its previous classification consistent with the patent covering the land, i.e., as agricultural to commercial lot, consistent with its actual use and location per zoning ordinance in accordance with the Comprehensive Municipal Land Use and Town Plan of the Municipality of Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, where the property is located;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe dispositive portion of the May 31, 2002 RTC decision reads:
2) The rationale of the passage of the law granting unto the Patentee the right to repurchase, i.e., to preserve the property to the Grantee who was a recipient from the government of a public land grant which was designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land destitute citizens for their cultivation, is very much wanting to be availing with the reclassification of the subject property;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
3) In the case of Santana vs. Mariñas, 94 SCRA 753, reiterating the doctrine laid down in the case of Sinedon vs. Peña, 36 SCRA 617, cited in the case of Bargas vs. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 195, the Supreme Court ruled that the undergoing principle of Sec. 119 of C.A. No. 141 is to give the Homesteader as Patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State has gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labor, in cleaning and cultivating it. However, when the property has already been reclassified and no longer used for agricultural purposes having been reclassified as commercial lot and utilized as such, the spirit of the law granting unto the patentee the right of repurchase can no longer be made availing, its purpose, i.e., to preserve the land for cultivation is no longer there, for which reason, repurchase in such a situation would do violence to what C.A. 141 stands for and the same will no longer be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the law, the purchaser is not the kind of farmer for whom the Homestead and Free Patent were intended by law.4
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for wanting of a cause of action. As a consequence, the defendants being compelled to incur litigation expenses to protect their rights and interests brought about by the filing of an unfounded complaint, it is but proper to order the plaintiff to pay unto the defendants the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as actual, compensatory and nominal damages and to pay the costs of litigation.Decision of the CA
SO ORDERED.5
Spouses Alcuitas' positionASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT VILLANUEVA WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH HER RIGHT TO REPURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE MERE RECLASSIFICATION OF LAND CANNOT DEPRIVE VILLANUEVA OF HER RIGHT TO REPURCHASE.
SEC. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.It is crystal clear from the above provision that patentees or homesteaders of land including their family are given the right to repurchase the homestead land which they have conveyed to another within a limited period of time. The purpose and spirit of the law has been discussed in numerous cases. In Heirs of Venancio Bajenting vs. Romeo F. Baez,6 it was written:
As elucidated by this Court, the object of the provisions of Act 141, as amended, granting rights and privileges to patentees or homesteaders is to provide a house for each citizen where his family may settle and live beyond the reach of financial misfortune and to inculcate in the individuals the feelings of independence which are essential to the maintenance of free institution. The State is called upon to ensure that the citizen shall not be divested of needs for support, and reclined to pauperism. The Court, likewise, emphasized that the purpose of such law is conservation of a family home in keeping with the policy of the State to foster families as the factors of society and, thus, promote public welfare. The sentiment of patriotism and independence, the spirit of citizenship, the feeling of interest in public affairs, are cultivated and fostered more readily when the citizen lives permanently in his own house with a sense of its protection and durability. It is intended to promote the spread of small land ownership and the preservation of public land grants in the names of the underprivileged for whose benefits they are specially intended and whose welfare is a special concern of the State. The law is intended to commence ownership of lands acquired as homestead by the patentee or homesteader or his heirs.7The reclassification of the subject property into a commercial zone cannot stop Villanueva from exercising her right to repurchase the same under Section 119 of C.A. No. 141.
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2191, dated September 16, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 28-36 (Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Edward B. Contreras).
2 Id. at 37-41 (Penned by Presiding Judge Reinerio Abraham B. Ramas).
3 Verified Petition, p. 5; id. at 1.
4 Id. at 40-41.
5 Id. at 41.
6 533 Phil. 809 (2006).
7 Id. at 831.
8Rollo, pp. 52-58.
9 Id. at 34-35.
10 183 Phil. 415 (1979).
11 180 Phil. 160 (1979).
12 146 Phil. 1093 (1970).