Tinio v.

Francis, 98 PHIL 32

G.R. No. L-7747, 29 November 1955

NIEVES TINIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GREGORIO FRANCES, ET AL.,

FACTS:
Sergio Nicolas applied a patent for a parcel of land and was approved in 1917. He filed
the corresponding final proof papers in relation to the homestead and the said final
proof was approved by the Director of Lands, whether upon ordered the issuance of a
patent in his favor in 1943. At the time of the issuance of the above order, Sergio
Nicolas had already died, so the order directed the issuance of the patent to his heirs,
represented by his widow. In 1947, the heirs transferred their rights to the homestead to
the defendants. The transfers were approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce in their favor in 1948. In 1953, the heirs wanted to annul the conveyances
executed by plaintiffs to defendants and to recover the land, together with the fruits of
the land received by the defendants, as damages. The RTC ruled that the conveyance
is valid as the conveyance of the homestead made by the heirs of the original
homesteader was a mere transfer of the rights of the original homesteader to the land
authorized under
the provisions of Section 20 of the Public Land Act (A. A. 141). It held that section 118 of
the Public Land Act is not applicable; that both Section 20 and Section 118 being
apparently conflicting, they should be reconciled such that the prohibition contained in
section 118 should be made to apply only if the patent had already been issued,
otherwise section 20 would be useless.

ISSUES:
Is the conveyance executed by the plaintiffs to the defendants in accordance with
Section 20 of Public Land Act valid?

RULING:
No. The conveyance executed by the plaintiffs to the defendants is null and void.
Section 20 of Public Land Act states that the transfer of homestead rights from a
homesteader can only be
justified upon proof of satisfactory to the Director of Lands, that the homesteader cannot
continue with his homestead through no fault of his own. Also, a previous permission of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce should first be obtained otherwise any
transfer is null and void and shall result in the cancellation of the entry and the refusal of
the patent. The court stated that the legislative intent or policy of Public Land act is to
conserve the land which a homesteader has acquired for him and his heirs. The
legislative policy is so strong and consistent that the original period of five years from
the issuance of the patent, within which period conveyance or sale thereof by the
homesteader or his heirs was prohibited (section 116 of Act No. 2874) is now extended
to 25 years if no approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is secured.
(Sec. 118, par. 2, C. A. No. 141, as amended by C. A. No. 456.) Provision of Sect 19
has also been inserted authorizing the repurchase of the homestead when properly sold
by the homesteader within five years from the date of the sale. (Sec. 119, C. A. No.
141.) Also as cited in the case of Balboa vs. Farrales, 51 Phil., 499, to all intents and
purposes the order for the issuance of a patent is the same in effect as the issuance of
a patent itself In this case, it does not expressly state that the Director of Lands was
satisfied that the applicant or homesteader "has complied with all the requirements of
the law, and cannot continue with the homestead
OMoARcPSD|30302417
through no fault of his own." Furthermore, according to the stipulation, the transfer was
made in 1947 and
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1948 so that the conveyances were not
made with previous
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. So neither of the requirements
of section 20 has been
complied with. According to the stipulation, the transfer was made in 1947 and approved
by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1948 so that the conveyances were not made with
previous approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce. Furthermore, when the Director of Lands issues the order
for the issuance of a patent, after the approval of the final proof, the right of the
homesteader to the patent becomes absolute and then it becomes the ministerial duty
of the corresponding officials of the Government to issue said patent.
Thus, the conveyance did not comply with section 20 of the public land act executed
was null and void. Utilize both.
1. Extrinsic aid- The legislative intent or policy of Public Land act is to conserve the land
which a
homesteader has acquired for him and his heirs.
2. Intrinsic aid- Reconciliation of Section 20 and Section 118 of Public land act.