G.R. No.

107069 July 21, 1994

HEIRS OF LEANDRO OLIVER, REPRESENTED BY PURITA OLIVER and
REMOQUILLO,
petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE SERADILLA, and NATIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.
115. HEIRS OF LEANDRO OLIVER VS. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
1 On November 6, 1959, the heirs of Patricio Seradilla namely: Soledad, Paz,
Esperanza, Pilar, all surnamed Seradilla, but without the participation of Jose Seradilla,
entered into an agreement with their uncle Leandro Oliver, of the Tunasan Homesite,
San Pedro, Laguna, and dividing the same equally among them without, however,
touching the part occupied by heir Jose Seradilla.
2.
On July 9, 1961, a sketch representing the agreed partition of the mentioned lots
with the respective designation of each was executed and signed by all the heirs
including Jose Seradilla and Leandro Oliver.
3.
In May 1963 and upon the request of the heirs of Patricio Seradilla, Engineer
Honorato Sta. Maria made a resurvey of the lots recorded in the name of Patricio
Seradilla.
4.
On July 5, 1963, the heirs of Patricio Seradilla formalized their agreement and
executed an Agreement of Partition revoking the Agreement of 1959 and subdividing the
parcels
5.
On January 16, 1980, on the basis of the representation of Jose Seradilla that
Lots 26 and 30, Block 21 were included in the partition, the National Housing Authority
through J.S. de Vera, Manager, Estate Management Department, sold to Jose Seradilla
Lots 26 and 30, Block 21, of the Tunasan Homesite, San Pedro, Laguna
6.
The petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of Title with Damages against
respondents before the RTC. They sought to annul two (2) administrative patents issued
by respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) to respondent Jose Seradilla. They
asserted preferential rights over the same as heirs and vendees of Leandro Oliver,
respectively.
LEGAL ISSUE:
IS A BILATERAL CONTRACT VOID AB INITIO JUST BECAUSE ONLY 4 OUT OF 5
HEIRS PARTICIPATED THEREIN REPRESENTING THEIR SIDE?
RULING:
1

We rule for private respondents. The SC said yes the contract is void ab initio

2.
The SC held that it is void on the ground that it was made within the five (5) year
period prohibiting the sale, assignment, encumbrance, mortgage, or transfer of land
acquired under free patent or homestead as mandated by C.A. 141, section 118, as
amended by C.A. 496. Indeed, this legal prohibition is expressly recited in the
Agreement to Sell dated July 21, 1955 8 between the government and the late Patricio
Seradilla, viz:
12. The Applicant shall not sell, assign, encumber, mortgage, transfer, or in any
other manner affect his rights under this contract or in the property subject hereof
without first obtaining the written consent of the Administration and this condition
shall subsist until the lapse of five (5) years from the date of the execution of the

final deed of sale in his favor and shall be annotated as an encumbrance on the
certificate of title of the property that may be issued in his favor.
13. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
3.
As the Consolidation and Partition Agreement contravened section 118, C.A.
141, as amended by C.A. 496, it is null and void pursuant to paragraph 7, Article 1409
of the Civil Code.
4.
Pursuant to Article 1409, par. 7 of the Civil Code states that those expressly
prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent and void from the beginning.
5.
In this light, the reliance of the petitioners on the sketch of July 9, 1961 signed by
private respondent Jose Seradilla allegedly confirming the Consolidation and Partition
Agreement dated November 6, 1959 is hardly of any moment.
6.
As Article 1409 of the Civil Code, op. cit., expressly states that void contracts
cannot be ratified. Needless to state, the July 5, 1963 Agreement of the heirs of Patricio
Seradilla revoking the void Consolidation and Partition Agreement dated November 6,
1959 cannot be faulted.