Christine Elaine M.

Honrade
JD2

1999 Bar Questions and Answers on Land Titles and Deeds

1. In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead patent to A. Three years
later, A sold the homestead to B. A died in 1990, and his heirs filed an action
to recover the homestead from B on the ground that its sale by their father
to the latter is void under Section 118 of the Public Land Law. B contends,
however, that the heirs of A cannot recover the homestead from him
anymore because their action has prescribed and that furthermore, A was
in pari delicto. Decide. (5%)
Suggested Answer: The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after issuance of the
homestead patent, being in violation of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, is void
from its inception. The action filed by the heirs of B to declare the nullity or
inexistence of the contract and to recover the land should be given due course. B's
defense of prescription is untenable because an action which seeks to declare the
nullity or inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. (Article 1410; Banaga vs.
Soler, 2 8CRA 765)
On the other hand, B's defense of pari delicto is equally untenable. While as a
rule, parties who are in pari delicto have no recourse against each other on the
principle that a transgressor cannot profit from his own wrongdoing, such rule does
not apply to violations of Section 118 of the Public Land Act because of the
underlying public policy in the said Act "to conserve the land which a homesteader
has acquired by gratuitous grant from the government for himself and his family".
In keeping with this policy, it has been held that one who purchases a homestead
within the five-year prohibitory period can only recover the price which he has paid
by filing a claim against the estate of the deceased seller (Labrador vs. Delos
Santos 66 Phil. 579) under the principle that no one shall enrich himself at the
expense of another. Applying the pari delicto rule to violation of Section 118 of the
Public Land Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled that "the homesteader suffers the
loss of the fruits realized by the vendee who in turn forfeits the improvement that
he has introduced into the land." (Obot vs. Sandadiuas, 69 OG, April 35, 1966)
First Alternative Answer: The action to declare the nullity of the sale did not
prescribe (Art. 1410), such sale being one expressly prohibited and declared void
by the Public Lands Act [Art. 1409, par. (7)]. The prohibition of the law is clearly for
the protection of the heirs of A such that their recovering the property would
enhance the public policy regarding ownership of lands acquired by homestead
patent (Art. 1416). The defense of pari delicto is not applicable either, since the
law itself allows the homesteader to reacquire the land even if it has been sold.
Second Alternative Answer: Prescription does not arise with respect to actions
to declare a void contract a nullity (Article 1410). Neither is the doctrine of pari
delicto applicable because of public policy. The law is designed for the protection
of the plaintiff so as to enhance the public policy of the Public Land Act to give land
to the landless.
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could be on the ground of laches
inasmuch as 40 years had elapsed and the owner had not brought any action
against B especially if the latter had improved the land. It would be detrimental to
B if the plaintiff is allowed to recover.
 2. The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to A, delivering
as well the OCT to the latter, but they continued to possess and cultivate the
land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the
latter, A, however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of sale
of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then
sold the land to B, who bought the land relying on A's title, and who thereafter
also got a TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y
learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said spouses file an
action for reconveyance of the land in question against b? Reason. (5%)
Suggested Answer: The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of the
land will not prosper because B has acquired a clean title to the property being an
innocent purchaser for value. A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no
title. The fact that the forged deed was registered and a certificate of title was
issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon an ownership over the property
of X and Y. The registration of the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However,
once the title to the land is registered in the name of the forger and title to the land
thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the latter acquires
a clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not required to explore beyond
what the record in the registry indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect
or inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his right thereto. This is the
"mirror principle' of the Torrens system which makes it possible for a forged deed
to be the root of a good title.
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of contributory negligence
when they delivered this OCT to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage
thereon. Between them and the innocent purchaser for value, they should bear the
loss.
Alternative Answer: If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A's title, was not
aware of the adverse possession of the land by the spouses X and Y, then the
latter cannot recover the property from B. B has in his favor the presumption of
good faith which can only be overthrown by adequate proof of bad faith. However,
nobody buys land without seeing the property, hence, B could not have been
unaware of such adverse possession. If after learning of such possession, B simply
closed his eyes and did nothing about it, then the suit for reconveyance will prosper
as the buyer's bad faith will have become evident.