Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · Five-year prohibition (Sec. 118, C.A. No. 141); a deed of confirmation and quitclaim as a conveyance; reversion by the Solicitor General
Flores vs. Bagaoisan
Three years after a homestead patent was issued for their land in Piddig, Ilocos Norte, the heirs of Victor Flores and their mother signed a “Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim” over a 13,552-square-meter portion. In 1996, Marciano Bagaoisan, who had bought the portion from the transferee, sued to be declared its owner.
Facts
November 12, 1973
Homestead Patent No. 138892 was given. Original Certificate of Title No. P-11880, issued under it in the name of the Heirs of Victor Flores, the petitioners, covers land in Piddig, Ilocos Norte. The case involves a 13,552-square-meter portion.
December 20, 1976
The petitioners, with their mother Luisa Viernes, executed a Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim in favor of Vicente T. Lazo, agreeing to “sell, cede, convey, grant, and transfer by way of QUITCLAIM” the portion to him. Marciano Bagaoisan then bought it from Lazo under a deed of absolute sale dated February 20, 1977.
April 4, 1983
Viernes and one of the petitioners, Virginia Flores-Dalere, executed an affidavit attesting that they had conveyed the portion to Lazo, that Lazo and his predecessors-in-interest had possessed it since 1940, and that it had been mistakenly included in the patent application of Victor Flores.
June 21, 1996
Bagaoisan sued the petitioners for ownership, quieting of title, partition and damages. The petitioners admitted signing the deed but said they were misled into signing it, and argued that their title had become indefeasible one year after it was issued.
2000–2006
On February 3, 2000, the Regional Trial Court ruled for Bagaoisan. On March 29, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed: the petitioners had admitted signing the deed after it was read to them, and the deed merely confirmed their non-ownership of the portion and did not involve an alienation, so the five-year prohibition did not apply.
Issue
Is a “Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim” of homestead land, executed within five years of the patent, a conveyance barred by Sec. 118 of the Public Land Act?
Ruling
Yes. The Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and dismissed Bagaoisan’s complaint, without prejudice to an action for reversion that the Solicitor General may decide to file.
Without going into the petitioners’ claim that they did not know the deed’s contents, the Court held the deed void under Sec. 118. It did not merely confirm non-ownership: its words of sale, cession, conveyance, grant and transfer meant that the portion was being transferred to Lazo, and calling it a confirmation or a quitclaim made no difference, since the effect was still a conveyance. Executed three years after the homestead patent was issued, it was void and could not be enforced. Bagaoisan also failed to overcome the petitioners’ title. A title issued on a homestead patent becomes indefeasible one year after the Director of Lands’ order for the issuance of the patent, and he neither alleged nor proved fraud in its registration; his only evidence of possession by his predecessors since 1940 was the affidavit executed by some of the petitioners. The Court added that the conveyance also made the homestead patent susceptible to cancellation and the land to reversion to the public domain, an action for the Solicitor General to institute; should he file one, the petitioners’ defenses, including their claimed lack of knowledge of the deed, would be resolved there.
“Labeling the deed as a confirmation of non-ownership or as a quitclaim of rights would actually make no difference, as the effect would still be the alienation or conveyance of the property.”
Doctrine
What counts is the effect of the deed, not its title: “The deed uses the words ‘sell,’ ‘cede,’ ‘convey,’ ‘grant,’ and ‘transfer.’ These words admit of no other interpretation than that the subject property was indeed being transferred to Lazo.” A conveyance of a homestead within the five years is void, and it also exposes the land to reversion: “…the execution of the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim within the five-year prohibitory period also makes the homestead patent susceptible to cancellation, and the subject property being reverted to the public domain.” But that is for the State to pursue: “It is the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, who is by law mandated to institute an action for reversion.”
Compare: after the five years
In Alfredo vs. Borras, G.R. No. 144225, June 17, 2003, a 1970 sale of a homestead lacked the Secretary’s approval; the decision does not give the patent’s date, but the Court applied the rule for a sale made after the five-year period, and the sale stood: “The absence of approval by the Secretary does not nullify a sale made after the expiration of the 5-year period, for in such event the requirement of Section 118 of the Public Land Act becomes merely directory or a formality.”
Bar tip
Read the operative words of the deed, not its title: words of sale, cession or transfer make it a conveyance, whatever it is called. Then count from the patent: a conveyance three years after it is void. Keep the two consequences apart: the buyer’s private claim fails, while any reversion of the land to the State is for the Solicitor General to file.
Hear it explained
Land Titles Jurisprudence Ep. 8, at 12:02
Follow Forlawssake
Get the next case explainer when it’s out.
New videos and episodes come out on YouTube, Spotify and TikTok. Follow there, and the app tells you when the next one is posted. It’s free.
This digest is general legal information for education, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the decision. Quoted passages are taken word for word from the full text.