Salenillas vs. Court of Appeals

The right to repurchase land acquired under a free patent within five years under Section 119 of the Public Land Act is available to the patentee's legal heirs even if they acquired the property by sale, and in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure, the five-year period begins from the execution of the sheriff's final deed.

The original patentees, spouses Florencia H. de Enciso and Miguel Enciso, acquired a property in Camarines Norte under Free Patent Application No. 192765, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-1248 on December 10, 1961. On February 28, 1970, the Encisos sold the property to their daughter, Elena Salenillas, and her husband, Bernardino Salenillas. The dispute centers on the application of Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act), which grants the applicant-patentee, widow, or legal heirs the right to repurchase land acquired under free patent within five years from the date of conveyance.

The property subject of the case was originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-1248, issued on December 10, 1961, by virtue of Free Patent Application No. 192765 in favor of spouses Florencia H. de Enciso and Miguel Enciso. On February 28, 1970, the Encisos sold the property to their daughter, Elena Salenillas, and her husband, Bernardino Salenillas, for P900.00. A Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8104 was issued to the Salenillas spouses, cancelling the original title. The Salenillas spouses initially mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. on June 30, 1971, which was released on November 22, 1973. On December 4, 1975, they mortgaged the property again, this time to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Daet, Camarines Norte, as security for a P2,500.00 loan.

Due to the Salenillas spouses' failure to pay their loan, PNB instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135. The property was sold at a public auction on February 27, 1981, where William Guerra emerged as the highest bidder and received a Certificate of Sale. On July 12, 1983, a Sheriff's Final Deed was executed in favor of Guerra. PNB subsequently filed a motion for a writ of possession, which the trial court granted on September 22, 1983.

When the deputy sheriff attempted to place Guerra in possession on November 17, 1983, the Salenillas spouses refused to vacate and instead offered to repurchase the property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act. Guerra filed a motion for an alias writ of possession on August 15, 1984. The Salenillas spouses opposed the motion and made a formal offer to repurchase on August 31, 1984. Notwithstanding the opposition, the trial court issued the alias writ on October 12, 1984, and denied the motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1984. The Salenillas spouses elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, but the appellate court dismissed the petition on September 17, 1986, ruling that the five-year repurchase period had prescribed. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on May 7, 1987, prompting the present petition.

• Right to Repurchase: Petitioners maintained that contrary to the rulings of the lower courts, their right to repurchase within five years under Section 119 of the Public Land Act had not yet prescribed, citing the cases of Paras vs. Court of Appeals and Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank.

• Disqualification as Heirs: Respondent argued that the sale of the property by the patentees to the petitioners disqualified the latter from being legal heirs vis-a-vis the property, meaning they no longer enjoy the right granted to heirs under Section 119 of the Public Land Act.

• Qualification as Legal Heirs: Whether the petitioners have the right to repurchase the contested property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act.
• Prescription of Right to Repurchase: Assuming the petitioners have the right to repurchase, whether that right had already prescribed.

• Qualification as Legal Heirs: Yes. The petitioners, being the daughter and son-in-law of the patentees, qualify as legal heirs under Section 119, as the law makes no distinction on how the heirs acquired the property.
• Prescription of Right to Repurchase: No. The five-year period to repurchase property sold at a foreclosure sale begins on the day after the expiration of the redemption period when the deed of absolute sale is executed, not from the date of the prior mortgage or sale.

• Qualification as Legal Heirs: Section 119 of the Public Land Act grants the right to repurchase to the applicant-patentee, his widow, or legal heirs. The law makes no distinction, applying the maxim Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Petitioner Elena Salenillas is a child of the Encisos and is therefore a legal heir. Interpreting the provision otherwise would contravene the purpose of Section 119, which is to preserve the land for the homesteader or patentee and his family. Between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose of the law must prevail.
• Prescription of Right to Repurchase: The Court of Appeals erred in applying Monge vs. Angeles, which involved a pacto de retro sale, not a foreclosure sale. In a pacto de retro sale, title vests immediately in the vendee. In cases of foreclosure sale, as held in Paras vs. Court of Appeals and Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank, the five-year period begins on the day after the expiration of the redemption period when the deed of absolute sale is executed, formally transferring the property. Since the Sheriff's Final Deed was executed on July 12, 1983, the petitioners' offers to repurchase on November 17, 1983, and August 31, 1984, were both made within the five-year period.

• Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos — Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Section 119 of the Public Land Act grants the right of repurchase to "legal heirs" without specifying how they acquired the property; thus, heirs who acquired the property by sale are still entitled to the right of repurchase.
• Purpose of Section 119 of the Public Land Act — The provision aims to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land granted by the State. Statutory interpretations that better serve this purpose should prevail.
• Reckoning Period for Repurchase in Foreclosure Sales — In extrajudicial foreclosure sales under Act No. 3135, the five-year repurchase period under Section 119 of the Public Land Act begins on the day after the expiration of the redemption period, upon the execution of the sheriff's final deed, not from the date of the mortgage or the original conveyance.

• "This must be so because Section 119 of the Public Land Act, in speaking of 'legal heirs,' makes no distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi for the first issue, applying the statutory construction principle to confirm that the petitioners qualify as legal heirs despite acquiring the property by sale.
• "the Court ruled that the five-year period to repurchase a homestead sold at public auction or foreclosure sale under Act 3135 begins on the day after the expiration of the period of redemption when the deed of absolute sale is executed thereby formally transferring the property to the purchaser, and not otherwise." — This defines the controlling rule for reckoning the prescriptive period for repurchase in the context of foreclosure sales, distinguishing it from pacto de retro sales.

• Monge vs. Angeles, 101 Phil. 563 (1957) — Distinguished. The Court of Appeals relied on this case, but the Supreme Court found it inapplicable because it involved a pacto de retro sale, not a foreclosure sale, and addressed a different issue regarding the reckoning of the repurchase period.
• Paras vs. Court of Appeals, 91 Phil. 389 (1952) — Followed. The Court relied on this case to support the ruling that the five-year repurchase period in a foreclosure sale begins from the execution of the sheriff's final deed.
• Manuel vs. Philippine National Bank, 101 Phil. 968 (1957) — Followed. Similar to Paras, this case supported the reckoning of the repurchase period from the execution of the deed of absolute sale after foreclosure.
• Santana vs. Mariñas, 94 SCRA 853 (1979) — Cited to support the purpose of Section 119 of the Public Land Act, which is to preserve the land for the homesteader and his family.

• Section 119, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as amended — Provides that every conveyance of land acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, widow, or legal heirs within five years from the date of conveyance. Applied to determine the petitioners' right to repurchase as legal heirs.
• Section 30, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court — Applied to determine the redemption price, requiring the petitioners to reimburse the purchase price, assessments, taxes, and interest at one per centum per month up to November 17, 1983.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.