Tac-An vs. Court of Appeals

A contract or agreement affecting real property with a non-Christian inhabitant of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu is null and void unless it is executed before a judge, justice of the peace, or notary public, and bears the approval of the provincial governor indorsed upon it. The approval must be valid and can be revoked by the governor if it was obtained through false representation, and such revocation is not vitiated by the fact that it occurred after the filing of an action based on the contract.

The petitioner, Felipe G. Tac-An, is a lawyer who was engaged by the brothers Eleuterio Acopiado and Maximino Acopiado, who were accused of frustrated murder and theft of large cattle before the Municipal Court of New Piñan, Zamboanga del Norte in March 1960. The Acopiado brothers are Non-Christians, specifically Subanons, and each is married to a Subanon. The case involves the application of Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, which imposes specific requisites for contracts made with non-Christian inhabitants of the Department, and Section 146 of the same Code, which declares contracts made in violation of Section 145 to be "null and void."

The petitioner, Felipe G. Tac-An, a lawyer, was engaged by the brothers Eleuterio Acopiado and Maximino Acopiado, who were accused of frustrated murder and theft of large cattle before the Municipal Court of New Piñan, Zamboanga del Norte in March 1960. On April 4, 1960, Tac-An caused a document entitled "Deed of Quitclaim" to be thumb-marked by the Acopiado brothers, whereby for the sum of P1,200.00 representing his fees as their lawyer in the criminal cases, they conveyed to him a parcel of land with an area of three hectares. The document was acknowledged before Notary Public Pacifico Cimafranca on the same date, who explained its contents to the Acopiados.

On April 6, 1960, two days after the execution of the deed, the Acopiados told Tac-An that they were terminating his services because their wives and parents did not agree that the land be given to pay for his services. They also said that they had hired another lawyer, a relative, to defend them. However, Tac-An continued to represent them. In the case for frustrated murder, the Acopiados were acquitted, and the cases for theft of large cattle were dismissed due to the desistance of the complainants.

On April 2, 1961, Eleuterio sold his share of the land previously conveyed to Tac-An to Jesus Paghasian and Pilar Libetario, but the latter did not take possession thereof. In June 1964, Tac-An appointed Irineo Villejo, a barrio captain, as his overseer in the land. On July 2, 1964, Tac-An secured the approval of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte to the Deed of Quitclaim. On October 7, 1964, Tac-An filed a complaint against the Acopiado brothers, Paghasian, and Libetario in the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, praying that he be declared the owner of the land, that the sale made in favor of Paghasian and Libetario be annulled, and that he be paid damages and attorney's fees.

The Court of Appeals found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers fully understood the tenor of the Deed of Quitclaim which they executed, but also found that they are Non-Christians, more specifically Subanons, and that each is married to a Subanon. On April 12, 1965, while Tac-An's suit was pending in the trial court, the Governor of Zamboanga del Norte revoked his approval of the Deed of Quitclaim. The revocation was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was obtained through a false representation to the effect that the alleged transaction was legal and voluntary when in truth and in fact, as found out later, the said parcel of land was the subject matter of a court litigation; and, moreover, the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation, or ratification of the alleged deed of quitclaim.

• Effect of Revocation: The petitioner asserted that the revocation of the approval which had been given by the Provincial Governor has no legal effect and cannot affect his right to the land which had already vested.
• Repeal of the Administrative Code: The petitioner argued that the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu was repealed on June 19, 1965 by Republic Act No. 4252, hence the approval of the Provincial Governor became unnecessary.

• Validity of Revocation: The respondents, through the Court of Appeals' reasoning, maintained that the approval by Provincial Governor Felipe Azcuna appearing on the face of the Deed of Quitclaim made on July 2, 1964 may no longer be relied upon by the plaintiff in view of the revocation thereof by the same official on April 12, 1965. The revocation was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was obtained through a false representation, and the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation, or ratification of the alleged deed of quitclaim. The fact that the revocation was made after the filing of the instant action does not vitiate the aforesaid action of the Provincial Governor, and no attempt was made to disprove the truth of the reasons stated in the certificate of revocation.

• Validity of the Deed of Quitclaim: Whether the Deed of Quitclaim executed by the Acopiado brothers in favor of the petitioner is valid and effective to transfer ownership of the land, given the requirements of Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu.
• Effect of the Revocation of Approval: Whether the revocation of the Provincial Governor's approval of the Deed of Quitclaim has legal effect and can affect the petitioner's right to the land.
• Effect of the Repeal of the Administrative Code: Whether the repeal of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu by Republic Act No. 4252 on June 19, 1965 rendered the approval of the Provincial Governor unnecessary.

• Validity of the Deed of Quitclaim: No. The transfer of the land to the petitioner was void because the contract with the non-Christian Acopiado brothers failed to comply with the mandatory requisites of Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, and the approval of the Provincial Governor, which was obtained through false representation, was validly revoked.
• Effect of the Revocation of Approval: Yes. The revocation of the approval by the Provincial Governor has legal effect and cannot be relied upon by the petitioner, as the revocation was based on the ground that the signature of the Governor was obtained through false representation and the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation, or ratification.
• Effect of the Repeal of the Administrative Code: No. At times material to the case, Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect, and since they were substantive in nature, the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect.

• Validity of the Deed of Quitclaim: The Court of Appeals found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers are Non-Christians, specifically Subanons, and because they are Non-Christians, the Court of Appeals applied Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu. This section requires that no contract or agreement affecting or relating to any real property shall be made in the Department by any person with any Moro or other non-Christian tribe or individual unless such contract or agreement be executed before a judge of a court of record, justice or auxiliary justice of the peace, or notary public, and shall bear the approval of the provincial governor wherein the same was executed or his representative duly authorized in writing for such purpose, indorsed upon it. Under Section 146 of the same Code, contracts or agreements made in violation of Section 145 shall be "null and void." The Court noted that Tac-An secured the approval of the Provincial Governor on July 2, 1964, which should have satisfied the requirement, but the Governor revoked his approval on April 12, 1965.
• Effect of the Revocation of Approval: The Court quoted Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, with Justices Mateo Canonoy and Ameurfina M. Herrera concurring, stating that the approval by Provincial Governor Felipe Azcuna may no longer be relied upon by the plaintiff in view of the revocation thereof by the same official. The revocation was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was obtained through a false representation to the effect that the alleged transaction was legal and voluntary when in truth and in fact, as found out later, the said parcel of land was the subject matter of a court litigation; and, moreover, the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation, or ratification of the alleged deed of quitclaim. The fact that the revocation was made after the filing of the instant action does not vitiate the aforesaid action of the Provincial Governor, and no attempt was made to disprove the truth of the reasons stated in the certificate of revocation.
• Effect of the Repeal of the Administrative Code: The Court held that at times material to the case, i.e., when the Deed of Quitclaim was executed, when the approval by the Provincial Governor was given, and when the approval was revoked, Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect, and since they were substantive in nature, the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect. The Court also stated that the land in question must be presumed to be conjugal in nature, and since the spouses of the Acopiado brothers did not consent to its transfer to the petitioner, the transaction was at least voidable.

• Contracts with Non-Christians Requisites — Under Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, no contract or agreement affecting or relating to any real property shall be made in the Department by any person with any Moro or other non-Christian tribe or individual unless such contract or agreement is executed before a judge of a court of record, justice or auxiliary justice of the peace, or notary public, and bears the approval of the provincial governor wherein the same was executed or his representative duly authorized in writing for such purpose, indorsed upon it. The Court applied this doctrine to void the Deed of Quitclaim because the approval of the Provincial Governor, which had been obtained through false representation, was validly revoked.
• Non-Retroactivity of Repealing Statutes — A repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect if the provisions being repealed are substantive in nature. The Court applied this principle to hold that Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect at all times material to the case, despite the repeal of the Code by Republic Act No. 4252 on June 19, 1965.
• Presumption of Conjugal Nature of Property — The land in question must be presumed to be conjugal in nature, and since the spouses of the Acopiado brothers did not consent to its transfer to the petitioner, the transaction was at least voidable. This doctrine was applied as an additional ground to support the invalidity of the transfer.

• "The approval by Provincial Governor Felipe Azcuna appearing on the face of the Deed of Quitclaim (Exh. 'E') made on July 2, 1964 may no longer be relied upon by the plaintiff in view of the revocation thereof by the same official on April 12, 1965 (Exh. 4)." — This passage, quoted from the Court of Appeals decision, establishes the core ground for voiding the transfer: the revocation of the governor's approval, which was obtained through false representation.
• "The revocation was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was obtained thru a false representation to the effect that the alleged transaction was legal and voluntary when in truth and in fact, as found out later, the said parcel of land was the subject matter of a court litigation; and, moreover, the non-Christian vendors were not brought before him for interrogation, confirmation or ratification of the alleged deed of quitclaim." — This passage details the specific grounds for the revocation of the governor's approval, which is central to the Court's reasoning.
• "Suffice it to say that at times material to the case, i.e. when the Deed of Quitclaim was executed, when the approval by the Provincial Governor was given and when the approval was revoked, Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect and since they were substantive in nature the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect." — This passage articulates the Court's ruling on the non-retroactivity of the repealing statute, a key principle in the decision.
• "It should also be stated that the land in question must be presumed to be conjugal in nature and since the spouses of the Acopiado brothers did not consent to its transfer to the petitioner, the transaction was at least voidable." — This passage introduces the additional ground of the conjugal nature of the property and the lack of spousal consent, making the transaction at least voidable.

N/A — The case text does not cite any specific case precedents.

• Section 145, Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu — This provision requires that contracts with non-Christian inhabitants of the Department affecting or relating to real property must be executed before a judge, justice of the peace, or notary public, and must bear the approval of the provincial governor. The Court applied this provision to void the Deed of Quitclaim because the governor's approval was revoked.
• Section 146, Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu — This provision declares that contracts or agreements made in violation of Section 145 shall be "null and void." The Court applied this provision to affirm the voiding of the transfer of the land to the petitioner.
• Republic Act No. 4252 — This statute repealed the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu on June 19, 1965. The Court held that the repeal could not be given retroactive effect because Sections 145 and 146 were substantive in nature and were in full force and effect at all times material to the case.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concurred. Escolin, J., took no part.

N/A — The case text does not mention any dissenting opinions.