TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that any sale or transfer of rights to land under a free patent application, made before the patent is actually granted and within five years after its issuance, is illegal and void. This is to protect the homesteader and their family from losing the land gratuitously given by the government. Even if the sale is to a family member, it is still invalid. This ruling reinforces the State’s policy to ensure that public land granted for homestead purposes remains with the original grantee and their family, preventing circumvention of the law through premature disposal of inchoate land rights.

From Public Domain to Private Hands: The Perils of Premature Land Sales

Can you sell land you don’t yet fully own? This case delves into the intricacies of land ownership under Philippine public land laws, specifically focusing on free patents. At the heart of the dispute is a parcel of land in Cagayan, originally applied for as a free patent by Enrique Unciano, Sr. Before the patent was granted, Enrique Sr. sold his rights to his daughter, Anthony Unciano. After the patent was issued in Enrique Sr.’s name, he executed a Deed of Reconveyance to Anthony, who then obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). However, Enrique Sr.’s other children, Federico and Leona Gorospe, contested Anthony’s ownership, claiming the initial sale was illegal. The core legal question is whether the sale of land, while a free patent application is pending, is valid under Philippine law.

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with Anthony, upholding her title. They reasoned that the sale occurred before the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) and was therefore not covered by the prohibition on alienation after patent issuance. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, declaring the sale void and Anthony’s TCT null. The CA emphasized that the land was still public domain at the time of sale, rendering the transaction illegal. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to determine whether the CA was correct in invalidating the sale and Anthony’s title.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, firmly establishing that lands subject to a free patent application remain part of the public domain until the patent is granted and registered. The Court anchored its ruling on the Regalian Doctrine, a fundamental principle in Philippine property law stating that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Until the government officially grants and registers the land patent, it remains outside the commerce of man and cannot be privately appropriated. The operative act that transfers ownership from the government to a private individual is the registration of the patent. Prior to this, the applicant only possesses an inchoate right, not full ownership.

The decision underscored the principle of nemo dat quod non habet – no one can give what they do not have. Enrique Sr., at the time of the sale to Anthony, was merely a free patent applicant; he did not yet own the land. Therefore, he could not legally sell or transfer ownership. The Court cited Section 118 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, which prohibits the alienation or encumbrance of lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions from the date of application approval and for five years after patent issuance. While this provision explicitly mentions the period after application approval, the Supreme Court clarified that the prohibition extends to transactions before the approval as well, based on the Regalian Doctrine and the principle that public land is not alienable until the patent is granted.

SEC. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant…

The Court also addressed the procedural aspect of challenging Anthony’s title. Anthony argued that the CA’s declaration of her TCT as null and void constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a Torrens title. The Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that while a Torrens title is generally indefeasible and can only be directly attacked, the respondents’ counterclaim in the accion reinvindicatoria (action for recovery of ownership) filed by Anthony constituted a direct attack. A counterclaim, being essentially a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff, can serve as a vehicle for a direct attack on a title. Therefore, the CA was within its competence to rule on the validity of Anthony’s TCT in the context of the respondents’ counterclaim.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the policy behind public land grants – to benefit the homesteader and their family. Allowing sales before the patent is issued would defeat this purpose and open doors to exploitation and circumvention of the law. The ruling serves as a strong reminder that transactions involving public land under patent application require strict adherence to legal procedures and timelines to ensure validity and protect the rights of intended beneficiaries.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Unciano v. Gorospe, G.R. No. 221869, August 14, 2019