Beniga v. Bugas, 35 SCRA 111, 29 Sept.

1970
Topic:
Prohibited alienations (sec. 118 – 124, CA 141 as amended by CA 456)
Syllabus:

 Land Registration; Free Patent; Alienation of lands acquired under free patent within the 5-
year prohibitory period null and void; Effect of possession in good faith.
 Same; Same; Same; Computation of 5-year prohibitory period is to be reckoned from the date of
the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of the
issuance of the patent or grant.

FACTS:
The land in controversy is situated in barrio Magsirawag (Guintomoyan), Jimenez, Misamis
Occidental, designated as Lot 2031, under Free Patent No. 232966 issued on 3 May 1963. The
Patentee, Antonio Mabascog (Mabascog), died but before his death, he donated inter vivos, on 22
Sept. 1965, the aforementioned lot to defendant Rufina Bugas (Bugas). At the time of donation, both
donor and done did not know about the issuance of the patent.
Mabascog died without a descendant or ascendant, leaving as his heirs the herein plaintiffs
Beniga, Burlat, Malon, B.Vale and M. Vale, who are the children of the 4 deceased sisters of
Mabascog.
The court a quo held that the donation was null and void, being in violation of the 5-year
prohibitory period against alienation of lands acquired under free patent, pursuant to sec. 118 of
CA 141, as amended by CA 456.
Bugas’ theory is that the 5-year prohibitory period should begin to run from the date of
inscription of the patent in the Registry Book, which was on 13 January 1966, in cases where the
contracting parties had no prior knowledge of the issuance of the patent at the time they executed
their contract; pursuant to this theory, she avers that the donation on 22 Sept. 1965 does not fall
within the prohibited period, hence the donation is not invalid.

Issues:
Whether or not the donation to Bugas was a prohibited alienation. If so, whether such
prohibited donation will cause reversion of property to the State.

Held:
Yes, prohibited alienation; yes, property is reverted to the State.
Ratio:
Bugas’ thesis is untenable. Sec. 118 of CA 141, as amended by CA 456 unequivocally states
that the alienation of lands acquired by homestead or free patent grants is forbidden from the date
of approval of the application up to and including the fifth year from the and after the date of
the issuance of the patent or grant. Otherwise, the provision makes no sense, for the prohibition
starting from the date of approval of the application would have no terminal date.
Since the 1965 donation in favor of Bugas was clearly within the period of prohibited
alienation, whether the same be deemed to end 5 years counted from the issuance of the patent or
grant, or five years counted from its registration or recording with the Register of Deeds, said
donation is plainly void. Moreover, Equity, as ground for the validation of the donation, may not be
invoked, for the prohibition under the aforesaid law is mandatory, and the general principles of
equity will not be applied to frustrate the purpose of the laws or thwart public policy. The donation
of the land in violation of sec. 118 shall cause the reversion of the property to the State, as provided
for in sec. 124 of the same law.