Salenillas v. CA

Facts:

The property was formerly covered by OCT. P-1248, issued by virtue of Free Patent Application No. 192765, in favor of the spouses, Florencia H. de Enciso and Miguel Enciso. The patentees, the Enciso spouses, by an Absolute Deed of Sale, sold the property in favor of the petitioners, spouses Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas for a consideration of P900.00. Petitioner is a daughter of the Encisos. TCT T-8104 of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte was issued in the name of the Salenillas, cancelling OCT. P-1248. Petitioners mortgaged the property now covered by T.C.T. No. T-8104 with the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. The mortgage was subsequently released after the petitioners paid the amount of P1,000.00 and then, petitioners again mortgaged the property, this time in favor of the PNB, Daet, Camarines Norte as security for a loan of P2,500.00. For failure of the petitioners to pay their loan, extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding, pursuant to Act No. 3135, was instituted by the PNB against the mortgage and the property was sold at a public auction held on February 27, 1981. It was sold to William Guerra, and "Certificate of Sale" was issued to him by the Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte. Ultimately, on July 12, 1983, a "Sheriff's Final Deed" was executed in favor of the private respondent.

PNB Bank filed with the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Norte at Daet, a motion for a writ of possession. The public respondent, Judge Raymundo Seva of the trial court, acting on the motion, issued on September 22, 1983 an order for the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the private respondent. On August 15, 1984, another motion, this time for the issuance of an alias writ of possession was filed by the private respondent with the trial court. The petitioners, on August 31, 1984, opposed the private respondents' motion and instead made a formal offer to repurchase the property.

CA ruled that the five-year period of the petitioners to repurchase under Section 119 of the Public Land Act had already prescribed. The point of reckoning, ruled the respondent court in consonance with Monge, et al. vs. Angeles, et al., is from the date the petitioners mortgaged the property on December 4, 1973. Thus, when the petitioners made their formal offer to repurchase on August 31, 1984, the period had clearly expired.

Issues:

Whether or not the petitioners have the right to repurchase the contested property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act; and assuming the answer to the question is in the affirmative, whether or not their right to repurchase had already prescribed.

Held:

They are granted by the law the right to repurchase their property. It is explicit that only three classes of persons are bestowed the right to repurchase — the applicant-patentee, his widow, or other legal heirs. The petitioners-spouses are the daughter and son-in-law of the Encisos, patentees of the contested property. At the very least, petitioner Elena Salenillas, being a child of the Encisos, is a "legal heir" of the latter. As such, and even on this score alone, she may therefore validly repurchase. 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. Considering that

petitioner Salenillas is a daughter of the spouses Florencia H. Enciso and Miguel Enciso, there is no gain saying that allowing her (Elena) and her husband to repurchase the property would be more in keeping with the spirit of the law. The court ruled that five-year period for the petitioners to repurchase their property had not yet prescribed, 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.