This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Santos involved the sale of a parcel of land within the five-year prohibitory period.[88] The Roman Catholic Church raised the defense of in pari delicto.[89] It was also argued by the Rornan Catholic Church that the effect of the sale would be the reversion of the] property to the state.[90] This court held that: Section 124 of the Public Land Act indeed provides that any acquisition, conveyance or transfer executed in violation of any of its provisions shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant or patent and cause the reversion of the property to the State, and the principle of pari delicto has been applied by this Court in a number of cases wherein the parties to a transaction have proven to be guilty of effected the transaction with knowledge of the cause of its invalidity. But we doubt if these principles can now be invoked considering the philosophy and the policy behind the approval of the Public Land Act. The principle underlying pari delicto as known here and in the United States is not absolute in its application. It recognizes certain exceptions one of them being when its enforcement or application runs counter to an avowed fundamental policy or to public interest. As stated by us in the Rellosa case, "This doctrine is subject to one important limitation, namely, [']whenever public policy is considered advanced by allowing either party to sue for relief against the transaction[']" | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We are in full accord with the clear findings and apt ruling of the lower courts. Nowhere in Commonwealth Act No. 141 does it say that the right to repurchase under Section 119 thereof could not be extended by mutual agreement of the parties involved. Neither would extending the period in Section 119 be against public policy as "the evident purpose of the Public Land Act, especially the provisions thereof in relation to homesteads, is to conserve ownership of lands acquired as homesteads in the homesteader or his heirs."[50] "What cannot be bartered away is the homesteader's right to repurchase the homestead within five years from its conveyance, as this is what public policy by law seeks to preserve."[51] "This, in our opinion, is the only logical meaning to be given to the law, which must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose."[52] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The failure to secure the approval of the Secretary does not ipso facto make a sale void.[32] The absence of approval by the Secretary does not nullify a sale made after the expiration of the 5-year period, for in such event the requirement of Section 118 of the Public Land Act becomes merely directory[33] or a formality.[34] The approval may be secured later, producing the effect of ratifying and adopting the transaction as if the sale had been previously authorized.[35] As held in Evangelista v. Montano:[36] | |||||