This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondents inherited the property from Asok, their husband and father, who in turn inherited it from his parents. Respondent Ella Gagarani Asok, as daughter-in-law of the patentees, can be considered as among the legal heirs who can repurchase the land in accordance with Salenillas v. CA.[23] In that case, we allowed the daughter and son-in-law of the patentees to repurchase the property because this would be "more in keeping with the spirit of the law. We have time and again said that between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose of the law should prevail."[24] Furthermore, the law must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose.[25] | |||||