Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

127827 March 5, 2003

ELEUTERIO, ANATALIA, JOSELITO, ROGELIO, EVANGELINE, NOEL, GUILLERMO, LOREN O, !OMINGO, AMA!O, a"# VICTORIA, a$$ %&r"a'(# LOPE , petitioners, vs. T)E )ONORA*LE COURT O+ APPEALS, a"# %,o&%(% MARCELINO a"# CRISTINA S. LOPE , +ELISA LOPE a"# RAMON CORTE , OILO LOPE , LEONAR!O LOPE a"# LEONILA LOPE a"# %,o&%(% ROGELIO M. AMURAO a"# NOAMI T. AMURAO, respondents. PUNO, J.efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorari of the Decision" dated Septe#ber $%, "&&' of the (ourt of )ppeals in (.).*+.R. (V No. ,$-$., !hich affir#ed !ith #odification the Decision dated March $%, "&&$ of the Re/ional Trial (ourt of )ntipolo, Ri0al, ranch .", in (ivil (ase No. '..*). The evidence sho!s that in "&1%, 2er#in 3ope0 occupied, possessed, and declared for ta4ation purposes a parcel of public land containin/ an area of "& hectares, ,- ares, -- centares, #ore or less, situated in Ma5atubon/, arrio De la Pa0, )ntipolo, Ri0al. He filed a ho#estead application over the land, but his application !as not acted upon until his death in "&$,. 6hen he died, he !as survived b7 the follo!in/8 9": Her#o/enes 3ope0, no! deceased, leavin/ his children, respondents Marcelino, 2elisa, ;oilo, and 3eonardo, all surna#ed 3ope0, as his heirs< 91: petitioner =leuterio 3ope0< 9$: >uan 3ope0, no! deceased, leavin/ his children, +uiller#o, 3oren0o, Do#in/o, )#ado, and Victoria, all surna#ed 3ope0, as his heirs<1 and 9,: Na0ario, no! deceased, leavin/ his !ife, petitioner )natalia, and children, petitioners >oselito, Ro/elio, =van/eline and Noel, all surna#ed 3ope0, as his heirs. 2ollo!in/ 2er#in?s death, Her#o/enes, bein/ the eldest child, !or5ed and introduced additional i#prove#ents on the land. In "&$', he in@uired fro# the ureau of 3ands the status of his late father?s application for a ho#estead /rant. )n official $ of the bureau infor#ed hi# that the application re#ained unacted upon and su//ested that he file a ne! application. 2ollo!in/ the su//estion, Her#o/enes filed a ho#estead application in his o!n na#e, !hich !as doc5eted as No. "$-'"1. )fter ascertainin/ that the land !as free fro# clai# of an7 private person, the ureau approved his application. In "&$&, Her#o/enes sub#itted his final proof of co#pliance !ith the residenc7 and cultivation re@uire#ents of the la!. The land !as surve7ed and a resultin/ plan, H*"$-'"1, !as approved b7 the Director of 3ands, !ho thereafter ordered the issuance of the ho#estead patent. The patent !as later trans#itted to the Re/ister of Deeds of Ri0al for transcription and issuance of the correspondin/ certificate of title in his na#e. Ana!are that he has been a!arded a ho#estead patent, Her#o/enes e4ecuted on 2ebruar7 "", "&B' an =4tra*Cudicial Partition of the disputed land !ith his brothers D petitioner =leuterio, >uan, and Na0ario. On Septe#ber "1, "&B-, ho!ever, the three e4ecuted a Deed of )bsolute Sale of their share in the land in favor of Her#o/enes. The succeedin/ 7ear, Her#o/enes applied !ith the 3and Re/istration (o##ission for the re/istration of the propert7 in his na#e. This !as doc5eted as 3R( (ase No. 1B$". To his surprise, he found that the land has been re/istered in the na#es of 2ernando +orospe, Salvador de Ta/le, Rosario de Ta/le, eatri0 de Su0uarre@ui and =duardo Santos, !ho collectivel7 opposed his application.

In Dece#ber "&B&, Her#o/enes filed a co#plaint for the annul#ent of the free patent and title a/ainst these persons before the (ourt of 2irst Instance of Ri0al, , doc5eted as (ivil (ase No. B&B.. So#e of the defendants #oved for its dis#issal alle/in/ that Her#o/enes !as not a real part7 in interest since he previousl7 sold his ri/ht to the land to one )#brocio )/uilar on >ul7 $", "&B&. The case !as dis#issed. )/uilar instituted on Nove#ber "-, "&.' a ne! civil action before the (2I of Ri0al, B doc5eted as (ivil (ase No. 1,-.$. It !as si#ilar to (ivil (ase No. B&B. e4cept for the chan/e in plaintiff and the addition of the ureau of 3ands as co*defendant. On )pril "B, "&-1, the lo!er court declared )/uilar as the absolute o!ner of the land and O(T No. B$. and all subse@uent certificates of title e#anatin/ therefro# as void ab initio. This decision !as affir#ed in toto b7 the (ourt of )ppeals. In +.R. No. &%$-%, !e affir#ed the decision of the appellate court in a decision pro#ul/ated on Septe#ber "$, "&&%.' )fter the )pril "B, "&-1 decision of the (2I, and !hile the case !as on appeal, respondent 3ope0es, as heirs of Her#o/enes 9!ho died on )u/ust 1%, "&-1:, filed a co#plaint a/ainst )/uilar before the RT( of )ntipolo, Ri0al. The >ul7 ",, "&-, co#plaint !as for the cancellation of the deed of sale e4ecuted b7 Her#o/enes in favor of )/uilar dated >ul7 $", "&B& andEor reconve7ance. It !as doc5eted as (ivil (ase No. ,'$*). On 2ebruar7 B, "&-B, the lo!er court declared the deed of absolute sale null and void ab initio and the respondents as the true and absolute o!ner of the disputed land. )/uilar sou/ht relief !ith the (ourt of )ppeals, !hich affir#ed in toto the decision of the RT( in a Decision pro#ul/ated on )u/ust "-, "&-.. . In +.R. No. -"%&1, !e denied )/uilar?s petition for revie! in a resolution dated )pril ', "&&- for havin/ been filed late. On )pril 1B, "&-B, after the RT( of )ntipolo rendered its 2ebruar7 B, "&-. decision in (ivil (ase No. ,'$*) and pendin/ its appeal, respondent 3ope0es sold a lar/e portion of the disputed propert7 to respondent spouses )#urao. On Ma7 $", "&-B, petitioners =leuterio, )natalia, >oselito, Ro/elio, =van/eline and Noel, all heirs of Na0ario 3ope0, alon/ !ith +uiller#o, 3oren0o, Do#in/o, )#ado, and Victoria, all heirs of >uan 3ope0, instituted the present action a/ainst the respondents before the RT( of )ntipolo, Ri0al, ranch .", doc5eted as (ivil (ase No. '..*). The7 pra7ed, a#on/ others, that the7 be declared co* o!ners of the propert7 subCect #atter hereof and that private respondents be ordered to reconve7 to the# $EB thereof as its co*o!ners, or in the alternative, to pa7 its value. On >une 1', "&-B, respondents filed their )ns!er !ith (o#pulsor7 (ounterclai# alle/in/ that the7 are the absolute o!ners of the contested land on the basis of the ho#estead /rant to their predecessor*in*interest, Her#o/enes. )fter the pre*trial on Nove#ber 1., "&-., trial ensued. In the )u/ust 1-, "&-' hearin/ petitioners? counsel failed to appear, causin/ the case to be dis#issed. The dis#issal, ho!ever, !as reconsidered upon #otion of petitioners? counsel, and the case !as a/ain set for hearin/. In the scheduled hearin/ of October "., "&-', counsel for respondent !as absent. Apon proper #otion, petitioners !ere allo!ed to present their evidence ex-parte on Dece#ber B, "&-'. 2ollo!in/ the presentation of e4*parte evidence, the case !as dee#ed sub#itted for resolution. On >une 1B, "&-., the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners orderin/ the division of the disputed lot in e@ual portions a#on/ the four children of 2er#in or their heirs. Respondents failed to appeal the decision but on Septe#ber "%, "&-., the7 filed a petition for relief fro# Cud/#ent, alle/in/ that accidentEe4cusable ne/li/ence prevented the# fro# attendin/ the trial and that the7 have a /ood, substantial and #eritorious defense. On Dece#ber 1-, "&-&, the court a @uo set aside its decision dated >une 1B, "&-. and ordered a pre*trial conference.

On >anuar7 $%, "&&%, respondents filed a Motion to )d#it )#ended )ns!er alle/in/ for the first ti#e that petitioners have alread7 sold to Her#o/enes their shares in the contested propert78 Petitioners opposed the #otion on the /round that the a#end#ents constituted substantial alteration of the theor7 of the defense. On 2ebruar7 "$, "&&%, the court a quo allo!ed respondents to a#end the ans!er. 6hen their #otion for reconsideration !as denied, petitioners elevated the issue directl7 to this court via a Petition for (ertiorari. On )pril 1B, "&&%, !e denied the petition for failure to co#pl7 !ith the re@uire#ents of (ircular "*--, !ith a further pronounce#ent that, Fbesides, even if the petition !ere ad#itted, the sa#e !ould still be dis#issed as the (ourt finds that no /rave abuse of discretion !as co##itted b7 public respondent.F Trial on the #erits once #ore proceeded in the court a quo. 6hile the case !as on trial, co#plainants therein +uiller#o, 3oren0o, Do#in/o, )#ado and Victoria, all children of >uan 3ope0, entered into a co#pro#ise a/ree#ent !ith the respondent 3ope0es, heirs of Her#o/enes, reco/ni0in/ the latter?s o!nership and possession of the propert7 subCect of the case. The7 confir#ed the sale #ade b7 their father >uan to Her#o/enes. On >ul7 1%, "&&1, the court a quo rendered a partial decision approvin/ the co#pro#ise a/ree#ent. On March $%, "&&$, the court a quo rendered a Decision dis#issin/ the co#plaint, the dispositive portion of !hich states8 F6H=R=2OR=, Cud/#ent is hereb7 rendered8 ". Orderin/ the dis#issal of the case< 1. Declarin/ Her#o/enes 3ope0 as the e4clusive o!ner of the propert7 in @uestion< $. Orderin/ the plaintiffs to pa7 the defendants the a#ount of P1%,%%%.%% as attorne7?s fees< and ,. Orderin/ plaintiffs to pa7 the costs. SO ORD=R=D.F& 2eelin/ a//rieved, petitioners appealed to the (ourt of )ppeals, !hich affir#ed !ith #odification the above Decision, thus8 F2inall7, 6e have to delete and disallo! the a!ard of attorne7?s fees for !ant of factual and le/al pre#ise in the te4t of the appealed Decision. IN VI=6 O2 )33 TH= 2OR=+OIN+, the decision appealed fro# is A++IRME! !ith a 'o#./.ca0.o" that the a!ard of attorne7?s fees is deleted. (osts a/ainst the appellants.F "% Hence, the present course of action !here petitioners contend8 FI. The Honorable (ourt of )ppeals in rulin/ that the propriet7 of the /rant of respondents? petition for relief fro# Cud/#ent has been rendered #oot is not in accord !ith the decisions of this Honorable Supre#e (ourt. II. The (ourt of )ppeals? rulin/ that 2er#in 3ope0, the co##on predecessor*in*interest, !as not entitled to the /rant of the ho#estead patent, hence petitioners are not co*o!ners of the

disputed propert7 is not in accord !ith the evidence and the decisions of this Honorable Supre#e (ourt. III. The (ourt of )ppeals? rulin/ that the state#ent or declarations in the e4tra*Cudicial partition 9=4h. N:< the special po!er of attorne7 9=4h. O:< and the letter dated >anuar7 "", "&-, 9=4h. G: !ere based on a !ron/ assu#ption that the propert7 is o!ned b7 their co##on predecessor*in*interest D is not in accord !ith the evidence and decisions of this Honorable Supre#e (ourt. IV. The (ourt of )ppeals co##itted reversible error in rulin/ that the for/ed absolute deed of sale dated Septe#ber "1, "&B- has no bearin/ on the respondents? clai# over the disputed propert7. V. The (ourt of )ppeals in not rulin/ that the re#ed7 of partition is available to the petitioners is not in accord !ith la!. VI. The (ourt of )ppeals? rulin/ that laches applies to the herein 9sic: !ho are close relatives is not in accord !ith the decisions of this Honorable Supre#e (ourt.F "" 2irst, the procedural issue. Petitioners contend that the /rant of relief fro# Cud/#ent is erroneous as the respondents did not substantiate their alle/ation of fraud, accident, #ista5e, or e4cusable ne/li/ence !hich unCustl7 deprived the# of a hearin/. The7 add that !hile respondents had a#ple opportunit7 to avail of other re#edies, such as a #otion for reconsideration or an appeal, fro# the ti#e the7 received a cop7 of the decision on >ul7 "%, "&-., 7et the7 did not do so. Rule $- of the "&&. Rules of (ivil Procedure /overns the petition for relief fro# Cud/#ent. Sections 1 and $ of the Rules provide8 FSection 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceedings . D 6hen a Cud/#ent or final order is entered, or an7 other proceedin/ is thereafter ta5en a/ainst a part7 in an7 court throu/h fraud, accident, #ista5e or e4cusable ne/li/ence, he #a7 file a petition in such court and in the sa#e case pra7in/ that the Cud/#ent, order or proceedin/ be set aside.F "1 FSection $. Time for filing petition; contents and verification . D ) petition provided for in either of the precedin/ sections of this Rule #ust be verified, filed !ithin si4t7 9'%: da7s after the petitioner learns of the Cud/#ent, final order or other proceedin/ to be set aside, and not #ore than si4 9': #onths after such Cud/#ent or final order !as entered or such proceedin/ !as ta5en< and #ust be acco#panied !ith affidavits sho!in/ the fraud, accident, #ista5e or e4cusable ne/li/ence relied upon, and the facts constitutin/ the petitioners? /ood and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case #a7 be.F "$ 6e find that respondents !ere deprived of their ri/ht to a hearin/ due to accident. In the October "., "&-' hearin/, their counsel !as absent due to asth#a, !hich disabled hi# and #ade it difficult for hi# to tal5. Si#ilarl7, !hen petitioners presented their evidence ex-parte on Dece#ber B, "&-', the counsel for the respondents a/ain failed to appear as he e4perienced another severe asth#a attac5. On both occasions, his absence is clearl7 e4cusable. Nor is there an7 doubt that respondents !ere able to sho! that the7 have a /ood and substantial defense. The7 attached to their affidavit of #erit the follo!in/ docu#ents8 ", the decision of the (ourt of 2irst Instance of Pasi/ in (ivil (ase No. B&B. entitled FHermogenes Lopez v. ernando !orospe, et al.F< the decision also of the Pasi/ (2I, in (ivil (ase No. 1,-.$, entitled F"m#rocio "guilar v.

ernando !orospeF< the decisions of the lo!er and appellate courts in the case of $arcelino Lopez, et al. v. "m#rocio "guilarF< the decision of the Municipal Trial (ourt of )ntipolo in the case of F"m#rocio "guilar v. %antosF< and the Deed of Sale e4ecuted b7 and bet!een Her#o/enes and his brothers D petitioner =leuterio, Na0ario and >uan. The rulin/ in the fore/oin/ cases reco/ni0ed the absolute o!nership and possession of respondents? predecessor*in*interest, Her#o/enes 3ope0. The deed sho!ed that petitioner =leuterio, >uan and Na0ario sold their ri/hts and interests in the contested lot to their brother Her#o/enes. Ti#e and a/ain, !e have stressed that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a ver7 strict and technical sense. The rules of procedure are used onl7 to help secure and not override substantial Custice."B If a strin/ent application of the rules !ould hinder rather than serve the de#ands of substantial Custice, the for#er #ust 7ield to the latter. "' 6e no! address the substantive issues. The #ost pivotal is the petitioners? contention that the appellate court erred in holdin/ that the7 are not co*o!ners of the disputed propert7. The7 ar/ue that 2er#in, their predecessor*in*interest, has co#plied !ith all the re@uire#ents of the Public 3and )ct pertainin/ to a ho#estead /rant, and is therefore entitled to a patent as a #atter of ri/ht. The7 clai# that 2er#in filed a ho#estead application over the land, cultivated at least one*fifth of it, and resided on it for at least one 7ear. Apon his death, the7 ar/ue that the7 beca#e its co*o!ners throu/h succession. 6e do not a/ree. Ho#estead settle#ent is one of the #odes b7 !hich public lands suitable for a/ricultural purposes are disposed of.". Its obCect is to provide a ho#e for each citi0en of the state, !here his fa#il7 #a7 shelter and live be7ond the reach of financial #isfortune, and to inculcate in individuals those feelin/s of independence !hich are essential to the #aintenance of free institutions."The record is bereft of an7 evidence as to !hen 2er#in e4actl7 filed his ho#estead application over the lot in controvers7, but it #ust have been filed after "&1%, the 7ear he first occupied and possessed the land, and before "&$,, the 7ear he died. Durin/ this period, )ct No. 1-., !as the /overnin/ la!."& Section "1 thereof provides8 FSec. "1. )n7 citi0en of the Philippine Islands or of the Anited States, over the a/e of ei/hteen 7ears, or the head of a fa#il7, !ho does not o!n #ore than t!ent7*four hectares of land in said Islands or has not had an7 benefit of an7 /ratuitous allot#ent of #ore than t!ent7*four hectares of land since the occupation of the Philippine Islands b7 the Anited States, #a7 enter a ho#estead of not e4ceedin/ t!ent7*four hectares of a/ricultural land of the public do#ain.F1% ) person !ho is le/all7 @ualified has to file his application for a ho#estead patent !ith the ureau of 3ands. If in order, the application shall be approved b7 the Director. The applicant !ill be authori0ed to enter the land upon pa7#ent of an entr7 fee of five pesos.1" 6ithin si4 #onths after approval of the application, the applicant has to i#prove and cultivate the land. 11 He #ust cultivate at least one*fifth of the land for a period of not less than t!o 7ears nor #ore than five 7ears fro# the date of approval of the application.1$ He #ust also continuousl7 reside in the sa#e #unicipalit7 !here the ho#estead is located, or in an adCacent #unicipalit7, for at least one 7ear. 1, He #ust finall7 present his final proof to the ureau of 3ands that he has co#plied !ith the cultivation and residenc7 re@uire#ents. 1B It bears e#phasis that )ct No. 1-., re@uires that for an application to be valid, it #ust be approved b7 the Director of 3ands. This is e4pressl7 #andated b7 Section "$ of the la!, vi08

FSec. "$. Apon filin/ of an application for a ho#estead, the Director of 3ands, ./ h( /."#% 0ha0 0h( a,,$.ca0.o" %ho&$# 1( a,,ro2(#, %ha$$ #o %o and authori0e the applicant to ta5e possession of the land upon the pa7#ent of ten pesos, Philippine currenc7, as entr7 fee. 6ithin si4 #onths fro# and after the date of the approval of the application, the applicant shall be/in to !or5 the ho#estead, other!ise he shall lose his prior ri/ht to the land.F1' 9e#phasis supplied: This provision /ives the Director of 3ands discretion to approve or den7 an application. He is not a #ere auto#aton !ho #ust perfunctoril7 approve an application upon its filin/. He is tas5ed to satisf7 hi#self that, a#on/ others, the application papers #eet the re@uire#ents of the la!, the land is a disposable public land, and the land is not subCect of a previous valid application. 1. Onl7 !hen he finds the application sufficient in for# and substance should he favorabl7 act on it. Other!ise, he should den7 it. The application of 2er#in unfortunatel7 re#ained unacted upon up to the ti#e of his death. It !as neither approved nor denied b7 the Director, as the ureau failed to process it. )("c(, h( co&$# "o0 ha2( ac3&.r(# a"4 2(%0(# r.5h0% a% a ho'(%0(a# a,,$.ca"0 o2(r 0h( ,ro,(r04 1(ca&%( h.% a,,$.ca0.o" 6a% "(2(r ac0(# &,o". Reliance on the cases of !a2ao Gra."%, I"c. 2. IAC1- and *a$1oa 2. +arra$(%1& b7 the petitioners is #isplaced. Those t!o had different factual bac5drops. In both !a2ao Gra."%, I"c. and *a$1oa, the disputed lots !ere subCect of valid applications for public land /rants. The valid applications beca#e our bases for rulin/ that once an applicant has co#plied !ith the cultivation, residenc7 and other re@uire#ents of )ct No. 1-.,, !hich entitle hi# to a patent for a particular tract of land, Fhe is dee#ed to have alread7 ac@uired b7 operation of la! not onl7 a ri/ht to a /rant, but a /rant of the /overn#ent for it is not necessar7 that a certificate of title be issued in order that said /rant #a7 be sanctioned b7 the courts D an application therefor bein/ sufficient under the provisions of Section ,. of )ct No. 1-.,.F$% ) valid application is sadl7 lac5in/ in the case of 2er#in. This circu#stance prevented hi# fro# ac@uirin/ an7 vested ri/ht over the land and full7 o!nin/ it at the ti#e of his death. Co"/or'a1$4, h.% h(.r% #.# "o0 ."h(r.0 a"4 ,ro,(r04 r.5h0 /ro' h.'.$" Had the application of 2er#in been dul7 approved, his heirs !ould have succeeded hi# in his ri/hts and obli/ations !ith respect to the land he has applied for. Sec. "%$ of )ct No. 1-., covers such a contin/enc7, thus8 FSec. "%$. If at an7 ti#e the applicant or /rantee shall die before the issuance of the patent or the final /rant of the land, or durin/ the life of the lease, or !hile the applicant or /rantee still has obli/ations pendin/ to!ards the +overn#ent, in accordance !ith this )ct, he shall be succeeded in his ri/hts and obli/ations !ith respect to the land applied for or /ranted or leased under this )ct b7 his !ido!, !ho shall be entitled to have issued to her the patent or final concession if she sho!s that she has co#plied !ith the re@uire#ent therefore, or in case he has left no !ido! or the !ido! refuses the succession, he shall be succeeded b7 the person or persons !ho are his heirs b7 la! and !ho shall be subro/ated in all his ri/hts and obli/ations for the purposes of this )ct.F$1 The failure of the ureau of 3ands to act on the application of 2er#in up to the ti#e of his death, ho!ever, prevented his heirs to be subro/ated in all his ri/hts and obli/ations !ith respect to the land applied for.

Perforce, at the ti#e Her#o/enes applied for a ho#estead /rant over the disputed propert7, it !as still part of alienable public land. )s he applied for it in his o!n na#e, his application inures to his sole benefit. )fter co#pl7in/ !ith the cultivation and residenc7 re@uire#ents, he beca#e a /rantee of a ho#estead patent over it, thereb7 #a5in/ hi# its absolute and e4clusive o!ner. $$ Petitioners, ho!ever, clai# that Her#o/enes and his heirs, respondent 3ope0es, reco/ni0ed their ri/hts as co*o!ners of the disputed propert7, as sho!n b7 the follo!in/ docu#ents8 an =4tra*Cudicial Partition of the real propert7 e4ecuted b7 Her#o/enes and his brothers D petitioner =leuterio, Na0ario, and >uan <$, a Special Po!er of )ttorne7 to sell the lot in @uestion e4ecuted b7 petitioner =leuterio, Na0ario and >uan in favor of Her#o/enes< $Band a letter dated >anuar7 "', "&-,, !hich contains the state#ent that petitioners are co*heirs of the propert7, and !hich respondent Marcelino 3ope0 si/ned.$' Petitioners ar/ue that respondents are precluded fro# den7in/ the contents of these docu#ents based on the principle of estoppel b7 deed. The7 add that !hile onl7 Her#o/enes applied for a ho#estead /rant, nonetheless, there !as an a/ree#ent a#on/ the brothers that his application !as for and in behalf of all the#. These ar/u#ents fail to i#press. =stoppel b7 deed is a bar !hich precludes one part7 fro# assertin/ as a/ainst the other part7 and his privies an7 ri/ht or title in dero/ation of the deed, or fro# den7in/ the truth of an7 #aterial facts asserted in it. $. The principle is that !hen a #an has entered into a sole#n en/a/e#ent b7 deed, he shall not be per#itted to den7 an7 #atter !hich he has asserted therein, for a deed is a sole#n act to an7 part of !hich the la! /ives effect as the deliberate ad#ission of the #a5er.$- It pro#otes the Cudicious polic7 of #a5in/ certain for#al docu#ents final and conclusive of their contents. $& ) void deed, ho!ever, !ill not !or5, and #a7 not be the basis of, an estoppel. ,% (ovenants do not !or5 an estoppel unless the deed in !hich the7 are contained is itself a valid instru#ent. ," In the case at bar, the deed and instru#ents at issue !ere void. The e4tra*Cudicial partition and the special po!er of attorne7 to sell did not have an obCect certain, !hich is the subCect #atter of the deed. The disputed land cannot be their obCect because petitioners do not have an7 ri/ht or interest over it. The7 are not its co*o!ners as it is o!ned absolutel7 b7 Her#o/enes. 6ell to note, the t!o instru#ents !ere e4ecuted on the #ista5en assu#ption that Her#o/enes and his brothers inherited the propert7 fro# 2er#in. Moreover, at the ti#e the docu#ents !ere #ade, Her#o/enes !as una!are that he !as /ranted a ho#estead patent. )s correctl7 ruled b7 the appellate court, estoppel does not operate to confer propert7 ri/hts !here there are none. ,1 )propos the letter dated >anuar7 "', "&-,,,$ suffice it to state that !e a/ree !ith the trial court?s pronounce#ent that respondent Marcelino 3ope0 si/ned it #erel7 Fto /ain the favors of his uncle =leuterio 3ope0 and in no !a7 does it constitute an ad#ission that the plaintiffs 9petitioners herein: are co*o!ners of the propert7.F ,, Ander these circu#stances, respondents cannot be held /uilt7 of estoppel b7 deed. The clai# of the petitioners that Her#o/enes filed the application in behalf of all the heirs of 2er#in pursuant to a previous a/ree#ent does not hold !ater. There is paucit7 of evidence in support of this alle/ation. )side fro# the uncorroborated testi#on7 of petitioner =leuterio, petitioners !ere not able to present other proof of the a/ree#ent. esides, !e cannot easil7 /ive credence to such a clai# considerin/ that under )ct No. 1-.,, an applicant #ust personall7 co#pl7 !ith the le/al re@uire#ents for a ho#estead /rant. He #ust possess the necessar7 @ualifications. He #ust cultivate the land and reside on it hi#self. It !ould be a circu#vention of the la! if an individual !ere per#itted to appl7 Fin behalf of another,F as the latter #a7 be dis@ualified or #i/ht not co#pl7 !ith the residenc7 and cultivation re@uire#ents.

In respect of the fourth assi/ned error, !e find that petitioners? attac5 on the authenticit7 and validit7 of the Deed of )bsolute Sale dated Septe#ber "1, "&B-, !here petitioner =leuterio, >uan, and Na0ario alle/edl7 sold their share in the disputed propert7 to Her#o/enes, bereft of #erit. It did not chan/e the fact that no co*o!nership e4isted a#on/ Her#o/enes and his brothers. Her#o/enes is the absolute o!ner of the disputed propert7 Cust as his brothers do not o!n an7 share in it. Hence, the7 cannot validl7 sell an7thin/ to Her#o/enes b7 virtue of the deed. Prescindin/ fro# the lac5 of co*o!nership, petitioners? ar/u#ent that the7 are entitled to have the land partition #ust be reCected. Partition, in /eneral, is the separation, division and assi/n#ent of a thin/ held in co##on a#on/ those to !ho# it #a7 belon/. ,B The purpose of partition is to put an end to co*o!nership.,' It see5s a severance of the individual interests of each co*o!ner, vestin/ in each a sole estate in specific propert7 and /ivin/ to each one a ri/ht to enCo7 his estate !ithout supervision or interference fro# the other.,. Not bein/ co*o!ners of the disputed lot, petitioners cannot de#and its partition. The7 do not have an7 interest or share in the propert7 upon !hich the7 can base their de#and to have it divided. Petitioners? last ar/u#ent that the7 are not /uilt7 of laches in enforcin/ their ri/hts to the propert7 is irrelevant. 3aches is the ne/li/ence or o#ission to assert a ri/ht !ithin a reasonable ti#e, !arrantin/ a presu#ption that the part7 entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it. ,- It does not involve #ere lapse or passa/e of ti#e, but is principall7 an i#pedi#ent to the assertion or enforce#ent of a ri/ht, !hich has beco#e under the circu#stances ine@uitable or unfair to per#it.,& Petitioners? insistence that the7 are not ne/li/ent in assertin/ their ri/ht over the propert7 proceeds fro# the !ron/ pre#ise that the7 have a ri/ht to enforce over the disputed propert7 as co* o!ners. There can be no dela7 in assertin/ a ri/ht !here the ri/ht does not e4ist. IN VIE7 7)EREO+, findin/ no co/ent reason to reverse the i#pu/ned Decision of the (ourt of )ppeals, the petition is D=NI=D for lac5 of #erit. SO OR!ERE!. Pangani#an, and &arpio-$orales, ''., concur. %andoval-!utierrez, '., too5 no part. &orona, '., on official leave.

+oo0"o0(%
"

Per >>. Vas@ue0, >r., uena and Sandoval*+utierre0.

>uan?s heirs !ere ori/inall7 plaintiffs in this case but the7 later e4ecuted !ith the respondent 3ope0es a co#pro#ise a/ree#ent, on the basis of !hich the trial court rendered a Partial Decision.
1

Mr. Teodoro (aCu#ban, then Public 3and Investi/ator at 3and District No. VII, ureau of 3ands, Manila.
$ ,

ranch ". ranch 11.

'

Santos v. (), "-& S(R) BB% 9"&&%:. ()*+R (V No. %'1,1. The dispositive portion of the Partial Decision states8 F2indin/ the fore/oin/ co#pro#ise a/ree#ent not to be contrar7 to la!, #orals and public polic7, the sa#e is )PPROV=D and Cud/#ent is hereb7 rendered in accordance there!ith. The parties are enCoined to strictl7 co#pl7 and abide !ith the ter#s and conditions therein set forth. SO ORD=R=D.F

&

Decision, (ivil (ase No. '..*), p. "$< Rollo, p. &.. Decision, ()*+.R. (V No. ,$-$., p. .< Rollo p. '.. Petition, pp. ".H"-< Rollo, pp. 1BH1'. "&&. Rules on (ivil Procedure. (#id. These docu#ents !ere presented in the hearin/ of the petition. Sa#oso v. (), ".- S(R) 'B, 9"&-&:. asco v. (), $1' S(R) .'- 91%%%:. Sec. "" of )ct No. 1-., provides8 FSec. "". Public lands suitable for a/ricultural purposes can be disposed of onl7 as follo!s8 ". 2or ho#estead settle#ent< 1. 7 sale< $. 7 lease< ,. 7 confir#ation of i#perfect or inco#plete titles8 9a: 7 Cudicial le/ali0ation< 9b: 7 ad#inistrative le/ali0ation 9free patent:.F

"%

""

"1

"$

",

"B

"'

".

Rural an5 of Davao (it7, Inc. v. (), 1". S(R) BB, 9"&&$:, citin/ >ocson v. Soriano, ,B Phil. $.B 9"&1$:.
"-

The ho#estead s7ste# !as introduced in the countr7 throu/h )ct No. &1', passed b7 the Philippine (o##ission on October ., "&%$ INobleCas and NobleCas, Re/istration of 3and Titles and Deeds 9"&-':, p. $,.J. )ct No. 1-.,, !hich too5 effect on Nove#ber 1&, "&"&, superseded )ct No. &1'. The ne! la! !as #ore co#prehensive in scope and #odified the re@uire#ents for ho#estead /rants IPeKa, Philippine 3a! on Natural Resources 9"&&.:, p. "-J. 2inall7, on Nove#ber ., "&$', (o##on!ealth )ct No. "," !as passed b7 the National )sse#bl7. It too5 effect on Dece#ber ", "&$' and re#ains effective until toda7. It is a #ere re*enact#ent of )ct No. 1-., !ith sli/ht revision to confor# !ith the nationalistic provisions of the "&$' (onstitution INobleCas and NobleCas, supra, p. $,.J.
"& 1%

Sec. "1. Sec. "$. (#id. Sec. ",. (#id. (#id. Sec. "$. See Secs. -.H&%. "." S(R) '"1 9"&-&:. B" Phil. ,&- 9"&1-:. Davao +ains, Inc. v. I)(, supra, citin/ Susi v. Ra0on, et al., ,- Phil. ,1, 9"&1':. See )rts. .., and ..', (ivil (ode of the Philippines. Sec. "%$. See Santos v. (), supra note '. =4hibit FN.F =4hibit FM.F =4hibits FGF and FGH".F IV Tolentino, (ivil (ode of the Philippines, p. '''.

1"

11

1$

1,

1B

1'

1.

1-

1&

$%

$"

$1

$$

$,

$B

$'

$.

See Hilco Propert7 Services, Inc. v. A.S., &1& 2. Supp. B1' 9"&&':, cited in 1- )#. >ur. 1d Sec ,.
$$&

See Mc 3au/hlin v. 3a#bourn, $B& N.6. 1d $.% 9"&-B:, cited in 1- )#. >un 1d Sec ,.

,%

See (urthis v. Steele "$" S.=. 1d $,, 9"&'$:. See )lt v. anhol0er, ,% N.6. -$% 9"---:. Decision, p. '< Rollo, p. ''. %upra note $'. Decision, p. ""< Rollo, p. &B. )rt. "%.&, (ivil (ode of the Philippines. Noceda v. (ourt of )ppeals, $"$ S(R) B", 9"&&&:. Villa#or v. (ourt of )ppeals, "'1 S(R) B., 9"&--:. I/nacio v. asilio, +.R. No. "11-1,, Septe#ber 1', 1%%". Philippine an5 of (o##unications v. (ourt of )ppeals, 1-& S(R) ".- 9"&&-:.

,"

,1

,$

,,

,B

,'

,.

,-

,&