G.R. No.

L-7083 May 19, 1955

JUAN EUGENIO and BASILIA EUGENIO, petitioners,
vs.
SILVINA PERDIDO, ROSITA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, FELIX, ALEJANDRINO, FRANCISCA, ASUNCION, FLORENCIA and
AMADO, all surnamed Salang, respondents.
Guillermo E. Boñgolan for petitioners.
Padilla, Carlos, and Fernando for respondents.
BENGZON, J.:
Review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals, wherein the relevant facts may be stated as follows:

FACTS:
1. On November 1, 1927 Homestead Patent No. 10847 was issued in the name of Teodoro Eugenio (father of
petitioners);
2. On March 12, 1932 (5years after from the issuance of the Homestead Patent) Teodoro Eugenio in the presence
of his son Juan, and daughter Basilia, (plaintiffs in the case) sold the homestead and delivered
possession thereof, for the sum of P1,300.00 to the defendant Silvina Perdido and her husband
Clemente Sadang, whose heirs are joined as defendants and respondents;
3. On May 4, 1949 (almost 17 years after from the Sale of the Homestead Patent) this action was filed to recover the
land, upon the theory that the contract was mere mortgage of the homestead, which plaintiff
(petitioners in this case) inherited from their father; and that they had attempted unsuccessfully to repay
the debt;
4. The court of first instance held the contract to be a contract of sale, which was void, because executed
within five years from the issuance of the homestead patent; therefore it ordered to return of the
property upon repayment of P1,300.00 with interest;
5. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the award holding that plaintiffs (petitioners in this case) had no
personality to attack the validity of the sale, and that all they had was the right to repurchase which
they failed to exercise within five years from March 12, 1932.

Denial of (petitioners in this case) plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, led to the presentation of this petition for
review, which is based upon two legal propositions, to wit:
(1) The action to annul the sale in 1932 had not prescribed;
(2) The right to repurchase within the five-year period has not lapsed, inasmuch as the sale was never
registered.

ISSUE whether or not Respondents are estopped to recover the homestead (land) under section
124 of Public Land Law (2874)

HELD:
There is no question that the sale in March 1932 having been made within five years from "the date of
issuance of the patent" was "unlawful and null void from its execution", by express provision of sections 116
and 122 of Act No. 2874. (Now Com. Act No. 141).

Such being the case his homestead was considered "registered within the meaning of the Land Registration
Act No. 496"2, and enjoys the same privileges as Torrens titles issued under said legislations.3

As to the first point, it is enough to remember that no estoppel can be predicted on an illegal act.
"It is generally considered that as between the parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel
if it is prohibited by law or is against the public policy".

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing consideration, the decision under review should be, and is hereby
reversed. Plaintiffs are permitted to recover the homestead upon payment of P1,300.00 to defendants. Costs
shall be paid by the latter. So ordered.
Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.