[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
228 views1 page

2.b Digest. MALTOS vs. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO

The heirs of Eusebio Borromeo filed a complaint against Eliseo Maltos to nullify the sale of agricultural land and reconvey the title. Eusebio had sold the land to Eliseo during the five-year prohibitory period after being granted a free patent, violating the Public Land Act. The trial court ruled the sale null and void and the land reverted to public domain. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating reversion is not automatic and requires an action by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that reversion under the Public Land Act does not occur automatically but requires the Solicitor General to first file an action for reversion.

Uploaded by

WhoopiJaneMagdoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
228 views1 page

2.b Digest. MALTOS vs. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO

The heirs of Eusebio Borromeo filed a complaint against Eliseo Maltos to nullify the sale of agricultural land and reconvey the title. Eusebio had sold the land to Eliseo during the five-year prohibitory period after being granted a free patent, violating the Public Land Act. The trial court ruled the sale null and void and the land reverted to public domain. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating reversion is not automatic and requires an action by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that reversion under the Public Land Act does not occur automatically but requires the Solicitor General to first file an action for reversion.

Uploaded by

WhoopiJaneMagdoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MALTOS vs.

HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO

G.R. No. 172720, September 14, 2015

LEONEN, J. SECOND DIVISION

FACTS:
Eusebio Borromeo was granted a Free Patent over a piece of agricultural
land. Eusebio sold the land to Eliseo Maltos during the five-year prohibitory
period thereby violating Section 118 of the Public Land Act. When Eusebio died,
the heirs filed a Complaint for Nullity of Title and Reconveyance of Title against
Eliseo and the Register of Deeds. Eliseo filed his Answer, arguing that (1) the sale
was made in good faith and that in purchasing the property, he relied on Eusebio’s
title; (2) the parties were in pari delicto; and (3) Since the sale was made during
the five-year prohibitory period, the land would revert to the public domain and
the proper party to institute reversion proceedings was the Office of the Solicitor
General. The trial court ruled that the sale was null and void because it was within
the five (5) year prohibitory period and such transfer resulted in the cancellation of
the grant and the reversion of the land to the public domain. The Court of Appeals,
reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the government has to file an
action for reversion because “reversion is not automatic.” While there is yet no
action for reversion instituted by the Office of the Solicitor General, the property
should be returned to the heirs of Eusebio Borromeo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of an agricultural land by a free patent during the
five-year prohibited period will result to its automatic reversion as part of the
public domain.

HELD:
 NO.  Reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act is not automatic.
The Office of the Solicitor General must first file an action for reversion.

You might also like