CasE Digest: HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. Spouses JAIME REMOQUILLO and LUZ REMOQUILLO,

HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. Spouses JAIME REMOQUILLO

and LUZ REMOQUILLO

(2007)

A transfer of property arising from a void contract does not confer title over it.

Apolinario Hermosilla (Apolinario) occupies a parcel of land in San Pedro Tunasan Homesite until his death in 1964. The lot was subdivided into two, Lot 12 and Lot 19 with the same area of 341 square meters. The Republic of the Philippines acquired through purchase a 65- square meter lot which forms part of Lot 19.

Apolinario made a Deed of Assignment in 1962 transferring possession of Lot 19 in favor of his grandson, Jaime Remoquillo. The Land Tenure Administration (LTA) later found that Lot 19 is still available for qualified applicants. Jaime, being its occupant filed an application in 1963.

Apolinario conveyed Lot 12 to his son Salvador Hermosilla (Salvador). He filed for an application to purchase the said lot and was granted by the LTA. Jaime and Salvador made a Kasunduan whereby Jaime transferred ownership of the 65 sq. m. in Lot 19 in favor of Salvador. The LTA awarded Lot 19 to Jaime, for which he and his wife were issued a title.

After Apolinario died, his daughter Angela Hermosilla (Angela) filed a protest before the LTA contending that as an heir of the deceased, she is also entitled to Lots 12 and 19. By Resolution of the LTA, the protest was dismissed.

Thus, Angela et al. filed for the annulment of the title on the ground of fraud. The trial court held that the Angela et al. were co-owners of the subject property. The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered the Kasunduan void because at the time of its execution, the lot was still owned by the state and so there was no right that was transferred to Jaime as well as to Angela, et al.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Angela et al. acquired any right over the property.

HELD:

The transfer “became one in violation of law (the rules of the PHHC being promulgated in pursuance of law have the force of law) and therefore void ab initio.” Hence, Angela et al. acquired no right over the lot from a contract void ab initio, no rights are created. Estoppel will not apply for it cannot be predicated 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 public policy.

Angela et al. go on to postulate that if the Kasunduan is void, it follows that the 1962 Deed of Assignment executed by Apolinario in favor of Jaime is likewise void to thus deprive the latter of any legal basis for his occupation and acquisition of Lot 19.

Angela et al.’s position fails. They lose sight of the fact that, as reflected above, Jaime acquired Lot 19 in his own right, independently of the Deed of Assignment.

In another vein, since the property was previously a public land, Angela et al. have no personality to impute fraud or misrepresentation against the State or violation of the law. If the title was in fact fraudulently obtained, it is the State which should file the suit to recover the property through the Office of the Solicitor General. The title originated from a grant by the government, hence, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.