Case Digest Restituto De Leon vs.

CA September 4, 1992 Facts: The Petitioner challenges the purported sale to the private respondents to two parcels of land which he claims is his own by right of inheritance. The subject properties were part of the Buenavista Estate purchased by the Government for land distribution, part of the land was sold to Manuel de Leon by the Department of Agriculture and another through the Land Authority to the heirs of De Leon, petitioner represented by grandson. On July 24 1969, private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for the partition of lands they alleged having bought of lands from Maria de Los Santos, widow of Manuel de Leon through a Tuluyang Bilihan on March 18, 1959 which she failed to deliver possession until her death in 1960. Now, petitioner who succeeded in her lands resisted private respondents demands stating that the Tuluyang Bilihan was null and void for such properties belonged to him and therefore needs written consent of the proper authorities. The Trial Court rendered sustaining the private respondents and affirmed on appeal by the respondent court and which the reconsideration was denied. Moreover, the Court of Appeals agreed the Tuluyang Bilihan was valid and such written consent was not applicable to cases of hereditary succession and that Maria de Los Santos was also heir. Issue/s: a. WON Tuluyang Bilihan is valid b. WON the petitioner has right to possession of the subject properties and the states right to reverse it in violation of conditions Ruling: The Petitioners contention is that the Tuluyang Bilihanshould be void because conditions were violated. According to the Court, the purpose of these stipulations is to keep within the family the land acquired from the government. It was necessary for Maria De Los Santos to secure written consent from authorities mentioned. According to the CA the exception to the conditions was when the Land is acquired or transferred by hereditary succession and knowing that Maria De Los Santos is the surviving spouse, the consent was not necessary. The Court said that there is no reason why an heir should be treated less strictly than her predecessor. The court rules that the Tuluyang Bilihan is null and void.