Balboa v Farrales (Taxation)

Balboa v Farrales

G.R. No. L-27059 February 14, 1928

FACTS:
Sometime in the year 1913, the plaintiff Buenaventura Balboa filled with the Bureau of Lands an application for homestead, No. 10619, under the provisions of Act No. 926, covering a tract of land in Culis, Hermosa, Bataan. On July 1, 1919, said Act No. 926 was repealed by Act No. 2874.

On August 11, 1924, said Buenaventura Balboa, for and in consideration of the sum of P950, sold said land to the defendant Cecilio L. Farrales.

On March 6, 1926, the plaintiff commenced the present action for the purpose of having said sale declared null and void on the ground of lack of consent on his part and fraud on the part of the defendant, and on the further ground that said sale was contrary to, and in violation of the provisions of section 116 of Act No. 2874.

trial judge rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to return to the plaintiff the land

ISSUE:

which of the two Acts — 926 and 2874 — shall be applied in determining whether the sale in question is valid or not?

RULING:
Act 926 applies and the sale is valid.

The moment the plaintiff had received a certificate from the Government and had done all that was necessary under the law to secure his patent, his right had become vested before the patent was issued. His right had already vested prior to the issuance of the patent, and his rights to the land cannot be affected by a subsequent law or by a subsequent grant by the Government to any other person.

It follows, therefore that the sale of the land in question by the plaintiff Buenventura Balboa to the defendant Cecilio L. Farrales does not infringe said prohibition, and consequently said sale is valid and binding, and should be given full force and effect.