ELENA SALENILLAS AND BERNARDINO SALENILLAS vs.

Court of Appeals, GR no 78687

FACTS:

The petitioner Elena Salenillas acquired properties after purchasing them from her parents, the Enciso
spouses.  The petitioners mortgaged  the property twice, the latest done on December4, 1975 in favor of
the Philippine National Bank Branch, Daet, Camarines Norte as security for a loan of P2,500.00.
Petitioners failed to pay and so the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and was then sold in the
public auction on February 27, 1981. A “Sheriff’s Final Deed” was issued on July 12, 1983.

RTC of Camarines Norte issued motions for writ of possession, which the petitioners opposed.

Petitioners sought for reconsideration, which was later on denied. The Court of appeals made a similar
decision.

On November 17, 1983 and on on August 31, 1984,Petitioners wished to repurchase the property and
maintained that  they had the right to do so as provided for under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, as
amended, which states that,

Sec. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when
proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs within a period of five
years from the date of the conveyance.

The Respondent state argued that the Petitioners were disqualified from being legal heirs of the subject
property since petitioners acquired the said property through inheritance but by sale.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners had the right to repurchase the contested property under Section 119 of the
Public Land Act.

HELD:

Petitioner Elena Salenillas, being a child of the Encisos, is a "legal heir" of the latter. As such, and even on
this score alone, she may therefore validly repurchase. This must be so because Section 119 of the
Public Land Act, in speaking of "legal heirs," makes no distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
distinguere debemos.

Invoking the provision made under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, the petitioners, being legal heirs,
had the right to repurchase the said property as long as the 5-year period had not yet proscribed. The
Court held that when the petitioners expressed their desire to repurchase the property in 1984, it was
evident that the 5-year period had not yet proscribed, the public auction having been in 1981 and the
issuance of the Final deed in 1983.