Joe Pallugna THIS is a common case wherein the Free Patent holders sold portions of the land covered by the Free Patent within the five-year prohibition period of selling or encumbering the land. The spouses de Guzman purchased in 1969 a portion of 200 square meters from spouses Bajao. In 1970, they again purchased another 280 square meters from the same spouses. The original bigger area of land was issued a Free Patent to the spouses Bajao in 1968. Thereafter, the spouses de Guzmans claimed that they took actual possession of the lands and fenced them. After the original vendor Bajao died in 1972 and the heirs extra-judicially divided the lands of their parents and one heir obtained a title to his share, which included the lands of the de Guzmans, who then sued for reconveyance and damages. The de Guzmans won in the Regional Trial Court but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s findings, which forced the de Guzmans to appeal to the High Court which, among several issues, raised the legal issue of validity of sale of the lands. The Supreme Court then laid down the clear ruling in case of sale of lands covered by Free Patents, thus: “Under Section 124 of the Public Land Act, any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contact made or executed in violation of Section 118 to 123 of the Public Land Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution.” From this ruling, it is important to know what is Section 118 of the Public Land Act. Said Section provides: “Sec. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the free patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvement or crops on teh land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations or corporations.” In this case, portions of Lot no. 532 were conveyed to petitioners by virtue of deeds of sale in 1969 and 1970, while the free patent was issued in 1968 and both deeds were then executed within the prohibited period, and are null and void andproduce no effect. The Supreme court even proceeded to state: “They did not convey any right from Spouses Bajao to the petitioners on the property. The parties could not have claimed ignorance of the free patent. We held in Beniga v. Bugas (G.R. no. L28918, Sept. 29, 2970, 35 SCRA 111) that: ‘Sec. 118 does not exempt patentees and their purported transferees who had no knowledge of the issuance of the patent from the prohibition against alienation; for the law does not say that the five years are to be counted ‘from knowledge of notice or issuance’ of the patent or grant. The date of issuance of the patent is documented  and is a mater of government and official record. As such, it is more reliable  and precise than mere knowledge, with its inherent frailties. Indeed, the policy of the law, which is to give the patentee a place where to live with his family so that he may become a happy citizen and a useful member of our society, would be defeated were ignorance of the issuance of a patent a ground for the non-application of the prohibition.” Not even good faith on the part of the buyers, not even bad faith on the part of the sellers for selling their land inspite of knowledge of the five-year prohibition, not even prescription of actions and not even actual possession of the land, can be valid defenses against this prohibition to sell or encumber the land. So the next time we buy land, we should always make sure that the five-year prohibition has lapsed already as in now way will our purchase be considered valid. In this case, the buyers were ordered refunded of the purchase money, plus interest  from 1969 up to full payment of refund.