The
case under consideration comes within the exception above adverted to. Here [De Los Santos] desires to nullify a
transaction which was done in violation of the law. Ordinarily the principle of
pari delicto would apply to her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried
out the sale with the presumed knowledge of its illegality, but because the subject of the transaction is
a piece of public land, public policy requires
that she, as heir, be not prevented from re-acquiring it because it was given
by law to her family for her home and cultivation. This is the policy on which our homestead law is predicated. This right cannot be waived. “It is not
within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law
seeks to preserve”. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that [De Los Santos]
can maintain the present action it being
in furtherance of this fundamental aim of our homestead law [De los Santos v.
Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, 94 Phil. 405 (1954)].
Monday, December 31, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment