Appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First  Instance of Cotabato decreeing the reversion to the State of a homestead land covered by  Patent No., V-532 and original certificate of title No. V-17 issued by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Cotabato.  The dispositive part of the judgment is: In view therefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff: 

(a) ordering  defendant  Isabela Garcia  to return  the  owner's Certificate of Title No. V-17 to the  Register of Deeds;

(b) ordering the Register of Deeds of Cotabato that homestead patent No.  V-532 be returned to the  Bureau  of  Lands for cancellation;

(c) ordering the Register 'of Deeds of Cotabato to cancel Certificate of Title No. V-17; and

(d) declaring hereby reverted to the public domain as belonging to the Republic of the Philippines the land covered by said Certificate of Title No. V-17,  with costs  against the defendants.. Only questions of law are raised.

From the pleadings, stipulation of facts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the following facts are gathered:  Sometime before the last war appellant Isabelo Garcia  and his  wife Tagumpay  Dumaguindin acquired by purchase the homestead rights of Lingasa Bapanialag to a parcel of homestead land situated at Mabay, Kiamba, Cotabato,  containing an area of  23.21 hectares  (Homestead Application  No. 182259 [E-90722]).  The transfer was approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources upon recommendation of the Director of  Lands and Patent No. V-532 was issued  in favor of the appellant Isabelo Garcia and his wife.  Three years and three months after the issuance of the homestead patent, or on 14 April 1950, for and in consideration of the sum of P11,000, by an instrument executed and  acknowledged before a  notary public the appellant Isabelo Garcia and his wife sold and conveyed to Domingo Colorado, Raymundo de Guzman, Inocencio Padama, Ignacio Ramos and Leon de Guzman 19 hectares of the homestead land (Exhibit A).   The vendees took possession of  the part sold to them.  The deed of sale was not  submitted to  the Secretary  of Agriculture  and Natural Resources for  approval  nor presented to  the Registrar of Deeds in and  for  the province of Cotabato for registration.

Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141  partly provides:

Except in favor of  the Government or any of its branches,  units, or institutions, lands acquired under  free  patent  or homestead provision shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five , years  from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor  shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops  on the  land may be mortgaged  or pledged to  qualified persons, associations,  or  corporations.

Section 124  of the  same Act  provides:

Any  acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or  other  contract made or executed  in violation  of any of the provisions of sections one hundred and  eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred and  twenty-three  of this Act shall  be unlawful and null and void from its execution and  shall produce  the effect of annulling and cancelling the  grant, title, patent,  or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually  or presumptively,  and cause the reversion of  the property  and its  improvements  to the State.

As the sale of the 19 hectares of the homestead  land was made  within the prohibitive period  of five years three years  and three months after the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void,^[1] and is a cause for reversion of the homestead to the State.

Appellants' defense set up  in the court below was that the document Exhibit A was intended merely as a mortgage on the improvements and crops existing on the 19 hectares of the homestead land to secure the payment by instalment of a loan, only that it was drawn up by mistake as an absolute sale upon  the insistence of the vendees.  If it was drawn up as an absolute sale upon the insistence of the vendees, then there was no mistake committed.  The document Exhibit  A is  so  clearly worded  as  to  preclude an interpretation  other than what the  parties had  intended it to be a deed of absolute sale of the 19 hectares of the homestead land. Moreover, as found and held by the trial court:

* * * as stated in Annex "A", the improvements on the land only consist of 50 coco,nut trees, 5 mango trees, 1 nangka tree, bananas and other friut trees.   It  is unbelievable that defendants Domingo Colorado, Raymundo  de Guzman, Inocencio  Padama, Ignacio Ramos and Leon de Guzman would grant a loan of P11,000.00 for such a small security as those improvements  specified above.  Then if  it is true that  the transaction had between them  is only a loan, to be paid by instalment every  year, the defendants failed to produce any evidence that any instalment has  ever been paid, taking into consideration that already elapsed more  than five (5) years from that time  up to the hearing of  this   case.

The  fact that  the  appellant Isabelo Garcia moved to the municipality of Bislig, province of Surigao, and abandoned his homestead  in Kiamba, Cotabato, is proof that  he sold 19 hectares of his homestead.

Appellants contend that, under  section 50, Act No. 496, the operative act to convey and affect lands registered thereunder is  the act of registration, that inasmuch as the deed of sale Exhibit  A was never registered there was  actually no conveyance  made of the  19 hectares of the homestead land, and that  for  that  reason there was no infringement of section  118  of  Commonwealth Act  No. 141.   To constitute a violation  of the section just  referred to,  it is enough that  the homestead be encumbered  or alienated within the prohibitive period of five years;  it is not necessary that the encumbrance or  alienation be registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds.   To uphold the appellants' contention would defeat  the very prohibition established by law, for no party to a prohibited sale or conveyance would  register  such  ah illegal  transaction.  Besides,  the vendees already, had taken possession of the part sold to them.          .   .

Even if only 19 out of the 23.21  hectares of the homestead land had been sold or alienated within the prohibitive period of five  years  from  date of  issuance of the patent to the grantee, such alienation  is  a sufficient cause  for reversion to the State of the whole  grant.  In granting a homestead to an applicant,  the  law imposes as a condition that the land should  not be encumbered,  sold or alienated within five years from the issuance of the patent.  The sale or alienation of part  of the homestead violates  that condition.

The  judgment  appealed  from is  affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  and Endencia,  JJ.,  concur.

---

^[1] De  los Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of  Midsayap,  94 Phil., 405; 50 Off. Gaz., 1588; Acierto vs. De los Santos, 95 Phil., 887; Eugenio vs. Perdido, 97 Phil., 41; Corpus vs. Beltran, 97 Phil., 772; 51 Off. Gaz., 563;  Cadiz vs. Nicolas 102 Phil., 1032; Santander vs. Villanueva,  103 Phil., 1; Felices vs. Iriola, 103 Phil., 125.