PROPERTY CASES

G.R. No. 166519 March 31, 2009

NIEVES PLASABAS a! MARCOS MALA"ARTE vs. CO#RT O$ APPEALS %S&'c(a)
$or*'r N(+h ,(-(.(o/, ,OMINA,OR L#MEN, a! A#RORA A#N"O
NAC0#RA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are
the May 12, 2004 Decision
1
of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA"#.R. C$ %o. 4&0'5 and
the Dece()er 1, 2004 Resolution
2
denyin* reconsideration of the challen*ed decision.
+he pertinent facts and proceedin*s follow.
,n 1-.4, petitioners
&
filed a co(plaint for recovery of title to property with da(a*es
)efore the Court of /irst ,nstance now, Re*ional +rial Court 0R+C1! of Maasin, 2outhern
3eyte a*ainst respondents. +he case was doc4eted as Civil Case %o. R"1-4-. +he
property su)5ect of the case was a parcel of coconut land in Canturin*, Maasin,
2outhern 3eyte, declared under +a6 Declaration %o. &5'. in the na(e of petitioner
%ieves with an area of 2.7&70 hectares.
4
,n their co(plaint, petitioners prayed that
5ud*(ent )e rendered confir(in* their ri*hts and le*al title to the su)5ect property and
orderin* the defendants to vacate the occupied portion and to pay da(a*es.
5
Respondents, for their part, denied petitioners8 alle*ation of ownership and possession
of the pre(ises, and interposed, as their (ain defense, that the su)5ect land was
inherited )y all the parties fro( their co((on ancestor, /rancisco 9lasa)as.
7
Revealed in the course of the trial was that petitioner %ieves, contrary to her alle*ations
in the co(plaint, was not the sole and a)solute owner of the land. :ased on the
testi(onies of petitioners8 witnesses, the property passed on fro( /rancisco to his son,
3eoncio; then to <ovita +ala(, petitioner %ieves8 *rand(other; then to Antonina +ala(,
her (other; and then to her and her si)lin*s=<ose, $ictor and $ictoria.
.
After restin* their case, respondents raised in their (e(orandu( the ar*u(ent that the
case should have )een ter(inated at inception for petitioners8 failure to i(plead
indispensa)le parties, the other co"owners > <ose, $ictor and $ictoria.
,n its April 1-, 1--& ?rder,
'
the trial court, without rulin* on the (erits, dis(issed the
case without pre5udice, thus@
+his Court, (uch as it wants to decide the instant case on the (erits, )ein* one of the
old inherited cases left )ehind, finds difficulty if not i(possi)ility of doin* so at this sta*e
of the proceedin*s when )oth parties have already rested their cases. Reluctantly, it
a*rees with the defendants in the o)servation that so(e i(portant indispensa)le
consideration is conspicuously wantin* or (issin*.
,t is not the Court8s wish to turn its )ac4 on the crucial part of the case, which is the
pronounce(ent of the 5ud*(ent to settle the issues raised in the pleadin*s of the
parties once and for all, after all the ti(e, effort and e6pense spent in *oin* throu*h the
trial process.
:ut, rules are rules. +hey have to )e followed, to arrive at a fair and 5ust verdict. 2ection
., Rule & of the Rules of Court provides@
A6 6 6 Co(pulsory 5oinder of indispensa)le parties. > 9arties in interest without who( no
final deter(ination can )e had of an action shall )e 5oined either as plaintiffs or
defendants.A
Bhat the Court wants to say here is that the instant case should have )een dis(issed
without pre5udice a lon* ti(e a*o for lac4 of cause of action as the plaintiffs spouses
Marcos MalaCarte and %ieves 9lasa)as MalaCarte have no co(plete le*al personality
to sue )y the(selves alone without 5oinin* the )rothers and sisters of %ieves who are
as ,%D,29D%2A:3D as the latter in the final deter(ination of the case. %ot i(pleadin*
the(, any 5ud*(ent would have no effectiveness.
+hey are that indispensa)le that a final decree would necessarily affect their ri*hts, so
that the Court cannot proceed without their presence. +here are a)undant authorities in
this re*ard. +hus >
A+he *eneral rule with reference to the (a4in* of parties in a civil action reEuires the
5oinder of all indispensa)le parties under any and all conditions, their presence )ein* a
sine Eua non of the e6ercise of 5udicial power. :orlasa v. 9olistico, 4. 9hil. &45, &4'!
/or this reason, our 2upre(e Court has held that when it appears of record that there
are other persons interested in the su)5ect (atter of the liti*ation, who are not (ade
parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties are
(ade either plaintiffs or defendants. 9o)re, et al. v. :lanco, 1. 9hil. 157!. 6 6 6 Bhere
the petition failed to 5oin as party defendant the person interested in sustainin* the
proceedin* in the court, the sa(e should )e dis(issed. 6 6 6 Bhen an indispensa)le
party is not )efore the court, the action should )e dis(issed. 9eople, et al. v.
Rodri*ueC, et al., #.R. %os. 3"1405-"72, 2epte()er &0, 1-5-! sic!
A9arties in interest without who( no final deter(ination can )e had of an action shall )e
5oined either as plaintiffs or defendants. 2ec. ., Rule &, Rules of Court!. +he )urden of
procurin* the presence of all indispensa)le parties is on the plaintiff. &- A(5ur 0sic1
''5!. +he evident purpose of the rule is to prevent the (ultiplicity of suits )y reEuirin*
the person arrestin* a ri*ht a*ainst the defendant to include with hi(, either as co"
plaintiffs or as co"defendants, all persons standin* in the sa(e position, so that the
whole (atter in dispute (ay )e deter(ined once and for all in one liti*ation. 9alarca v.
:a*insi, &' 9hil. 1.., 1.'!.
AAn indispensa)le party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or su)5ect
(atter that a final ad5udication cannot )e (ade, in his a)sence, without inEuirin* or
affectin* such interest; a party who has not only an interest of such a nature that a final
decree cannot )e (ade without affectin* his interest or leavin* the controversy in such
a condition that its final deter(ination (ay )e wholly inconsistent with eEuity and *ood
conscience. 7. C.<.2. '-2!. ,ndispensa)le parties are those without who( no action
can )e finally deter(ined.A 2anidad v. Ca)ata5e, 5 9hil. 204!
BFDRD/?RD, ,% $,DB ?/ A33 +FD /?RD#?,%# C?%2,DDRA+,?%2, )oth the
co(plaint and the counterclai( in the instant case are ordered D,2M,22DD without
pre5udice. %o pronounce(ent as to costs.
2? ?RDDRDD.
-
A**rieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA. ,n the challen*ed May 12, 2004
Decision,
10
the appellate court affir(ed the rulin* of the trial court. +he CA, further,
declared that the non"5oinder of the indispensa)le parties would violate the principle of
due process, and that Article 4'. of the Civil Code could not )e applied considerin* that
the co(plaint was not for e5ect(ent, )ut for recovery of title or a reivindicatory action.
11
Bith their (otion for reconsideration denied in the further assailed Dece()er 1, 2004
Resolution,
12
petitioners filed the instant petition.
+he Court *rants the petition and re(ands the case to the trial court for disposition on
the (erits.
Article 4'. of the Civil Code provides that any one of the co"owners (ay )rin* an action
for e5ect(ent.1avvphi1.zw+ +he article covers all 4inds of actions for the recovery of
possession, includin* an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action. A co"owner (ay
file suit without necessarily 5oinin* all the other co"owners as co"plaintiffs )ecause the
suit is dee(ed to )e instituted for the )enefit of all. Any 5ud*(ent of the court in favor of
the plaintiff will )enefit the other co"owners, )ut if the 5ud*(ent is adverse, the sa(e
cannot pre5udice the ri*hts of the uni(pleaded co"owners.
1&
Bith this disEuisition, there is no need to deter(ine whether petitioners8 co(plaint is
one for e5ect(ent or for recovery of title. +o repeat, Article 4'. of the Civil Code applies
to )oth actions.
+hus, petitioners, in their co(plaint, do not have to i(plead their co"owners as parties.
+he only e6ception to this rule is when the action is for the )enefit of the plaintiff alone
who clai(s to )e the sole owner and is, thus, entitled to the possession thereof. ,n such
a case, the action will not prosper unless the plaintiff i(pleads the other co"owners who
are indispensa)le parties.
14
Fere, the alle*ation of petitioners in their co(plaint that they are the sole owners of the
property in liti*ation is i((aterial, considerin* that they ac4nowled*ed durin* the trial
that the property is co"owned )y %ieves and her si)lin*s, and that petitioners have )een
authoriCed )y the co"owners to pursue the case on the latter8s )ehalf.
15
,(pleadin* the
other co"owners is, therefore, not (andatory, )ecause, as (entioned earlier, the suit is
dee(ed to )e instituted for the )enefit of all.
,n any event, the trial and appellate courts co((itted reversi)le error when they
su((arily dis(issed the case, after )oth parties had rested their cases followin* a
protracted trial co((encin* in 1-.4, on the sole *round of failure to i(plead
indispensa)le parties. +he rule is settled that the non"5oinder of indispensa)le parties is
not a *round for the dis(issal of an action. +he re(edy is to i(plead the non"party
clai(ed to )e indispensa)le. 9arties (ay )e added )y order of the court on (otion of
the party or on its own initiative at any sta*e of the action andGor at such ti(es as are
5ust. ,f petitioner refuses to i(plead an indispensa)le party despite the order of the
court, the latter (ay dis(iss the co(plaintGpetition for the plaintiff8sGpetitionerHs failure to
co(ply therewith.
17
BFDRD/?RD, pre(ises considered, the instant petition is #RA%+DD, and the case is
RDMA%DDD to the trial court for appropriate proceedin*s. +he trial court is further
D,RDC+DD to decide on the (erits of the civil case B,+F D,29A+CF. 2? ?RDDRDD.

<?2D 2. DA,3,2A%, #.R. %o. 1.744'
9etitioner,
9resent@

IJ,2JM:,%#, J.,
" versus " Chairperson,
CAR9,? M?RA3D2,
+,%#A,
$D3A2C?, <R., and
C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 and :R,?%, JJ.
+FD FR2. ?/ +FD KlateL /DDDR,C?
9J#A?, na(ely@ /3?RD%+,%A 9ro(ul*ated@
9J#A?, /3?R,DA 9J#A?"
J:A3D?, /D 9J#A?"$,33A%JD$A, <uly 2', 200'
/DR%A%D? 9J#A? and 3JD?$,C?
9J#A?,
Respondents.

6""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""6


, E C I S I O N

+,%#A, J.@


+his is a 9etition for Review
011
of the 25 May 2007 Decision
021
and 27 <anuary
200. Resolution
0&1
of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29 %o. '2742,
041
which reversed
and set aside the Decision
051
of the Re*ional +rial Court R+C! of IueCon City, :ranch
'', dated & 2epte()er 200&.

?n ' <uly 1--&, petitioner filed a Co(plaint
071
for partition )efore the R+C of
IueCon City,
0.1
alle*in* that he purchased one"fourth M! of the land of
/ederico 9u*ao/ederico! identified as 3ot 17, :loc4 %: 22 of su)division 9sd"5.020
located in :a*o :antay, IueCon City and covered )y +ransfer Certificate of +itle %o.
%o. .51&&.

Accordin* to petitioner, he and /ederico had initially a*reed to the sale of one"
half 1G2! portion of the sa(e land for 912,000.00 and that he had paid /ederico several
install(ents fro( 1-.7 to 1-.-, which all in all totaled to 97,000.00, )ut was told to stop
further pay(ents )ecause per /ederico8s representation he could only sell one"fourth
M! of the lot.
0'1
/ederico could not deliver the title to hi( )ecause the property was still
(ort*a*ed to a )an4. Bhen the (ort*a*e was released, petitioner de(anded the
e6ecution of a deed of a)solute sale. ,nstead of accedin*, /ederico proposed to
(ort*a*e the property to petitioner as security for a 910,000.00 loan, paya)le in
three &! (onths, and upon pay(ent of the loan the deed of a)solute sale would )e
e6ecuted. 9etitioner a*reed, and they e6ecuted a deed of real estate (ort*a*e.
0-1
+he
loan was paid after three &! (onths, after which petitioner and /ederico e6ecuted a
deed of a)solute sale on 5 /e)ruary 1-.-. 9etitioner as4ed for the partition of the lot
and caused a resurvey to e6pedite the partition.
0101
Fowever, /ederico still refused
to effect the partition and even sent a notice of eviction
0111
a*ainst petitioner.

Accordin* to /ederico, petitioner is the hus)and of his niece and that when the
couple8s house was de(olished durin* (artial law, he allowed the( out of pity to
occupy one fourth M! of his lot. Bhile averrin* that the property had )een the su)5ect
of real estate (ort*a*es in favor of other )an4s, he ad(itted that he e6ecuted in favor
of petitioner a deed of real estate (ort*a*e as security for a 910,000.00 loan. Fe was
a)le to pay the said loan which resulted in the cancellation of the (ort*a*e, he added.
0121

Fowever, /ederico denied havin* voluntarily e6ecuted the deed of a)solute sale,
and instead alle*ed that when he was seriously ill in <anuary of 1--2, petitioner, with a
certain Atty. <uanitas, (ade hi( si*n pa*es of what the for(er told hi( to )e parts
of the real estate (ort*a*e he had earlier e6ecuted in favor of petitioner. /ederico filed
a co(plaint for falsification and e5ect(ent a*ainst petitioner )efore the )aran*ay, )ut
atte(pts at conciliation failed. Due to his failin* health, /ederico failed to carry out his
intention to file and pursue a for(al co(plaint )efore the court.
01&1

/ederico passed away while this case was pendin* )efore the trial court.
0141
And
so he was su)stituted )y his heirs, herein respondents.
0151

?n & 2epte()er 200&, the trial court, findin* that respondents failed to disprove
the validity of the deed of a)solute sale, ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered the
partition of the su)5ect property.
0171
+he dispositive portion of the decision reads@

,% $,DB ?/ +FD /?RD#?,%#, 5ud*(ent is rendered as follows@


1. ?rderin* the partition of the said parcel of land (entioned and
descri)ed in para*raph & of the co(plaint, adoptin* for the purpose of said
partition, the survey plan prepared )y the #eodetic Dn*ineer;

2. ?rderin* the defendant to surrender and e6ecute all the necessary
docu(ents to effect the partition and issuance of separate +ransfer Certificate of
+itle over the su)5ect (atter of the Deed of A)solute 2ale;

&. ?rderin* the defendants to pay the a(ount of fifty thousand pesos
950,000.00! as (oral and e6e(plary da(a*es;

4. ?rderin* the defendant to pay attorney8s fees in the a(ount
of 9&0,000.00 and 9500.00 per appearance, plus costs;

5. ?rderin* the Re*ister of Deeds of IueCon City to issue a +ransfer
Certificate of +itle to effect the partition in the na(e of plaintiff.

2? ?RDDRDD.
01.1

Respondents (oved for the reconsideration of the decision )ut their (otion was denied
)y the trial court on 1- <anuary 2004.
01'1
Fence, they appealed the decision to the Court
of Appeals.

+he Court of Appeals *ranted the appeal. ,t noted that petitioner should have filed
an action for specific perfor(ance to co(pel /ederico to honor the deed of a)solute
sale;
01-1
yet the ri*ht to file such action, had already e6pired.
0201
,t further noted that
petitioner Kfiled the instant action for partition si(ply )ecause it is not )arred )y
prescription.L
0211
,t ruled a*ainst the validity of the sale )etween /ederico and petitioner,
findin* that there was no consent on /ederico8s part and that there was no proof of
pay(ent of the price or consideration on the part of petitioner.
0221
,t concluded that the
deed of sale is fictitious and invalid, and hence could not serve as )asis of any clai( of
ownership.
02&1

9etitioner filed a (otion for reconsideration )ut his (otion was denied for lac4 of
(erit.
0241

9etitioner now clai(s that the appellate court8s decision is contrary to law. Fe
ar*ues that his action is Kactually a case of Nspecific perfor(ance8 for the
deliveryGsurrender of title in view of the duly e6ecuted NDeed of A)solute 2ale,8 and thus,
the validity of the said deed cannot )e collaterally attac4ed, )ut (ust )e raised in an
independent action.L
0251
Fe insists that his action for specific perfor(ance has not
prescri)ed )ecause upon the e6ecution of the deed of sale, ownership of the su)5ect
property has passed to hi(, the )uyer, and an action for specific perfor(ance is only
incidental to his clai( of ownership; on the contrary, it is respondents8 ri*ht duty!
0271
to
Euestion the validity of the deed of sale, which they did not do despite 4nowled*e of the
e6istence of the said instru(ent as early as 1-'4. /inally, he Euestions the specific
findin*s of the Court of Appeals concernin* the e6ecution of the deed of a)solute sale
as not )orne )y the evidence.
02.1

/or their part, respondents point out that this is the first ti(e that petitioner
alle*ed that his action for partition is actually a case of specific perfor(ance for the
deliveryGsurrender of the title of the su)5ect property. +his )ein* so, respondents )elieve
that petitioner8s cause of action has already prescri)ed since (ore than ten 10! years
have already lapsed since the e6ecution of the deed of sale. +hey add that in any
case, petitioner8s ar*u(ents and alle*ations are untrue, )aseless and (isleadin*.
02'1

Be resolve to *rant the petition.

+he two deter(inative issues in this case are@ 1! whether the deed of a)solute
sale is valid; and 2! what is the prescriptive period within which to file petitioner8s
action.

+he notariCed deed of a)solute sale is a pu)lic docu(ent, and has in its favor
the presu(ption of re*ularity which (ay only )e re)utted )y evidence so clear, stron*
and convincin* as to e6clude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.
02-1
+he
)urden of proof to overco(e the presu(ption of due e6ecution of a notariCed docu(ent
lies on the party contestin* such e6ecution.

/irst, a distinction (ust )e (ade )etween void and voida)le contracts. A contract
is ine6istent and void fro( the very )e*innin* when i! its cause, o)5ect or purpose is
contrary to law, (orals, *ood custo(s, pu)lic order or pu)lic policy; ii! it is a)solutely
si(ulated or fictitious; iii! its cause or o)5ect did not e6ist at the ti(e of the transaction;
iv! its o)5ect is outside the co((erce of (en; v! it conte(plates an i(possi)le service;
vi! the intention of the parties relative to the principal o)5ect of the contract cannot )e
ascertained; or vii! it is e6pressly prohi)ited or declared void )y law.
0&01
+he action or
defense for the declaration of the ine6istence of a contract does not prescri)e.
0&11
?n the
other hand, a voida)le or annulla)le contract is one where i! one of the parties is
incapa)le of *ivin* consent to a contract; or ii! the consent is vitiated )y (ista4e,
violence, inti(idation, undue influence or fraud.
0&21
+he action for annul(ent (ust )e
)rou*ht within four 4! years fro( the ti(e the inti(idation, violence or undue influence
ceases, or four 4! years fro( the ti(e of the discovery of the (ista4e or fraud.
0&&1

Respondents clai( that the deed of sale Kis not valid )ecause there was
a)solutely no consent on the part ofL /ederico Kto said contract, which was in Dn*lish,L
considerin* that /ederico Kdid not even finish #rade 2 of the ele(entary school
level,L
0&41
and that he was only led to )elieve that the pa*es thereof corresponded to and
were part of the real estate (ort*a*e. :asically, respondents8 clai( is that the deed of
sale is a voida)le, and not void, contract and the *round to )e raised is (ista4e andGor
fraud )ecause /ederico was led to )elieve that what he was si*nin* was still part of the
earlier deed of real estate (ort*a*e. ,n that re*ard, respondents stress /ederico8s low
educational attain(ent and ina)ility to understand the Dn*lish lan*ua*e.

%evertheless, /lorida 9u*ao, one of the respondents, testified that she )eca(e
aware of the e6istence of the deed of sale way )ac4 in 1-'4.
0&51
Despite
this 4nowled*e, as well as /ederico8s andGor his other heirs8 4nowled*e of the
assailed deed even prior to 1-'4, none of the( too4 any action to annul the deed
within the prescri)ed four 4!"year period which e6pired in 1-''.

Anent /ederico8s low educational attain(ent and unfa(iliarity with Dn*lish,
Article 1&&2 of the Civil Code is the *overnin* provision@

Art. 1&&2. Bhen one of the parties is una)le to read, or if the
contract is in a lan*ua*e not understood )y hi(, and (ista4e or fraud is
alle*ed, the person enforcin* the contract (ust show that the ter(s
thereof have )een fully e6plained to the for(er.






+hat /ederico did not even reach #rade 2, that he was una)le to read or
understand Dn*lish, and that his consent was vitiated )y (ista4e or fraud, (a4e the
situation fall under the a)ove"Euoted provision. +hus, it would have )een incu()ent
upon petitioner to show that he fully e6plained the ter(s of the contract to /ederico if
not for a crucial point. Respondents failed to file an action for annul(ent of the deed of
sale on the *round of (ista4e or fraud within the four"year period provided )y
law. +hus, they have lost )oth their ri*ht to file an action for annul(ent or to set up
such nullity of the deed of sale as a defense in an action to enforce the sa(e,
0&71
which
was the case filed )y petitioner. 3i4ewise, respondents failed to assi*n the (atter of
(ista4e or fraud as an error )efore the Court of Appeals.

Anent the KinconsistenciesL in the deed of sale, suffice it to say that they are
really not inconsistencies )ut rather trivial flaws appearin* in the ac4nowled*(ent, and
not in the )ody of the deed itself which contains the operative provisions. Moreover,
there is no alle*ation that the si*natures appearin* in the deed were for*ed or falsified.

All told, respondents were una)le to overco(e the presu(ption of validity of the
deed of a)solute sale as well as the re*ularity in its e6ecution.

Bith the issue of the deed of sale8s validity already settled, the Euestion of
prescription of action )eco(es easy to resolve. Be note that the Court of Appeals ruled
that petitioner8s cause of action has prescri)ed followin* its conclusion that petitioner8s
action is actually one for specific perfor(ance, not partition. ,nterestin*ly, petitioner,
after havin* triu(phed in the trial court with his action for partition, suddenly chan*ed
tac4 and declared that his ori*inal action was indeed an action for specific
perfor(ance. Fe should not have *one that far and e6ecuted an apparent so(ersault.
,n li*ht of the facts which i(pelled petitioner to see4 5udicial relief, there is no discerni)le
chan*e in the ulti(ate relief he see4s, as his co(plaint for partition is also an action for
specific perfor(ance. Fis o)5ective is to (a4e /ederico honor their contract and
perfor( his o)li*ation to deliver a separate title coverin* the lot he sold to hi( )ut which
can )e done only after the portion is se*re*ated fro( the rest of /ederico8s property.
0&.1


9etitioner8s action )efore the trial court was properly captioned as one for
partition )ecause there are sufficient alle*ations in the co(plaint that he is a co"owner
of the property. +he re*i(e of co"ownership e6ists when ownership of an undivided
thin* or ri*ht )elon*s to different persons.
0&'1
:y the nature of a co"ownership, a co"
owner cannot point to a specific portion of the property owned in co((on as his own
)ecause his share therein re(ains intan*i)le.
0&-1
+he pertinent portion of the deed
reads@

2. +hat for and in consideration of the su( of 2i6
+housand 97,000.00!, 9esos, 9hilippine Currency, paid unto the
$D%D?R )y the $D%DDD, the $D%D?R here)y 2D332, +RA%2/DR2,
CDDD2, and C?%$DO unto the $D%DDD, his heirs, successors or assi*ns
an 1!(-(!'! ?%D"/?JR+F 1G4! portion 50 sEuare (eters, (ore or
less, in the particular portion of the lot where the house of the $D%DDD
now stands! of the a)ove"descri)ed residential lot to*ether with all
i(prove(ents thereon free fro( all liens and encu()rances.
0401
D(phasis
supplied!

+he description Kundivided ?%D"/?JR+F 1G4! portion 50 sEuare (eters, (ore
or less, in the particular portion of the lot where the house of the $D%DDD now
stands!L shows that the portion sold is still undivided and not sufficiently identified.
Bhile the description
provides a *uide for identifyin* the location of the lot sold, there was no indication of its
e6act (etes and )ounds. +his is the reason why petitioner was constrained to cause
the survey of the property.
0411
As a co"owner of the property, therefore, petitioner has the
ri*ht to de(and partition, a ri*ht which does not prescri)e.
0421


?wnership of the thin* sold is acEuired only fro( the ti(e of delivery thereof,
either actual or constructive. Article 14-' of the Civil Code provides that when the sale
is (ade throu*h a pu)lic instru(ent, the e6ecution thereof shall )e eEuivalent to the
delivery of the thin* which is the o)5ect of the contract, if fro( the deed the contrary
does not appear or cannot )e inferred.
04&1
+he Court notes that /ederico had already
delivered the portion he sold to petitioner, su)5ect of course to the e6ecution of a
technical survey, when he e6ecuted the deed of a)solute sale, which is a pu)lic
instru(ent.
0441
,n view of the delivery in law, coupled with petitioner8s actual occupation
of the portion where his house stands, all that is needed is its se*re*ation fro( the rest
of the property.

BFDRD/?RD, the petition is #RA%+DD. +he challen*ed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29 %o. '2742 are 2D+ A2,DD, and the
Decision of the Re*ional +rial Court of IueCon City, :ranch -' is RD,%2+A+DD.

2? ?RDDRDD.
LEONOR B. CR#",
9etitioner,



" versus "




TEO$ILA M. CATAPANG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 162110

9resent@

IJ,2JM:,%#, J., Chairperson,
CAR9,?,
CAR9,? M?RA3D2,
+,%#A, and
$D3A2C?, <R., JJ.

9ro(ul*ated@

/e)ruary 12, 200'
34 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43
,ECISION
5#IS#MBING, J.:
+his petition for review see4s the reversal of the Decision
617
dated 2epte()er 17,
200& and the Resolution
627
dated <une 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29
%o. 7-250. +he Court of Appeals reversed the Decision
637
dated ?cto)er 22, 2001 of the
Re*ional +rial Court R+C!, :ranch '7, +aal, :atan*as, which had earlier affir(ed the
Decision
627
dated 2epte()er 20, 1--- of the .
th
Municipal Circuit +rial Court MC+C! of
+aal, :atan*as orderin* respondent to vacate and deliver possession of a portion of the
lot co"owned )y petitioner, 3uC CruC and %or(a Mali*aya.
+he antecedent facts of the case are as follows.
9etitioner 3eonor :. CruC, 3uC CruC and %or(a Mali*aya are the co"owners of a
parcel of land coverin* an area of 1,4&5 sEuare (eters located at :aran*ay Maha)an*
3udlod, +aal, :atan*as.
657
Bith the consent of %or(a Mali*aya, one of the
afore(entioned co"owners, respondent +eofila M. Catapan* )uilt a house on a lot
ad5acent to the a)ove(entioned parcel of land so(eti(e in 1--2. +he house intruded,
however, on a portion of the co"owned property.
667
,n the first wee4 of 2epte()er 1--5, petitioner 3eonor :. CruC visited the
property and was surprised to see a part of respondent8s house intrudin* unto a portion
of the co"owned property. 2he then (ade several de(ands upon respondent to
de(olish the intrudin* structure and to vacate the portion encroachin* on their
property. +he respondent, however, refused and disre*arded her de(ands.
687

?n <anuary 25, 1--7, the petitioner filed a co(plaint
697
for forci)le entry a*ainst
respondent )efore the .
th
MC+C of +aal, :atan*as. +he MC+C decided in favor of
petitioner, rulin* that consent of only one of the co"owners is not sufficient to 5ustify
defendant8s construction of the house and possession of the portion of the lot in
Euestion.
697
+he dispositive portion of the MC+C decision reads@
BFDRD/?RD, 5ud*(ent is here)y rendered orderin* the
defendant or any person actin* in her )ehalf to vacate and deliver the
possession of the area ille*ally occupied to the plaintiff; orderin* the
defendant to pay plaintiff reasona)le attorney8s fees of 910,000.00, plus
costs of suit.
2? ?RDDRDD.
6107
?n appeal, the R+C, :ranch '7, +aal, :atan*as, affir(ed the MC+C8s rulin* in a
Decision dated ?cto)er 22, 2001, the dispositive portion of which states@
Bherefore, pre(ises considered, the decision 0appealed1 fro( is
here)y affir(ed in toto.
2? ?RDDRDD.
6117
After her (otion for reconsideration was denied )y the R+C, respondent filed a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the R+C8s decision. +he Court
of Appeals held that there is no cause of action for forci)le entry in this case )ecause
respondent8s entry into the property, considerin* the consent *iven )y co"owner %or(a
Mali*aya, cannot )e characteriCed as one (ade throu*h strate*y or stealth which *ives
rise to a cause of action for forci)le entry.
6127
+he Court of Appeals8 decision further held
that petitioner8s re(edy is not an action for e5ect(ent )ut an entirely different recourse with
the appropriate foru(. +he Court of Appeals disposed, thus@
:0ERE$ORE, pre(ises considered, the instant 9etition is
here)y GRANTE,. +he challen*ed Decision dated 22 ?cto)er 2001 as
well as the ?rder dated 0. <anuary 2002 of the Re*ional +rial Court of
+aal, :atan*as, :ranch '7, are here)y REVERSE, and SET ASI,E and,
in lieu thereof, another is entered ,ISMISSING the co(plaint for forci)le
entry doc4eted as Civil Case %o. .1"+.
SO OR,ERE,.
6137
After petitioner8s (otion for reconsideration was denied )y the Court of Appeals
in a Resolution dated <une 11, 2004, she filed the instant petition.
Raised )efore us for consideration are the followin* issues@
,. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD P%?B3DD#D A%D C?%2D%+ ?/ C?"
?B%DR %?RMA MA3,#AOA ,2 A $A3,D 3,CD%2D /?R +FD RD29?%DD%+
+? DRDC+ +FD :J%#A3?B F?J2D ?% +FD 9RDM,2D2 ?B%DD 9R?"
,%D,$,2? 2A%2 C?%2D%+ /R?M +FD 9D+,+,?%DR A%D ?+FD0R1 C?"
?B%DR0.1
II. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ RD29?%DD%+, :O FDR AC+2, FA2 ACIJ,RDD
DQC3J2,$D ?B%DR2F,9 ?$DR +FD 9?R+,?% ?/ +FD 3?+ 2J:<DC+ ?/
+FD 9RDM,2D2 9JR2JA%+ +? +FD C?%2D%+ #RA%+DD J%+? FDR :O C?"
?B%DR %?RMA MA3,#AOA +? +FD DQC3J2,?% ?/ +FD 9D+,+,?%DR A%D
+FD ?+FDR C?"?B%DR.
6127
III. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ RD29?%DD%+ ,% /AC+ ?:+A,%DD 9?22D22,?%
?/ +FD 9R?9DR+O ,% IJD2+,?% :O MDA%2 ?/ 2,M93D 2+RA+D#O.
6157
9etitioner prays in her petition that we effectively reverse the Court of Appeals8
decision.
2i(ply put, the (ain issue )efore us is whether consent *iven )y a co"owner of a
parcel of land to a person to construct a house on the co"owned property warrants the
dis(issal of a forci)le entry case filed )y another co"owner a*ainst that person.
,n her (e(orandu(,
6167
petitioner contends that the consent and 4nowled*e
of co"owner %or(a Mali*aya cannot defeat the action for forci)le entry since it is a
)asic principle in the law of co"ownership that no individual co"owner can clai( title to
any definite portion of the land or thin* owned in co((on until partition.
?n the other hand, respondent in her (e(orandu(
6187
counters that the co(plaint
for forci)le entry cannot prosper )ecause her entry into the property was not throu*h
strate*y or stealth due to the consent of one of the co"owners. 2he further ar*ues that
since %or(a Mali*aya is residin* in the house she )uilt, the issue is not 5ust possession
de facto )ut also one of possession de jure since it involves ri*hts of co"owners to en5oy
the property.
As to the issue of whether or not the consent of one co"owner will warrant the
dis(issal of a forci)le entry case filed )y another co"owner a*ainst the person who was
*iven the consent to construct a house on the co"owned property, we have held that a
co"owner cannot devote co((on property to his or her e6clusive use to the pre5udice of
the co"ownership.
6197
,n our view, a co"owner cannot *ive valid consent to another to
)uild a house on the co"owned property, which is an act tanta(ount to devotin* the
property to his or her e6clusive use.
/urther(ore, Articles 4'7 and 4-1 of the Civil Code provide@
Art. 4'7. Dach co"owner (ay use the thin* owned in co((on,
provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended
and in such a way as not to in5ure the interest of the co"ownership or
prevent the other co"owners fro( usin* it accordin* to their ri*hts. +he
purpose of the co"ownership (ay )e chan*ed )y a*ree(ent, e6press or
i(plied.
Art. 4-1. %one of the co"owners shall, without the consent of the
others, (a4e alterations in the thin* owned in co((on, even thou*h
)enefits for all would result therefro(. Fowever, if the withholdin* of the
consent )y one or (ore of the co"owners is clearly pre5udicial to the
co((on interest, the courts (ay afford adeEuate relief.
Article 4'7 states each co"owner (ay use the thin* owned in co((on provided
he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as
not to in5ure the interest of the co"ownership or prevent the other co"owners fro( usin*
it accordin* to their ri*hts. #ivin* consent to a third person to construct a house on the
co"owned property will in5ure the interest of the co"ownership and prevent other co"
owners fro( usin* the property in accordance with their ri*hts.
Jnder Article 4-1, none of the co"owners shall, without the consent of the others,
(a4e alterations in the thin* owned in co((on. ,t necessarily follows that none of the co"
owners can, without the consent of the other co"owners, validly consent to the (a4in* of an
alteration )y another person, such as respondent, in the thin* owned in co((on.
Alterations include any act of strict do(inion or ownership and any encu()rance or
disposition has )een held i(plicitly to )e an act of alteration.
6197
+he construction of a
house on the co"owned property is an act of do(inion. +herefore, it is an alteration fallin*
under Article 4-1 of the Civil Code. +here )ein* no consent fro( all co"owners,
respondent had no ri*ht to construct her house on the co"owned property.
Consent of only one co"owner will not warrant the dis(issal of the co(plaint for
forci)le entry filed a*ainst the )uilder. +he consent *iven )y %or(a Mali*aya in the
a)sence of the consent of petitioner and 3uC CruC did not vest upon respondent any ri*ht to
enter into the co"owned property. Fer entry into the property still falls under the
classification Kthrou*h strate*y or stealth.L
+he Court of Appeals held that there is no forci)le entry )ecause respondent8s
entry into the property was not throu*h strate*y or stealth due to the consent *iven to
her )y one of the co"owners. Be cannot *ive our i(pri(atur to this sweepin*
conclusion. Respondent8s entry into the property without the per(ission of petitioner
could appear to )e a secret and clandestine act done in connivance with co"owner
%or(a Mali*aya who( respondent allowed to stay in her house. Dntry into the land
effected clandestinely without the 4nowled*e of the other co"owners could )e
cate*oriCed as possession )y stealth.
6207
Moreover, respondent8s act of *ettin* only the
consent of one co"owner, her sister %or(a Mali*aya, and allowin* the latter to stay in
the constructed house, can in fact )e considered as a strate*y which she utiliCed in
order to enter into the co"owned property. As such, respondent8s acts constitute forci)le
entry.
9etitioner8s filin* of a co(plaint for forci)le entry, in our view, was within the one"year
period for filin* the co(plaint. +he one"year period within which to )rin* an action for
forci)le entry is *enerally counted fro( the date of actual entry to the land. Fowever, when
entry is (ade throu*h stealth, then the one"year period is counted fro( the ti(e the
petitioner learned a)out it.
6217
Althou*h respondent constructed her house in 1--2, it was
only in 2epte()er 1--5 that petitioner learned of it when she visited the
property. Accordin*ly, she then (ade de(ands on respondent to vacate the
pre(ises. /ailin* to *et a favora)le response, petitioner filed the co(plaint on <anuary 25,
1--7, which is within the one"year period fro( the ti(e petitioner learned of the
construction.
:0ERE$ORE, the petition is GRANTE,. +he Decision dated 2epte()er 17,
200& and the Resolution dated <une 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29
%o. 7-250 are REVERSE, and SET ASI,E. +he Decision dated ?cto)er 22, 2001 of
the Re*ional +rial Court, :ranch '7, +aal, :atan*as is REINSTATE,. Costs a*ainst
respondent.
SO OR,ERE,.


G.R. No. 163822 $';r1ar< 29, 2009
METROPOLITAN BAN= AN, TR#ST CO.
vs. NIC0OLSON PASC#AL a.>.a. NELSON PASC#AL
, E C I S I O N
VELASCO, ?R., J.@
Respondent %icholson 9ascual and /lorencia %eval*a were (arried on <anuary 1-,
1-'5. Durin* the union, /lorencia )ou*ht fro( spouses Clarito and :elen 2erin* a 250"
sEuare (eter lot with a three"door apart(ent standin* thereon located in Ma4ati City.
2u)seEuently, +ransfer Certificate of +itle +C+! %o. 2"1014.&G+"510 coverin* the
purchased lot was canceled and, in lieu thereof, +C+ %o. 1572'&
1
of the Re*istry of
Deeds of Ma4ati City was issued in the na(e of /lorencia, A(arried to %elson 9ascualA
a.4.a. %icholson 9ascual.
,n 1--4, /lorencia filed a suit for the declaration of nullity of (arria*e under Article &7 of
the /a(ily Code, doc4eted as Civil Case %o. I"-5"2&5&&. After trial, the Re*ional +rial
Court R+C!, :ranch -4 in IueCon City rendered, on <uly &1, 1--5, a
Decision,
2
declarin* the (arria*e of %icholson and /lorencia null and void on the
*round of psycholo*ical incapacity on the part of %icholson. ,n the sa(e decision, the
R+C, inter alia, ordered the dissolution and liEuidation of the e6"spouses8 con5u*al
partnership of *ains. 2u)seEuent events saw the couple *oin* their separate ways
without liEuidatin* their con5u*al partnership.
?n April &0, 1--., /lorencia, to*ether with spouses %or)erto and Dlvira ?liveros,
o)tained a 9h9 5' (illion loan fro( petitioner Metropolitan :an4 and +rust Co.
Metro)an4!. +o secure the o)li*ation, /lorencia and the spouses ?liveros e6ecuted
several real estate (ort*a*es RDMs! on their properties, includin* one involvin* the lot
covered )y +C+ %o. 1572'&. A(on* the docu(ents /lorencia su)(itted to procure the
loan were a copy of +C+ %o. 1572'&, a photocopy of the (arria*e"nullifyin* R+C
decision, and a docu(ent deno(inated as ABaiverA that %icholson purportedly
e6ecuted on April -, 1--5. +he waiver, (ade in favor of /lorencia, covered the con5u*al
properties of the e6"spouses listed therein, )ut did not incidentally include the lot in
Euestion.
Due to the failure of /lorencia and the spouses ?liveros to pay their loan o)li*ation
when it fell due, Metro)an4, on %ove()er 2-, 1---, initiated foreclosure proceedin*s
under Act %o. &1&5, as a(ended, )efore the ?ffice of the %otary 9u)lic of Ma4ati City.
2u)seEuently, Metro)an4 caused the pu)lication of the notice of sale on three issues
of Remate.
&
At the auction sale on <anuary 21, 2000, Metro)an4 e(er*ed as the
hi*hest )idder.
#ettin* wind of the foreclosure proceedin*s, %icholson filed on <une 2', 2000, )efore
the R+C in Ma4ati City, a Co(plaint to declare the nullity of the (ort*a*e of the
disputed property, doc4eted as Civil Case %o. 00".'- and eventually raffled to :ranch
75 of the court. ,n it, %icholson alle*ed that the property, which is still con5u*al property,
was (ort*a*ed without his consent.
Metro)an4, in its Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim,
4
alle*ed that the disputed
lot, )ein* re*istered in /lorencia8s na(e, was paraphernal. Metro)an4 also asserted
havin* approved the (ort*a*e in *ood faith.
/lorencia did not file an answer within the re*le(entary period and, hence, was
su)seEuently declared in default.
Th' RTC ,'c)ar'! +h' REM I-a)(!
After trial on the (erits, the R+C rendered, on 2epte()er 24, 2001, 5ud*(ent findin* for
%icholson. +he falloreads@
9RDM,2D2 C?%2,DDRDD, the Court renders 5ud*(ent declarin* the real estate
(ort*a*e on the property covered )y 0+C+1 %o. 1572'& of the Re*istry of Deeds
for the City of Ma4ati as well as all proceedin*s thereon null and void.
+he Court further orders defendants 0Metro)an4 and /lorencia1 5ointly and
severally to pay plaintiff 0%icholson1@
1. 9h9100,000.00 )y way of (oral da(a*es;
2. 9h9.5,000.00 )y way of attorney8s fees; and
&. +he costs.
2? ?RDDRDD.
5
Dven as it declared the invalidity of the (ort*a*e, the trial court found the said lot to )e
con5u*al, the sa(e havin* )een acEuired durin* the e6istence of the (arria*e of
%icholson and /lorencia. ,n so rulin*, the R+C invo4ed Art. 117 of the /a(ily Code,
providin* that Aall property acEuired durin* the (arria*e, whether the acEuisition
appears to have )een (ade, contracted or re*istered in the na(e of one or )oth
spouses, is presu(ed to )e con5u*al unless the contrary is proved.A +o the trial court,
Metro)an4 had not overco(e the presu(ptive con5u*al nature of the lot. And )ein*
con5u*al, the R+C concluded that the disputed property (ay not )e validly encu()ered
)y /lorencia without %icholson8s consent.
+he R+C also found the deed of waiver /lorencia su)(itted to Metro)an4 to )e fatally
defective. /or let alone the fact that %icholson denied e6ecutin* the sa(e and that the
si*nature of the notariCin* officer was a for*ery, the waiver docu(ent was alle*edly
e6ecuted on April -, 1--5 or a little over three (onths )efore the issuance of the R+C
decision declarin* the nullity of (arria*e )etween %icholson and /lorencia.
+he trial court also declared Metro)an4 as a (ort*a*ee in )ad faith on account of
ne*li*ence, statin* the o)servation that certain data appeared in the supportin* contract
docu(ents, which, if properly scrutiniCed, would have put the )an4 on *uard a*ainst
approvin* the (ort*a*e. A(on* the data referred to was the date of e6ecution of the
deed of waiver.
+he R+C dis(issed Metro)an48s counterclai( and cross"clai( a*ainst the e6"spouses.
Metro)an48s (otion for reconsideration was denied. Jndeterred, Metro)an4 appealed to
the Court of Appeals CA!, the appeal doc4eted as CA"#.R. C$ %o. .4'.4.
Th' CA AAA(r*'! B(+h Mo!(A(ca+(o +h' RTCC. ,'c(.(o
?n <anuary 2', 2004, the CA rendered a Decision affir(atory of that of the R+C, e6cept
for the award therein of (oral da(a*es and attorney8s fees which the CA ordered
deleted. +he dispositive portion of the CA8s Decision reads@
BFDRD/?RD, pre(ises considered, the appealed decision is here)y
A//,RMDD B,+F M?D,/,CA+,?% with respect to the award of (oral da(a*es
and attorney8s fees which is here)y DD3D+DD.
2? ?RDDRDD.
7
3i4e the R+C earlier held, the CA ruled that Metro)an4 failed to overthrow the
presu(ption esta)lished in Art. 117 of the /a(ily Code. And also decreed as *oin*
a*ainst Metro)an4 was /lorencia8s failure to co(ply with the prescriptions of the
succeedin* Art. 124 of the Code on the disposition of con5u*al partnership property. Art.
124 states@
Art. 124. +he ad(inistration and en5oy(ent of the con5u*al partnership property
shall )elon* to )oth spouses 5ointly. ,n case of disa*ree(ent, the hus)and8s
decision shall prevail, su)5ect to recourse to the court )y the wife for proper
re(edy 6 6 6.
,n the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise una)le to participate in
the ad(inistration of the con5u*al properties, the other spouse (ay assu(e sole
powers of ad(inistration. +hese powers do not include disposition or
encu()rance without authority of the court or written consent of the other
spouse. ,n the a)sence of such authority or consent, the disposition or
encu()rance shall )e void. Fowever, the transaction shall )e construed as a
continuin* offer on the part of the consentin* spouse and the third person, and
(ay )e perfected as a )indin* contract upon the acceptance )y the other spouse
or authoriCation )y the court )efore the offer is withdrawn )y either or )oth
offerors.
As to the deletion of the award of (oral da(a*es and attorney8s fees, the CA, in *ist,
held that Metro)an4 did not enter into the (ort*a*e contract out of ill"will or for so(e
fraudulent purpose, (oral o)liEuity, or li4e dishonest considerations as to 5ustify
da(a*es.
Metro)an4 (oved )ut was denied reconsideration )y the CA.
+hus, Metro)an4 filed this 9etition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raisin* the
followin* issues for consideration@
a. Bhether or not the 0CA1 erred in declarin* su)5ect property as con5u*al )y
applyin* Article 117 of the /a(ily Code.
). Bhether or not the 0CA1 erred in not holdin* that the declaration of nullity of
(arria*e )etween the respondent %icholson 9ascual and /lorencia %eval*a ipso
facto dissolved the re*i(e of co((unity of property of the spouses.
c. Bhether or not the 0CA1 erred in rulin* that the petitioner is an innocent
purchaser for value.
.
O1r R1)(D
A (odification of the CA8s Decision is in order.
Th' ,(.&1+'! Pro&'r+< (. CoE1Da)
,t is Metro)an48s threshold posture that Art. 170 of the Civil Code providin* that A0a1ll
property of the (arria*e is presu(ed to )elon* to the con5u*al partnership, unless it )e
prove0n1 that it pertains e6clusively to the hus)and or to the wife,A applies. +o
Metro)an4, Art. 117 of the /a(ily Code could not )e of *overnin* application inas(uch
as %icholson and /lorencia contracted (arria*e )efore the effectivity of the /a(ily
Code on Au*ust &, 1-''. Citin*anon!son! v. "stimo,
'
Metro)an4 asserts that the
presu(ption of con5u*al ownership under Art. 170 of the Civil Code applies when there
is proof that the property was acEuired durin* the (arria*e. Metro)an4 adds, however,
that for the presu(ption of con5u*al ownership to operate, evidence (ust )e adduced to
prove that not only was the property acEuired durin* the (arria*e )ut that con5u*al
funds were used for the acEuisition, a )urden %icholson alle*edly failed to dischar*e.
+o )olster its thesis on the paraphernal nature of the disputed property, Metro)an4
cites #rancisco v. Court of Appeals
-
and Jocson v. Court of Appeals,
10
a(on* other
cases, where this Court held that a property re*istered in the na(e of a certain person
with a description of )ein* (arried is no proof that the property was acEuired durin* the
spouses8 (arria*e.
?n the other hand, %icholson, )an4in* on $e %eon v. Rehabilitation #inance
Corporation
11
and &on! v. 'AC,
12
contends that Metro)an4 failed to overco(e the le*al
presu(ption that the disputed property is con5u*al. Fe asserts that Metro)an48s
ar*u(ents on the (atter of presu(ption are (isleadin* as only one postulate needs to
)e shown for the presu(ption in favor of con5u*al ownership to arise, that is, the fact of
acEuisition durin* (arria*e. %icholson dis(isses, as
inapplica)le, #rancisco and Jocson, notin* that they are relevant only when there is no
indication as to the e6act date of acEuisition of the property alle*ed to )e con5u*al.
As a final point, %icholson invites attention to the fact that Metro)an4 had virtually
reco*niCed the con5u*al nature of the property in at least three instances. +he first was
when the )an4 lu(ped hi( with /lorencia in Civil Case %o. 00".'- as co"(ort*a*ors
and when they were referred to as AspousesA in the petition for e6tra5udicial foreclosure
of (ort*a*e. +hen ca(e the pu)lished notice of foreclosure sale where %icholson was
a*ain desi*nated as co"(ort*a*or. And third, in its de(and"letter
1&
to vacate the
disputed lot, Metro)an4 addressed %icholson and /lorencia as Aspouses,A al)eit the
finality of the decree of nullity of (arria*e )etween the( had lon* set in.
Be find for %icholson.
#irst, while Metro)an4 is correct in sayin* that Art. 170 of the Civil Code, not Art. 117 of
the /a(ily Code, is the applica)le le*al provision since the property was acEuired prior
to the enact(ent of the /a(ily Code, it errs in its theory that, )efore con5u*al ownership
could )e le*ally presu(ed, there (ust )e a showin* that the property was acEuired
durin* (arria*e 1.(D coE1Da) A1!.. Contrary to Metro)an48s su)(ission, the Court
did not, inanon!son!,
14
add the (atter of the use of con5u*al funds as an essential
reEuire(ent for the presu(ption of con5u*al ownership to arise. %icholson is correct in
pointin* out that only proof of acEuisition durin* the (arria*e is needed to raise the
presu(ption that the property is con5u*al. ,ndeed, if proof on the use of con5u*al is still
reEuired as a necessary condition )efore the presu(ption can arise, then the le*al
presu(ption set forth in the law would verita)ly )e a superfluity. As we stressed
in Castro v. iat@
9etitioners also overloo4 Article 170 of the %ew Civil Code. ,t provides that Aall
property of the (arria*e is presu(ed to )e con5u*al partnership, unless it )e
prove0n1 that it pertains e6clusively to the hus)and or to the wife.A +his
article !o'. o+ r'F1(r' &rooA +ha+ +h' &ro&'r+< Ba. acF1(r'! B(+h A1!. oA
+h' &ar+'r.h(&. +he presu(ption applies even when the (anner in which the
property was acEuired does not appear.
15
D(phasis supplied.!
(econd, #rancisco and Jocson do not reinforce Metro)an48s theory. Metro)an4 would
thrust on the Court, invo4in* the two cases, the ar*u(ent that the re*istration of the
property in the na(e of A/lorencia %eval*a, (arried to %elson 9ascualA operates to
descri)e only the (arital status of the title holder, )ut not as proof that the property was
acEuired durin* the e6istence of the (arria*e.
Metro)an4 is wron*. As %icholson aptly points out, if proof o)tains on the acEuisition of
the property durin* the e6istence of the (arria*e, then the presu(ption of con5u*al
ownership applies. +he correct lesson of #ranciscoand Jocson is that proof of
acEuisition durin* the (arital coverture is a condition sine )ua non for the operation of
the presu(ption in favor of con5u*al ownership. Bhen there is no showin* as to when
the property was acEuired )y the spouse, the fact that a title is in the na(e of the
spouse is an indication that the property )elon*s e6clusively to said spouse.
17
+he Court, to )e sure, has ta4en stoc4 of %icholson8s ar*u(ents re*ardin* Metro)an4
havin* i(plicitly ac4nowled*ed, thus )ein* in virtual estoppel to Euestion, the con5u*al
ownership of the disputed lot, the )an4 havin* na(ed the for(er in the foreclosure
proceedin*s )elow as either the spouse of /lorencia or her co"(ort*a*or. ,t is felt,
however, that there is no co(pellin* reason to delve into the (atter of estoppel, the
sa(e havin* )een raised only for the first ti(e in this petition. :esides, however
%icholson was desi*nated )elow does not really chan*e, one way or another, the
classification of the lot in Euestion.
T'r*(a+(o oA CoE1Da) Pro&'r+< R'D(*' !o'.
o+ ipso facto E! +h' Na+1r' oA CoE1Da) OB'r.h(&
Metro)an4 ne6t (aintains that, contrary to the CA8s holdin*, Art. 12- of the /a(ily Code
is inapplica)le. Art. 12- in part reads@
Art. 12-. Jpon the dissolution of the con5u*al partnership re*i(e, the followin*
procedure shall apply@
6 6 6 6
.! +he net re(ainder of the con5u*al partnership properties shall constitute the
profits, which shall )e divided eEually )etween hus)and and wife, unless a
different proportion or division was a*reed upon in the (arria*e settle(ents or
unless there has )een a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided
in this Code.
Apropos the aforeEuoted provision, Metro)an4 asserts that the waiver e6ecuted
)y %icholson, effected as it were )efore the dissolution of the con5u*al property
re*i(e, vested on /lorencia full ownership of all the properties acEuired durin*
the (arria*e.
%icholson counters that the (ere declaration of nullity of (arria*e, without (ore, does
not auto(atically result in a re*i(e of co(plete separation when it is shown that there
was no liEuidation of the con5u*al assets.
Be a*ain find for %icholson.
Bhile the declared nullity of (arria*e of %icholson and /lorencia severed their (arital
)ond and dissolved the con5u*al partnership, the character of the properties acEuired
)efore such declaration continues to su)sist as con5u*al properties until and after the
liEuidation and partition of the partnership. +his conclusion holds true whether we apply
Art. 12- of the /a(ily Code on liEuidation of the con5u*al partnership8s assets and
lia)ilities which is *enerally prospective in application, or 2ection ., Chapter 4, +itle ,$,
:oo4 , Arts. 1.- to 1'5! of the Civil Code on the su)5ect, Con5u*al 9artnership of
#ains. /or, the relevant provisions of )oth Codes first reEuire the liEuidation of the
con5u*al properties )efore a re*i(e of separation of property rei*ns.
,n $ael v. 'ntermediate Appellate Court, we ruled that pendin* its liEuidation followin* its
dissolution, the con5u*al partnership of *ains is converted into an i(plied ordinary co"
ownership a(on* the survivin* spouse and the other heirs of the deceased.
1.
,n this pre"liEuidation scenario, Art. 4-& of the Civil Code shall *overn the property
relationship )etween the for(er spouses, where@
Dach co"owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and
)enefits pertainin* thereto, and he (ay therefore alienate, assi*n or (ort*a*e it,
and even su)stitute another person in its en5oy(ent, e6cept when personal ri*hts
are involved. B1+ +h' 'AA'c+ oA +h' a)('a+(o or +h' *or+DaD', B(+h r'.&'c+ +o
+h' co4oB'r., .ha)) ;' )(*(+'! +o +h' &or+(o Bh(ch *a< ;' a))o++'! +o h(*
( +h' !(-(.(o 1&o +h' +'r*(a+(o oA +h' co4oB'r.h(&. D(phasis
supplied.!
,n the case at )ar, /lorencia constituted the (ort*a*e on the disputed lot on April &0,
1--., or a little less than two years after the dissolution of the con5u*al partnership on
<uly &1, 1--5, )ut )efore the liEuidation of the partnership. :e that as it (ay, what
*overned the property relations of the for(er spouses when the (ort*a*e was *iven is
the aforeEuoted Art. 4-&. Jnder it, /lorencia has the ri*ht to (ort*a*e or even sell her
one"half 1G2! undivided interest in the disputed property even without the consent of
%icholson. Fowever, the ri*hts of Metro)an4, as (ort*a*ee, are li(ited only to the 1G2
undivided portion that /lorencia owned. Accordin*ly, the (ort*a*e contract insofar as it
covered the re(ainin* 1G2 undivided portion of the lot is null and void, %icholson not
havin* consented to the (ort*a*e of his undivided half.
+he conclusion would have, however, )een different if %icholson indeed duly waived his
share in the con5u*al partnership. :ut, as found )y the courts a )uo, the April -, 1--5
deed of waiver alle*edly e6ecuted )y %icholson three (onths prior to the dissolution of
the (arria*e and the con5u*al partnership of *ains on <uly &1, 1--5 )ore his for*ed
si*nature, not to (ention that of the notariCin* officer. A spurious deed of waiver does
not transfer any ri*ht at all, al)eit it (ay )eco(e the root of a valid title in the hands of
an innocent )uyer for value.
Jpon the fore*oin* perspective, Metro)an48s ri*ht, as (ort*a*ee and as the successful
)idder at the auction of the lot, is confined only to the 1G2 undivided portion thereof
heretofore pertainin* in ownership to /lorencia. +he other undivided half )elon*s to
%icholson. As owner pro indiviso of a portion of the lot in Euestion, Metro)an4 (ay as4
for the partition of the lot and its property ri*hts Ashall )e li(ited to the portion which
(ay )e allotted to 0the )an41 in the division upon the ter(ination of the co"
ownership.A
1'
+his disposition is in line with the well"esta)lished principle that the
)indin* force of a contract (ust )e reco*niCed as far as it is le*ally possi)le to do so>>
)uando res non valet ut a!o, valeat )uantum valere potest.
1-
,n view of our resolution on the validity of the auction of the lot in favor of Metro)an4,
there is hardly a need to discuss at len*th whether or not Metro)an4 was a (ort*a*ee
in *ood faith. 2uffice it to state for the nonce that where the (ort*a*ee is a )an4in*
institution, the *eneral rule that a purchaser or (ort*a*ee of the land need not loo4
)eyond the four corners of the title is inapplica)le.
20
Jnli4e private individuals, it
)ehooves )an4s to e6ercise *reater care and due dili*ence )efore enterin* into a
(ort*a*e contract. +he ascertain(ent of the status or condition of the property offered
as security and the validity of the (ort*a*or8s title (ust )e standard and indispensa)le
part of the )an48s operation.
21
A )an4 that failed to o)serve due dili*ence cannot )e
accorded the status of a bona fide (ort*a*ee,
22
as here.
:ut as found )y the CA, however, Metro)an48s failure to co(ply with the due dili*ence
reEuire(ent was not the result of a dishonest purpose, so(e (oral o)liEuity or )reach
of a 4nown duty for so(e interest or ill"will that parta4es of fraud that would 5ustify
da(a*es.
:0ERE$ORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTE,. +he appealed Decision of the CA
dated <anuary 2', 2004, upholdin* with (odification the Decision of the R+C, :ranch
75 in Ma4ati City, in Civil Case %o. 00".'-, isA$$IRME, with the MO,I$ICATION that
the RDM over the lot covered )y +C+ %o. 1572'& of the Re*istry of Deeds of Ma4ati
City is here)y declared valid only insofar as the pro indiviso share of /lorencia thereon
is concerned.
As (odified, the Decision of the R+C shall read@
PREMISES CONSI,ERE,, the real estate (ort*a*e on the property covered )y +C+
%o. 1572'& of the Re*istry of Deeds of Ma4ati City and all proceedin*s thereon
are N#LL and VOI, with respect to the undivided 1G2 portion of the disputed property
owned )y %icholson, )ut VALI, with respect to the other undivided 1G2 portion
)elon*in* to /lorencia.
+he clai(s of %icholson for (oral da(a*es and attorney8s fees are ,ENIE, for lac4 of
(erit.
%o pronounce(ent as to costs.
SO OR,ERE,.
?OA5#IN 5#IMPO, SR., .1;.+(+1+'!
;< 0'(r. oA ?oaF1( 51(*&o, Sr.,
9etitioners,



" versus "



CONS#ELO ABA, V,A. ,E
BELTRAN, IRENEO ABA,,
,ANILO ABA,, MARITES
ABA,, ANITA a! 0ELEN ABA,,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 160956

9resent@

O%ARD2"2A%+,A#?, J.,
Chairperson,
AJ2+R,A"MAR+,%DR,
C?R?%A,
S
%ACFJRA, and
RDOD2, JJ.


9ro(ul*ated@

/e)ruary 1&, 200'
6"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""6
RESOL#TION
NAC0#RA, J.@
+his 9etition for Review on Certiorari assails the <uly 22, 200& Decision
011
of the
Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. C$ %o. 571'., and the ?cto)er 17, 200& Resolution
denyin* the (otion for its reconsideration.
DustaEuia 9erfecto"A)ad DustaEuia! was the owner of several parcels of land in #oa,
Ca(arines 2ur, descri)ed as follows@
9arcel , " Residential land situated at A)ucayan, #oa, Ca(arines 2ur coverin* an area
of 7'4 sEuare"(eters;

9arcel ,, > Coconut land situated at A)ucayan, #oa, Ca(arines 2ur
coverin* an area of 4.&.&1 hectares;
9arcel ,,, > Residential land situated at 2an <ose 2treet, #oa, Ca(arines
2ur coverin* an area of 1,&-5 sEuare (eters; and
9arcel ,$ > A)aca and coconut land situated at A)ucayan, #oa,
Ca(arines 2ur coverin* an area 42.712. hectares.
021

DustaEuia died intestate in 1-4' leavin* these parcels of land to her *randchild
and *reat *randchildren, na(ely, <oaEuin Iui(po and respondents Consuelo, ,reneo,
Danilo, Marites, Anita and Felen, all surna(ed A)ad.
,n 1-77, <oaEuin and respondents undertoo4 an oral partition of parcel ,,, 2an
<ose property! and parcel ,$. Falf of the properties was *iven to <oaEuin and the other
half to the respondents. Fowever, no docu(ent of partition was e6ecuted, )ecause
<oaEuin refused to e6ecute a deed. Consuelo and ,reneo occupied their respective
shares in the2an <ose property, and installed several tenants over their share in parcel
,$. <oaEuin, on the other hand, )eca(e the ad(inistrator of the re(ainin* undivided
properties and of the shares of respondents Danilo, Marites, Anita and Felen, who were
still (inors at that ti(e.
,n 1-'-, Danilo, Marites, Anita and Felen wanted to ta4e possession of the portions
allotted to the(, )ut <oaEuin prevented the( fro( occupyin* the sa(e. <oaEuin also
refused to heed respondents8 de(and for partition of parcels , and ,,, pro(ptin*
respondents to file a co(plaint for 5udicial partition andGor recovery of possession with
accountin* and da(a*es with the Re*ional +rial Court R+C! of Ca(arines 2ur.
0&1
<oaEuin denied the (aterial alle*ations in the co(plaint, and averred, as his
special and affir(ative defenses, lac4 of cause of action and prescription. Fe asserted
a)solute ownership over parcels ,,, and ,$, clai(in* that he purchased these lands fro(
DustaEuia in 1-47, evidenced )y deeds of sale e6ecuted on Au*ust 2&,
1-47 and Dece()er 2, 1-47. Fe, li4ewise, clai(ed continuous, peaceful and adverse
possession of these lots since 1-47, and alle*ed that Consuelo8s occupation of the
portion of the 2an <ose property was )y (ere tolerance.
041
Durin* the pendency of the case, <oaEuin died. Accordin*ly, he was su)stituted
)y his wife, Dstela +ena"Iui(po and his children, na(ely, <ose, Adelia, <oaEuin, Anita,
An*elita, A(elia, Arlene, <oy and Aleli, all surna(ed Iui(po the Iui(pos!.
?n Dece()er 12, 1--7, the R+C rendered a Decision
051
in favor of respondents, declarin* the(
as co"owners of all the properties left )y DustaEuia. ,t re5ected <oaEuin8s clai( of a)solute
ownership over parcels ,,, and ,$, and declared void the purported deeds of sale e6ecuted )y
DustaEuia for lac4 of consideration and consent. +he court found that at the ti(e of the
e6ecution of these deeds, <oaEuin was not *ainfully e(ployed and had no 4nown source of
inco(e, which shows that the deeds of sale state a false and fictitious consideration. 3i4ewise,
DustaEuia could not have possi)ly *iven her consent to the sale )ecause she was already -1
years old at that ti(e. +he R+C also sustained the oral partition a(on* the heirs in
1-77. Accordin* to the trial court, the possession and occupation of land )y respondents
Consuelo and ,reneo, and <oaEuin8s acEuiescence for 2& years, furnish sufficient evidence that
there was actual partition of the properties. ,t held that <oaEuin and his heirs are
now estopped fro( clai(in* ownership over the entire2an <ose property as well as over parcel
,$.
+he R+C disposed, thus@
BFDRD/?RD, decision is here)y rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Consuelo
$da. de :eltran, ,reneo A)ad, Marites A)ad, Danilo A)ad, Anita A)ad and Felen A)ad
and a*ainst defendant <oaEuin Iui(po, su)stituted )y the latter8s wife Dstela +ena and
their children, A(paro, <ose, A(elia, <oaEuin <r., Adelia, Arlene, Anita, <oy, An*elita and
Aleli, all surna(ed Iui(po, as follows@
1. ?rderin* the a)ove"na(ed su)stituted defendants, and the
plaintiffs to e6ecute their written a*ree(ent of partition with respect to
parcel %os. ,,, and ,$ (ore particularly descri)ed in para*raph . of the
co(plaint, and for the( to e6ecute an a*ree(ent of partition with respect
to parcel %os. , and ,,, )oth parcels are (ore particularly descri)ed in
para*raph . of the co(plaint;
2. Declarin* the plaintiffs Danilo A)ad, Marites A)ad, Anita
A)ad and Felen A)ad the owner of si6 7! hectares a portion
included in parcel %o. ,$ also descri)ed in para*raph . of the
co(plaint, and therefore, entitled to its possession and orderin* the
said su)stituted defendants to deliver that portion to the( as their
share thereto;
&. ?rderin* the a)ove"na(ed su)stituted defendants to pay plaintiffs the su(
of 2i6 +housand 9esos 97,000.00!, 9hilippine Currency, as reasona)le
attorney8s fees and the su( of ?ne +housand 9esos 91,000.00! also of
9hilippine Currency, as liti*ation e6penses and for the said defendants to pay the
costs.
+he counterclai(, not )ein* proved, the sa(e is here)y ordered dis(issed.
2? ?RDDRDD.
071

?n appeal, the CA affir(ed the R+C rulin*. 2ustainin* the R+C, the CA declared that it
was plausi)le that DustaEuia8s consent was vitiated )ecause she was then -1 years old
and sic4ly. ,t was )olstered )y the fact that the deeds of sale only surfaced 4& years
after its alle*ed e6ecution and 2& years fro( the ti(e of the oral partition. +he CA also
re5ected petitioners8 ar*u(ent that the action was )arred )y prescription and laches,
e6plainin* that prescription does not run a*ainst the heirs so lon* as the heirs, for
whose )enefit prescription is invo4ed, have not e6pressly or i(pliedly repudiated the co"
ownership. +he CA found no repudiation on <oaEuin8s part. ,t, therefore, concluded that
respondents8 action could not )e )arred )y prescription or laches.
+he Iui(pos, thus, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari i(putin* the
followin* errors to the CA@
1! +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% RJ3,%# +FA+
9D+,+,?%DR2 D,D %?+ ACIJ,RD ?B%DR2F,9 ?$DR 0+FD1 2J:<DC+ 9ARCD32
?/ 3A%D :O BAO ?/ DDDD2 ?/ A:2?3J+D 2A3D DQDCJ+DD ,% +FD,R /A$?R;
2! +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% RJ3,%# +FA+ C?"
?B%DR2F,9 DQ,2+2 AM?%# 9D+,+,?%DR2 A%D RD29?%DD%+2 ?$DR
+FD 2J:<DC+ 9ARCD32 ?/ 3A%D;
&! +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% RJ3,%# +FA+
RD29?%DD%+2 FA$D 9R?$D% +FD,R /,3,A+,?% +? +FD ?R,#,%A3
?B%DR ?/ +FD 2J:<DC+ 9ARCD32 ?/ 3A%D :O MDRD 2CA%+
D$,DD%CD;
4! +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% %?+ RJ3,%# +FA+
3ACFD2 FA2 +,MD>:ARRDD +FD RD29?%DD%+2 /R?M A22A,3,%# +FD
A:2?3J+D ?B%DR2F,9 ?/ 9D+,+,?%DR2 ?$DR +FD 2J:<DC+ 9ARCD32
?/ 3A%D; A%D
5! +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% RJ3,%# +FA+
RD29?%DD%+2 ARD D%+,+3DD +? A++?R%DO82 /DD2.
0.1

+he Iui(pos insist on the validity of the deeds of sale )etween <oaEuin and
DustaEuia. +hey assail the pro)ative value and wei*ht *iven )y the R+C and the CA in
favor of the respondents8 pieces of evidence while refusin* to *ive credence or value to
the docu(ents they presented. 2pecifically, they contend that the notariCed deeds of
sale and the ta6 declarations should have adeEuately esta)lished <oaEuin8s ownership
of parcels ,,, and ,$.
+he contention has no (erit. Bell"entrenched is the rule that the 2upre(e
Court8s role in a petition under Rule 45 is li(ited to reviewin* or reversin* errors of law
alle*edly co((itted )y the appellate court. /actual findin*s of the trial court, especially
when affir(ed )y the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties. 2ince such
findin*s are *enerally not reviewa)le, this Court is not duty")ound to analyCe and wei*h
all over a*ain the evidence already considered in the proceedin*s )elow, unless the
factual findin*s co(plained of are devoid of support fro( the evidence on record or the
assailed 5ud*(ent is )ased on a (isapprehension of facts.
0'1
9etitioners fail to convince us that the CA co((itted reversi)le error in affir(in* the trial
court and in *ivin* no wei*ht to the pieces of evidence they presented.
+he stated consideration for the sale are 95,000.00 and 97,000.00, respectively, an
a(ount which was so difficult to raise in the year 1-47. Respondents esta)lished that
at the ti(e of the purported sale <oaEuin Iui(po was not *ainfully e(ployed. Fe was
studyin* in Manila and DustaEuia was the one supportin* hi(; that when DustaEuia died
two 2! years later, <oaEuin was not a)le to continue his studies. +he Iui(pos failed to
override this. D6cept for the incredi)le and unpersuasive testi(ony of <oaEuin8s
dau*hter, Adelia Ma*sino, no other testi(onial or docu(entary evidence was offered to
prove that <oaEuin was duly e(ployed and had the financial capacity to )uy the su)5ect
properties in 1-47.
,n Ron!avilla v. Court of Appeals,
0-1
reiterated in Cruz v. *ancom #inance Corp,
0101
we held that a deed of sale, in which the stated consideration has not )een, in fact,
paid is a false contract; that it is void ab initio. /urther(ore, +cejo v. #lores,
0111
ruled
that a contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever
where it appears that the sa(e is without cause or consideration which should have
)een the (otive thereof, or the purchase price which appears thereon as paid )ut which
in fact has never )een paid )y the purchaser to the vendor.
3i4ewise, )oth the trial court and the CA found that DustaEuia was -1 years old,
wea4 and senile, at the ti(e the deeds of sale were e6ecuted. ,n other words, she was
already (entally incapacitated )y then, and could no lon*er )e e6pected to *ive her
consent to the sale. +he R+C and CA cannot, therefore, )e faulted for not *ivin*
credence to the deeds of sale in favor of <oaEuin.
9etitioners also presented +a6 Declaration %os. &750,
0121
&.0',
01&1
and &75-
0141
to
su)stantiate <oaEuin8s clai( of a)solute do(inion over parcels ,,, and ,$. :ut we note
that these ta6 declarations are all in the na(e of DustaEuia 9erfecto"A)ad. +hese
docu(ents, therefore, do not support their clai( of a)solute do(inion since 1-47, )ut
enervate it instead. :esides, the fact that the disputed property (ay have )een
declared for ta6ation purposes in the na(e of <oaEuin Iui(po does not necessarily
prove ownership for it is well settled that a ta6 declaration or ta6 receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership.
0151
+he CA, therefore, correctly found this proof
inadeEuate to esta)lish <oaEuin8s clai( of a)solute do(inion.
/or forty"three 4&! years, Consuelo and ,reneo occupied their portions of
the 2an <ose property and si*nificantly, <oaEuin never distur)ed their possession. +hey
also installed tenants in parcel ,$, and <oaEuin did not prevent the( fro( doin* so, nor
did he assert his ownership over the sa(e. +hese unerrin*ly point to the fact that there
was indeed an oral partition of parcels ,,, and ,$.

,n a!lucot-aw v. a!lucot,
0171
we held, viz.@

091artition (ay )e inferred fro( circu(stances sufficiently stron* to
support the presu(ption. +hus, after a lon* possession in severalty, a
deed of partition (ay )e presu(ed. ,t has )een held that recitals in deeds,
possession and occupation of land, i(prove(ents (ade thereon for a
lon* series of years, and acEuiescence for 70 years, furnish sufficient
evidence that there was an actual partition of land either )y deed or )y
proceedin*s in the pro)ate court, which had )een lost and were not
recorded.


/urther(ore, in ,ernandez v. Andal,
01.1
we e6plained that@

?n *eneral principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds,
courts of eEuity have enforced oral partition when it has )een co(pletely
or partly perfor(ed.

Re*ardless of whether a parol partition or a*ree(ent to
partition is valid and enforcea)le at law, eEuity will in proper
cases, where the parol partition has actually )een
consu((ated )y the ta4in* of possession in severalty and the
e6ercise of ownership )y the parties of the respective portions
set off to each, reco*niCe and enforce such parol partition and
the ri*hts of the parties thereunder. +hus, it has )een held or
stated in a nu()er of cases involvin* an oral partition under
which the parties went into possession, e6ercised acts of
ownership, or otherwise partly perfor(ed the partition
a*ree(ent, that eEuity will confir( such partition and in a
proper case decree title in accordance with the possession in
severalty.

,n nu(erous cases it has )een held or stated that parol
partitions (ay )e sustained on the *round of estoppel of the
parties to assert the ri*hts of a tenant in co((on as to parts of
land divided )y parol partition as to which possession in
severalty was ta4en and acts of individual ownership were
e6ercised. And a court of eEuity will reco*niCe the a*ree(ent
and decree it to )e valid and effectual for the purpose of
concludin* the ri*ht of the parties as )etween each other to
hold their respective parts in severalty.

A parol partition (ay also )e sustained on the *round that
the parties thereto have acEuiesced in and ratified the partition
)y ta4in* possession in severalty, e6ercisin* acts of ownership
with respect thereto, or otherwise reco*niCin* the e6istence of
the partition.
A nu()er of cases have specifically applied the doctrine of
part perfor(ance, or have stated that a part perfor(ance is
necessary, to ta4e a parol partition out of the operation of the
statute of frauds. ,t has )een held that where there was a
partition in fact )etween tenants in co((on, and a part
perfor(ance, a court of eEuity would have re*ard to and
enforce such partition a*reed to )y the parties.
+he CA, therefore, co((itted no reversi)le error in sustainin* the oral partition over
parcels ,,, and ,$ and in invalidatin* the deeds of sale )etween DustaEuia and <oaEuin.
2i(ilarly, we affir( the CA rulin* that respondents are co"owners of the su)5ect
four 4! parcels of land, havin* inherited the sa(e fro( a co((on ancestor > DustaEuia
9erfecto"A)ad. 9etitioners8 assertion that respondents failed to prove their relationship
to the late DustaEuia deserves scant consideration.
Durin* the pre"trial, <oaEuin Iui(po ad(itted that@
DustaEuia 9erfecto A)ad and Die*o A)ad had two 2! children )y
the na(es of 3eon A)ad and <oaEuin A)ad; that 3eon A)ad has three &!
children na(ely@ Anastacia, Bilfredo and Consuelo, all surna(ed A)ad;
that <oaEuin A)ad has only one 1! child, a dau*hter )y the na(e of
A(paro; that Bilfredo has four 4! children, na(ely, Danilo, Felen, Marites
and Anita; A(paro has one child, son <oaEuin Iui(po, 6 6 6
01'1
Consuelo was the *randchild of DustaEuia, while respondents Danilo, Felen, Marites,
Anita and also <oaEuin Iui(po were DustaEuia8s *reat *randchildren. As such,
respondents can ri*htfully as4 for the confir(ation of the oral partition over parcels ,,,
and ,$, and the partition of parcels , and ,,. <urisprudence is replete with rulin*s that
any co"owner (ay de(and at any ti(e the partition of the co((on property unless a
co"owner has repudiated the co"ownership. +his action for partition does not prescri)e
and is not su)5ect to laches.
01-1

/inally, petitioners challen*e the attorney8s fees in favor of respondents.
+he *rant of attorney8s fees depends on the circu(stances of each case and lies
within the discretion of the court. ,t (ay )e awarded when a party is co(pelled to
liti*ate or to incur e6penses to protect its interest )y reason of an un5ustified act )y the
other,
0201
as in this case.
,n fine, we find no reversi)le error in the assailed rulin*s of the Court of Appeals.
:0ERE$ORE, the petition is ,ENIE,. +he Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. C$ %o. 571'., are A$$IRME,. SO OR,ERE,.

ARNELITO A,LA:AN, #.R. %o. 171-17
9etitioner,
9resent@

9an*ani)an, C.J. Chair(an!,
" versus " Onares"2antia*o,
Austria"MartineC,
Calle5o, 2r., and
Chico"%aCario, JJ.
EMETERIO M. A,LA:AN a!
NARCISA M. A,LA:AN, 9ro(ul*ated@
Respondents.
<anuary 20, 2007

6 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6
$"C'('+-
YNARES4SANTIAGO, J.@
Assailed in this petition for review is the 2epte()er 2&, 200& Decision
011
of the
Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29 %o. .4-21 which set aside the 2epte()er 1&, 2002
Decision
021
of the Re*ional +rial Court R+C! of Ce)u City, :ranch ., in Civil Case %o.
CD:"2.'07, and reinstated the /e)ruary 12, 2002 <ud*(ent
0&1
of the Municipal +rial
Court M+C! of Min*lanilla, Metro Ce)u, in Civil Case %o. &-2, dis(issin* petitioner
Arnelito Adlawan8s unlawful detainer suit a*ainst respondents D(eterio and %arcisa
Adlawan. 3i4ewise Euestioned is the <anuary ', 2004 Resolution
041
of the Court of
Appeals which denied petitioner8s (otion for reconsideration.
+he instant e5ect(ent suit ste((ed fro( the parties8 dispute over 3ot .227 and
the house )uilt thereon, covered )y +ransfer Certificate of +itle %o. ''42,
051
re*istered in
the na(e of the late Do(inador Adlawan and located at :arrio 3ipata, Municipality of
Min*lanilla, Ce)u. ,n his co(plaint, petitioner clai(ed that he is an ac4nowled*ed
ille*iti(ate child
071
of Do(inador who died on May 2', 1-'. without any other issue.
Clai(in* to )e the sole heir of Do(inador, he e6ecuted an affidavit ad5udicatin* to
hi(self 3ot .227 and the house )uilt thereon.
0.1
?ut of respect and *enerosity to
respondents who are the si)lin*s of his father, he *ranted their plea to occupy the
su)5ect property provided they would vacate the sa(e should his need for the property
arise. 2o(eti(e in <anuary 1---, he ver)ally reEuested respondents to vacate the
house and lot, )ut they refused and filed instead an action for Euietin* of title
0'1
with the
R+C. /inally, upon respondents8 refusal to heed the last de(and letter to vacate dated
Au*ust 2, 2000, petitioner filed the instant case on Au*ust -, 2000.
0-1
?n the other hand, respondents %arcisa and D(eterio, .0 and 5- years of a*e,
respectively,
0101
denied that they )e**ed petitioner to allow the( to stay on the
Euestioned property and stressed that they have )een occupyin* 3ot .227 and the
house standin* thereon since )irth. +hey alle*ed that 3ot .227 was ori*inally re*istered
in the na(e of their deceased father, Ra(on Adlawan
0111
and the ancestral house
standin* thereon was owned )y Ra(on and their (other, ?li*ia MaTacap Adlawan.
+he spouses had nine
0121
children includin* the late Do(inador and herein survivin*
respondents D(eterio and %arcisa. Durin* the lifeti(e of their parents and deceased
si)lin*s, all of the( lived on the said property. Do(inador and his wife, #raciana
Ra(as Adlawan, who died without issue, also occupied the sa(e.
01&1
9etitioner, on the
other hand, is a stran*er who never had possession of 3ot .227.
2o(eti(e in 1-71, spouses Ra(on and ?li*ia needed (oney to finance the renovation
of their house. 2ince they were not Eualified to o)tain a loan, they transferred
ownership of 3ot .227 in the na(e of their son Do(inador who was the only one in the
fa(ily who had a colle*e education. :y virtue of a <anuary &1, 1-72 si(ulated deed of
sale,
0141
a title was issued to Do(inador which ena)led hi( to secure a loan with 3ot
.227 as collateral. %otwithstandin* the e6ecution of the si(ulated deed, Do(inador,
then sin*le, never disputed his parents8 ownership of the lot. Fe and his wife,
#raciana, did not distur) respondents8 possession of the property until they died on May
2', 1-'. and May 7, 1--., respectively.
Respondents also contended that Do(inador8s si*nature at the )ac4 of
petitioner8s )irth certificate was for*ed, hence, the latter is not an heir of Do(inador and
has no ri*ht to clai( ownership of 3ot .227.
0151
+hey ar*ued that even if petitioner is
indeed Do(inador8s ac4nowled*ed ille*iti(ate son, his ri*ht to succeed is dou)tful
)ecause Do(inador was survived )y his wife, #raciana.
0171

?n /e)ruary 12, 2002, the M+C dis(issed the co(plaint holdin* that the
esta)lish(ent of petitioner8s filiation and the settle(ent of the estate of Do(inador are
conditions precedent to the accrual of petitioner8s action for e5ect(ent. ,t added that
since Do(inador was survived )y his wife, #raciana, who died 10 years thereafter, her
le*al heirs are also entitled to their share in 3ot .227. +he dispositive portion thereof,
reads@
,n $iew of the fore*oin*, for failure to prove )y preponderance of
evidence, the plaintiff8s cause of action, the a)ove"entitled case is here)y
?rdered D,2M,22DD. 2? ?RDDRDD.
01.1
?n appeal )y petitioner, the R+C reversed the decision of the M+C holdin* that
the title of Do(inador over 3ot .227 cannot )e collaterally attac4ed. ,t thus ordered
respondents to turn over possession of the controverted lot to petitioner and to pay
co(pensation for the use and occupation of the pre(ises. +he decretal portion thereof,
provides@
Bherefore, the <ud*(ent, dated /e)ruary 12, 2002, of the
Municipal +rial Court of Min*lanilla, Ce)u, in Civil Case %o. &-2, is
reversed. Defendants"appellees are directed to restore to plaintiff"
appellant possession of 3ot .227 and the house thereon, and to pay
plaintiff"appellant, )e*innin* in Au*ust 2000, co(pensation for their use
and occupation of the property in the a(ount of 9500.00 a (onth.
2o ordered.
01'1
Meanwhile, the R+C *ranted petitioner8s (otion for e6ecution pendin*
appeal
01-1
which was opposed )y the alle*ed nephew and nieces of #raciana in their
(otion for leave to intervene and to file an answer in intervention.
0201
+hey contended
that as heirs of #raciana, they have a share in 3ot .227 and that intervention is
necessary to protect their ri*ht over the property. ,n addition, they declared that as co"
owners of the property, they are allowin* respondents to stay in 3ot .227 until a for(al
partition of the property is (ade.
+he R+C denied the (otion for leave to intervene.
0211
,t, however, recalled the
order *rantin* the e6ecution pendin* appeal havin* lost 5urisdiction over the case in
view of the petition filed )y respondents with the Court of Appeals.
0221

?n 2epte()er 2&, 200&, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the R+C
and reinstated the 5ud*(ent of the M+C. ,t ratiocinated that petitioner and the heirs of
#raciana are co"owners of 3ot .227. As such, petitioner cannot e5ect respondents fro(
the property via an unlawful detainer suit filed in his own na(e and as the sole owner of
the property. +hus >
BFDD/?RD, pre(ises considered, the appealed Decision dated
2epte()er 1&, 2002 of the Re*ional +rial Court of Ce)u City, :ranch ., in
Civil Case %o. CD:"2.'07 is RD$DR2DD and 2D+ A2,DD, and the
<ud*(ent dated /e)ruary 12, 2002 of the Municipal +rial Court of
Min*lanilla, Metro Ce)u, in Civil Case %o. &-2 is RD,%2+A+DD. Costs
a*ainst the respondent. 2? ?RDDRDD.
02&1
9etitioner8s (otion for reconsideration was denied. Fence, the instant petition.
+he decisive issue to )e resolved is whether or not petitioner can validly (aintain
the instant case for e5ect(ent.
9etitioner averred that he is an ac4nowled*ed ille*iti(ate son and the sole heir of
Do(inador. Fe in fact e6ecuted an affidavit ad5udicatin* to hi(self the controverted
property. ,n rulin* for the petitioner, the R+C held that the Euestioned <anuary &1, 1-72
deed of sale validly transferred title to Do(inador and that petitioner is his
ac4nowled*ed ille*iti(ate son who inherited ownership of the Euestioned lot. +he Court
notes, however, that the R+C lost si*ht of the fact that the theory of succession invo4ed
)y petitioner would end up provin* that he is not the sole owner of 3ot .227. +his is so
)ecause Do(inador was survived not only )y petitioner )ut also )y his le*al wife,
#raciana, who died 10 years after the de(ise of Do(inador on May 2', 1-'..
0241
:y
intestate succession, #raciana and petitioner )eca(e co"owners of 3ot .227.
0251
+he
death of #raciana on May 7, 1--., did not (a4e petitioner the a)solute owner of 3ot
.227 )ecause the share of #raciana passed to her relatives )y consan*uinity and not to
petitioner with who( she had no )lood relations. +he Court of Appeals thus correctly
held that petitioner has no authority to institute the instant action as the sole owner of
3ot .227.
9etitioner contends that even *rantin* that he has co"owners over 3ot .227, he
can on his own file the instant case pursuant to Article 4'. of the Civil Code which
provides@

AR+. 4'.. Any one of the co"owners (ay )rin* an action in
e5ect(ent.
+his article covers all 4inds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article
4'. includes forci)le entry and unlawful detainer accion interdictal!, recovery of
possession accion publiciana., and recovery of ownership accion de reivindicacion!.
0271

A co"owner (ay )rin* such an action without the necessity of 5oinin* all the other co"
owners as co"plaintiffs )ecause the suit is presu(ed to have )een filed to )enefit his co"
owners. ,t should )e stressed, however, that where the suit is for the )enefit of the
plaintiff alone who clai(s to )e the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the
liti*ated property, the action should )e dis(issed.
02.1
+he renowned civilist, 9rofessor Arturo M. +olentino, e6plained >
A co"owner (ay )rin* such an action, without the necessity of 5oinin* all
the other co"owners as co"plaintiffs, )ecause the suit is dee(ed to )e
instituted for the )enefit of all. IA +h' ac+(o (. Aor +h' ;''A(+ oA +h'
&)a(+(AA a)o', .1ch +ha+ h' c)a(*. &o..'..(o Aor h(*.')A a! o+
Aor +h' co4oB'r.h(&, +h' ac+(o B()) o+ &ro.&'r. D(phasis added!
02'1
,n *alolo/ v. ,ular,
02-1
respondent filed a co(plaint for Euietin* of title clai(in*
e6clusive ownership of the property, )ut the evidence showed that respondent has co"
owners over the property. ,n dis(issin* the co(plaint for want of respondent8s authority
to file the case, the Court held that >
Jnder Article 4'. of the %ew Civil Code, any of the co"owners (ay
)rin* an action in e5ect(ent. +his article covers all 4inds of actions for the
recovery of possession, includin* an accion publiciana and a
reinvidicatory action. A co"owner (ay )rin* such an action without the
necessity of 5oinin* all the other co"owners as co"plaintiffs )ecause the
suit is dee(ed to )e instituted for the )enefit of all. Any 5ud*(ent of the
court in favor of the co"owner will )enefit the others )ut if such 5ud*(ent is
adverse, the sa(e cannot pre5udice the ri*hts of the uni(pleaded co"
owners. ,f the action is for the )enefit of the plaintiff alone who clai(s to
)e the sole owner and entitled to the possession thereof, the action will
not prosper unless he i(pleads the other co"owners who are
indispensa)le parties.
,n this case, the respondent alone filed the co(plaint, clai(in* sole
ownership over the su)5ect property and prayin* that he )e declared the
sole owner thereof. +here is no proof that the other co"owners had
waived their ri*hts over the su)5ect property or conveyed the sa(e to the
respondent or such co"owners were aware of the case in the trial court.
+he trial court rendered 5ud*(ent declarin* the respondent as the sole
owner of the property and entitled to its possession, to the pre5udice of the
latter8s si)lin*s. 9atently then, the decision of the trial court is erroneous.

Jnder 2ection ., Rule & of the Rules of Court, the respondent was
(andated to i(plead his si)lin*s, )ein* co"owners of the property, as
parties. +he respondent failed to co(ply with the rule. ,t (ust, li4ewise,
)e stressed that the Repu)lic of the 9hilippines is also an indispensa)le
party as defendant )ecause the respondent sou*ht the nullification of ?C+
%o. 9"17540 which was issued )ased on /ree 9atent %o. &'401-. Jnless
the 2tate is i(pleaded as party"defendant, any decision of the Court
would not )e )indin* on it. ,t has )een held that the a)sence of an
indispensa)le party in a case renders ineffective all the proceedin*s
su)seEuent to the filin* of the co(plaint includin* the 5ud*(ent. +he
a)sence of the respondent8s si)lin*s, as parties, rendered all proceedin*s
su)seEuent to the filin* thereof, includin* the 5ud*(ent of the court,
ineffective for want of authority to act, not only as to the a)sent parties )ut
even as to those present.
0&01
,n the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner )rou*ht the suit for unlawful
detainer in his na(e alone and for his own )enefit to the e6clusion of the heirs of
#raciana as he even e6ecuted an affidavit of self" ad5udication over the disputed
property. ,t is clear therefore that petitioner cannot validly (aintain the instant action
considerin* that he does not reco*niCe the co"ownership that necessarily flows fro( his
theory of succession to the property of his father, Do(inador.
,n the sa(e vein, there is no (erit in petitioner8s clai( that he has the le*al
personality to file the present unlawful detainer suit )ecause the e5ect(ent of
respondents would )enefit not only hi( )ut also his alle*ed co"owners. Fowever,
petitioner for*ets that he filed the instant case to acEuire possession of the property and
to recover da(a*es. ,f *ranted, he alone will *ain possession of the lot and )enefit
fro( the proceeds of the award of da(a*es to the e6clusion of the heirs of #raciana.
Fence, petitioner cannot successfully capitaliCe on the alle*ed )enefit to his co"owners.
,ncidentally, it should )e pointed out that in default of the said heirs of #raciana, who(
petitioner la)eled as Kfictitious heirs,L the 2tate will inherit her share
0&11
and will thus )e
petitioner8s co"owner entitled to possession and en5oy(ent of the property.
+he present controversy should )e differentiated fro( the cases where the Court
upheld the ri*ht of a co"owner to file a suit pursuant to Article 4'. of the Civil Code.
,nResuena v. Court of Appeals,
0&21
and (erin! v. 0lazo,
0&&1
the co"owners who filed the
e5ect(ent case did not represent the(selves as the e6clusive owner of the property.
,nCelino v. ,eirs of Alejo and 1eresa (antia!o,
0&41
the co(plaint for Euietin* of title was
)rou*ht in )ehalf of the co"owners precisely to recover lots owned in co((on.
0&51

2i(ilarly in 2encilao v. Camarenta,
0&71
the a(ended co(plaint specified that the plaintiff
is one of the heirs who co"owns the controverted properties.
,n the fore*oin* cases, the plaintiff never disputed the e6istence of a co"
ownership nor clai(ed to )e the sole or e6clusive owner of the liti*ated lot. A favora)le
decision therein would of course inure to the )enefit not only of the plaintiff )ut to his co"
owners as well. +he instant case, however, presents an entirely different )ac4drop as
petitioner vi*orously asserted a)solute and sole ownership of the Euestioned lot. ,n his
co(plaint, petitioner (ade the followin* alle*ations, to wit@
&. +he plaintiff was the only son ille*iti(ate! and .o)' h'(r of
the late D?M,%AD?R AD3ABA% who died intestate on 2' May 1-'.
without any other descendant nor ascendant 6 6 6.
6 6 6 6
5. :ein* the only childGdescendant and, therefore, .o)' h'(r of
the deceased Do(inador Adlawan, +h' &)a(+(AA ;'ca*' +h' a;.o)1+'
oB'r, and auto(atically too4 9?22D22,?%, of the afore(entioned
house and lot 6 6 6. D(phasis added!
0&.1
Clearly, the said cases find no application here )ecause petitioner8s action
operates as a co(plete repudiation of the e6istence of co"ownership and not in
representation or reco*nition thereof. Dis(issal of the co(plaint is therefore proper. As
noted )y /or(er 2upre(e Court Associate <ustice Dd*rado 3. 9aras K0i1t is understood,
of course, that the action 0under Article 4'. of the Civil Code1 is )ein* instituted for all.
Fence, if the co"owner e6pressly states that he is )rin*in* the case only for hi(self, the
action should not )e allowed to prosper.L
0&'1
,ndeed, respondents8 not less than four decade actual physical possession of the
Euestioned ancestral house and lot deserves to )e respected especially so that
petitioner failed to show that he has the reEuisite personality and authority as co"owner
to file the instant case. <ustice dictates that respondents who are now in the twili*ht
years of their life )e *ranted possession of their ancestral property where their parents
and si)lin*s lived durin* their lifeti(e, and where they, will pro)a)ly spend the
re(ainin* days of their life.
:0ERE$ORE, the petition is ,ENIE,. +he 2epte()er 2&, 200& Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. 29 %o. .4-21 which reinstated the /e)ruary 12, 2002
<ud*(ent of the Municipal +rial Court of Min*lanilla, Metro Ce)u, dis(issin* petitioner8s
co(plaint in Civil Case %o. &-2, and its <anuary ', 2004 Resolution, are A$$IRME,.
SO OR,ERE,.
AD3ABA% $2 AD3ABA%
A co-owner b/ virtue of Art. 345 is allowed to brin! an action without necessit/ of
includin! all the co-owners as plaintiffs for it is presumed to be for the benefit of all *61
if the action of the plaintiff alone, the action should be dismissed.
$ACTS@
A house and lot lot .227! was re*istered in the na(e of Do(inador Adlawan, the father
of petitioner! Arnelito Adlawan. Fe is the ac4nowled*ed ille*iti(ate child of Do(inador
who is clai(in* that he is the sole heir. Fe then ad5udicated to hi(self the said house
and lot to hi(self and out of *enerosity allowed the si)lin*s of his father to occupy the
property provided that they vacate when as4ed. +i(e ca(e when he de(anded that
they vacate and when they refused he filed an e5ect(ent suit a*ainst the(.
Fis aunt and uncle on the other hand, %arcisa .0! and D(eterio 5-! denied his
alle*ations clai(in* that the said lot was re*istered in their parents na(e and they had
)een livin* in the said house and lot since )irth. +he only reason why the said house
and lot was transferred in Do(inador8s na(e was when their parents were in need of
(oney for renovatin* their house, their parents were not Eualified to o)tain a loan and
since Do(inador was the only one who had a colle*e education, they e6ecuted a
si(ulated deed of sale in favor of Do(inador.
+he M+C dis(issed the co(plaint holdin* that Arnelito8s filiation and the settle(ent of
the estate are conditions precedent for the accrual of the suit. And since Do(inador was
survived )y his wife, #raciana, her le*al heirs are entitled to their share in the lot. +he
R+C ordered %arcisa and D(eterio to turn over the possession of the lot to Arnelito. ,t
also *ranted the (otion of e6ecution which was opposed )y the nephew and nieces of
#raciana who clai( that they have a share in the lot.
+he CA reinstated the decision of the M+C holdin* that Arnelito and the heirs of
#raciana are co"heirs thus he cannot e5ect the( fro( the property via unlawful detainer.
+hus the case at )ar.
ISS#E@
Bhether or not Arnelito can validly (aintain the e5ect(ent suit
0EL,@
%?. +he theory of succession invo4ed )y Arnelito would prove that he is not the sole
heir of Do(inador. 2ince he was survived was his wife, upon his death, Arnelito and
#raciana )eca(e co"owners of the lot. Jpon her death, her share passed on to her
relatives )y consan*uinity thus (a4in* the( co"owners as well.
9etitioner contends that Art. 4'. allows hi( to file the instant petition. Art. 4'.. Any one
of the co"owners (ay )rin* an action in e5ect(ent.! ,t is true that a co"owner (ay )rin*
such an action wGo necessity of 5oinin* all the co"owners as plaintiffs )ecause it is
presu(ed to )e instituted for the )enefit of all :J+ if the action is for the )enefit of the
plaintiff alone, the action should )e dis(issed.
2ince petitioner )rou*ht the suit in his na(e and for his )enefit alone and his
repudiation of the ownership of the other heirs, the instant petition should )e dis(issed.
G.R. No. 160328 No-'*;'r 29, 2006
ARCA,IO a! MARIA L#ISA CARAN,ANG, 9etitioners,
vs.0EIRS O$ 5#IRINO A. ,E G#"MAN, a*')<@ MILAGROS ,E G#"MAN, VICTOR
,E G#"MAN, REYNAL,O ,E G#"MAN, CYNT0IA G. RAGASA a! 5#IRINO ,E
G#"MAN, ?R., Respondents.
D D C , 2 , ? %
C0ICO4NA"ARIO, J.:
+his is a 9etition for Review on Certiorari assailin* the Court of Appeals Decision
1
and
Resolution affir(in* the Re*ional +rial Court R+C! Decision renderin* herein
petitioners Arcadio and 3uisa Carandan* 0hereinafter referred to as spouses
Carandan*1 5ointly and severally lia)le for their loan to Iuirino A. de #uC(an.
+he Court of Appeals su((ariCed the facts as follows@
0Iuirino de #uC(an1 and 0the 2pouses Carandan*1 are stoc4holders as well as
corporate officers of Ma)uhay :roadcastin* 2yste( M:2 for )revity!, with eEuities at
fifty four percent 54U! and forty si6 percent 47U! respectively.
?n %ove()er 27, 1-'&, the capital stoc4 of M:2 was increased, fro( 9500,000 to 91.5
(illion and 9&45,000 of this increase was su)scri)ed )y 0the spouses Carandan*1.
+hereafter, on March &, 1-'-, M:2 a*ain increased its capital stoc4, fro( 91.5 (illion
to 9& (illion, 0the spouses Carandan*1 yet a*ain su)scri)ed to the increase. +hey
su)scri)ed to 9-&,.50 worth of newly issued capital stoc4.
0De #uC(an1 clai(s that, part of the pay(ent for these su)scriptions were paid )y
hi(, 92-&,250 for the %ove()er 27, 1-'& capital stoc4 increase and 94&,125 for the
March &, 1-'- Capital 2toc4 increase or a total of9&&7,&.5. +hus, on March &1, 1--2,
0de #uC(an1 sent a de(and letter to 0the spouses Carandan*1 for the pay(ent of said
total a(ount.
0+he spouses Carandan*1 refused to pay the a(ount, contendin* that a pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent was e6ecuted )etween 0Arcadio Carandan*1 and 0de #uC(an1,
where)y the latter pro(ised to pay for the stoc4 su)scriptions of the for(er without cost,
in consideration for 0Arcadio Carandan*8s1 technical e6pertise, his newly purchased
eEuip(ent, and his s4ill in repairin* and up*radin* radioGco((unication eEuip(ent
therefore, there is no inde)tedness on their part 0sic1.
?n <une 5, 1--2, 0de #uC(an1 filed his co(plaint, see4in* to recover the 9&&7,&.5
to*ether with da(a*es. After trial on the (erits, the trial court disposed of the case in
this wise@
ABFDRD/?RD, pre(ises considered, 5ud*(ent is here)y rendered in favor of 0de
#uC(an1. Accordin*ly, 0the spouses Carandan*1 are ordered to 5ointly and severally pay
0de #uC(an1, to wit@
1! 9&&7,&.5.00 representin* 0the spouses Carandan*8s1 loan to de #uC(an;
2! interest on the precedin* a(ount at the rate of twelve percent 12U! per
annu( fro( <une 5, 1--2 when this co(plaint was filed until the principal
a(ount shall have )een fully paid;
&! 920,000.00 as attorney8s fees;
4! Costs of suit.
+he spouses Carandan* appealed the R+C Decision to the Court of Appeals, which
affir(ed the sa(e in the 22 April 200& assailed Decision@
BFDRD/?RD, in view of all the fore*oin* the assailed Decision is here)y A//,RMDD.
%o costs.
2
+he Motion for Reconsideration filed )y the spouses Carandan* was si(ilarly denied )y
the Court of Appeals in the 7 ?cto)er 200& assailed Resolution@
BFDRD/?RD, in view thereof, the (otion for reconsideration is here)y DD%,DD and
our Decision of April 22, 200&, which is )ased on applica)le law and 5urisprudence on
the (atter is here)y A//,RMDD and RD,+DRA+DD.
&
+he spouses Carandan* then filed )efore this Court the instant 9etition for Review on
Certiorari, )rin*in* forth the followin* issues@
,. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 C?MM,++DD
MA%,/D2+ DRR?R ,% /A,3,%# +? 2+R,C+3O C?M93O B,+F 2DC+,?% 17, RJ3D &
?/ +FD 1--. RJ3D2 ?/ C,$,3 9R?CDDJRD.
,,. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 2DR,?J23O
DRRDD ,% ,+2 /,%D,%# +FA+ +FDRD ,2 A% A33D#DD 3?A% /?R BF,CF
9D+,+,?%DR2 ARD 3,A:3D, C?%+RARO +? DQ9RD22 9R?$,2,?%2 ?/ :??P ,$,
+,+3D Q,, ?/ +FD %DB C,$,3 C?DD 9DR+A,%,%# +? 3?A%2.
,,,. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 2DR,?J23O
DRRDD ,% /,%D,%# +FA+ +FD RD29?%DD%+2 BDRD A:3D +? D,2CFAR#D
+FD,R :JRDD% ?/ 9R??/, ,% C?M93D+D D,2RD#ARD ?/ +FD RD$,2DD RJ3D2
?% D$,DD%CD.
,$. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 C?MM,++DD
RD$DR2,:3D DRR?R BFD% ,+ /A,3DD +? A993O 2DC+,?%2 2 A%D ., RJ3D & ?/
+FD 1--. RJ3D2 ?/ C,$,3 9R?CDDJRD.
IV. BFD+FDR ?R %?+ +FD F?%?RA:3D C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 2DR,?J23O
DRRDD ,% /,%D,%# +FA+ +FD 9JR9?R+DD 3,A:,3,+O ?/ 9D+,+,?%DR2 ARD
<?,%+ A%D 2?3,DARO, ,% $,?3A+,?% ?/ AR+,C3D 120. ?/ +FD %DB C,$,3
C?DD.
4
Bhether or not the R+C Decision is void for failin* to co(ply with 2ection 17, Rule & of
the Rules of Court
+he spouses Carandan* clai(s that the Decision of the R+C, havin* )een rendered
after the death of Iuirino de #uC(an, is void for failin* to co(ply with 2ection 17, Rule
& of the Rules of Court, which provides@
2DC. 17. Death of party; duty of counsel. > Bhenever a party to a pendin* action dies,
and the clai( is not there)y e6tin*uished, it shall )e the duty of his counsel to infor( the
court within thirty &0! days after such death of the fact thereof, and to *ive the na(e
and address of his le*al representative or representatives. /ailure of counsel to co(ply
with this duty shall )e a *round for disciplinary action.
+he heirs of the deceased (ay )e allowed to )e su)stituted for the deceased, without
reEuirin* the appoint(ent of an e6ecutor or ad(inistrator and the court (ay appoint a
*uardian ad lite( for the (inor heirs.
+he court shall forthwith order the le*al representative or representatives to appear and
)e su)stituted within a period of thirty &0! days fro( notice.
,f no le*al representative is na(ed )y the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one
so na(ed shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court (ay order the
opposin* party, within a specified ti(e, to procure the appoint(ent of an e6ecutor or
ad(inistrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall i((ediately appear for
and on )ehalf of the deceased. +he court char*es in procurin* such appoint(ent, if
defrayed )y the opposin* party, (ay )e recovered as costs.
+he spouses Carandan* posits that such failure to co(ply with the a)ove rule renders
void the decision of the R+C, in adherence to the followin* pronounce(ents in $da. de
Fa)erer v. Court of Appeals
5
and /erreria v. $da. de #onCales
7
@
+hus, it has )een held that when a party dies in an action that survives and no order is
issued )y the court for the appearance of the le*al representative or of the heirs of the
deceased in su)stitution of the deceased, and as a (atter of fact no su)stitution has
ever )een effected, the trial held )y the court without such le*al representatives or heirs
and the 5ud*(ent rendered after such trial are null and void )ecause the court acEuired
no 5urisdiction over the persons of the le*al representatives or of the heirs upon who(
the trial and 5ud*(ent would )e )indin*.
.
,n the present case, there had )een no court order for the le*al representative of the
deceased to appear, nor had any such le*al representative appeared in court to )e
su)stituted for the deceased; neither had the co(plainant ever procured the
appoint(ent of such le*al representative of the deceased, includin* appellant, ever
as4ed to )e su)stituted for the deceased. As a result, no valid su)stitution was effected,
conseEuently, the court never acEuired 5urisdiction over appellant for the purpose of
(a4in* her a party to the case and (a4in* the decision )indin* upon her, either
personally or as a representative of the estate of her deceased (other.
'
Fowever, unli4e 5urisdiction over the su)5ect (atter which is conferred )y law and is not
su)5ect to the discretion of the parties,
-
5urisdiction over the person of the parties to the
case (ay )e waived either e6pressly or i(pliedly.
10
,(plied waiver co(es in the for( of
either voluntary appearance or a failure to o)5ect.
11
,n the cases cited )y the spouses Carandan*, we held that there had )een no valid
su)stitution )y the heirs of the deceased party, and therefore the 5ud*(ent cannot )e
(ade )indin* upon the(. ,n the case at )ar, not only do the heirs of de #uC(an
interpose no o)5ection to the 5urisdiction of the court over their persons; they are actually
clai(in* and e()racin* such 5urisdiction. ,n doin* so, their waiver is not even (erely
i(plied )y their participation in the appeal of said Decision!, )ut e6press )y their
e6plicit espousal of such view in )oth the Court of Appeals and in this Court!. +he heirs
of de #uC(an had no o)5ection to )ein* )ound )y the Decision of the R+C.
+hus, lac4 of 5urisdiction over the person, )ein* su)5ect to waiver, is a personal defense
which can only )e asserted )y the party who can there)y waive it )y silence.
,t also pays to loo4 into the spirit )ehind the *eneral rule reEuirin* a for(al su)stitution
of heirs. +he underlyin* principle therefor is not really )ecause su)stitution of heirs is a
5urisdictional reEuire(ent, )ut )ecause non"co(pliance therewith results in the
undenia)le violation of the ri*ht to due process of those who, thou*h not duly notified of
the proceedin*s, are su)stantially affected )y the decision rendered therein.
12
2uch
violation of due process can only )e asserted )y the persons whose ri*hts are clai(ed
to have )een violated, na(ely the heirs to who( the adverse 5ud*(ent is sou*ht to )e
enforced.
Care should, however, )e ta4en in applyin* the fore*oin* conclusions. ,n 9eople v.
/lorendo,
1&
where we li4ewise held that the proceedin*s that too4 place after the death
of the party are void, we *ave another reason for such nullity@ Athe attorneys for the
offended party ceased to )e the attorneys for the deceased upon the death of the latter,
the principal 6 6 6.A %evertheless, the case at )ar had already )een su)(itted for
decision )efore the R+C on 4 <une 1--', several (onths )efore the passin* away of de
#uC(an on 1- /e)ruary 1---. Fence, no further proceedin*s reEuirin* the appearance
of de #uC(an8s counsel were conducted )efore the pro(ul*ation of the R+C Decision.
ConseEuently, de #uC(an8s counsel cannot )e said to have no authority to appear in
trial, as trial had already ceased upon the death of de #uC(an.
,n su(, the R+C Decision is valid despite the failure to co(ply with 2ection 17, Rule &
of the Rules of Court, )ecause of the e6press waiver of the heirs to the 5urisdiction over
their persons, and )ecause there had )een, )efore the pro(ul*ation of the R+C
Decision, no further proceedin*s reEuirin* the appearance of de #uC(an8s counsel.
:efore proceedin* with the su)stantive aspects of the case, however, there is still one
(ore procedural issue to tac4le, the fourth issue presented )y the spouses Carandan*
on the non"inclusion in the co(plaint of an indispensa)le party.
Bhether or not the R+C should have dis(issed the case for failure to state a cause of
action, considerin* that Mila*ros de #uC(an, alle*edly an indispensa)le party, was not
included as a party"plaintiff
+he spouses Carandan* clai( that, since three of the four chec4s used to pay their
stoc4 su)scriptions were issued in the na(e of Mila*ros de #uC(an, the latter should
)e considered an indispensa)le party. :ein* such, the spouses Carandan* clai(, the
failure to 5oin Mrs. de #uC(an as a party"plaintiff should cause the dis(issal of the
action )ecause Ai!f a suit is not )rou*ht in the na(e of or a*ainst the real party in
interest, a (otion to dis(iss (ay )e filed on the *round that the co(plaint states no
cause of action.A
14
+he Court of Appeals held@
Be disa*ree. +he 5oint account of spouses Iuirino A de #uC(an and Mila*ros de
#uC(an fro( which the four 4! chec4s were drawn is part of their con5u*al property
and under )oth the Civil Code and the /a(ily Code the hus)and alone (ay institute an
action for the recovery or protection of the spouses8 con5u*al property.
+hus, in Docena v. 3apesura 0&55 2CRA 75'1, the 2upre(e Court held that A6 6 6 Jnder
the %ew Civil Code, the hus)and is the ad(inistrator of the con5u*al partnership. ,n fact,
he is the sole ad(inistrator, and the wife is not entitled as a (atter of ri*ht to 5oin hi( in
this endeavor. +he hus)and (ay defend the con5u*al partnership in a suit or action
without )ein* 5oined )y the wife. 6 6 6 Jnder the /a(ily Code, the ad(inistration of the
con5u*al property )elon*s to the hus)and and the wife 5ointly. Fowever, unli4e an act of
alienation or encu()rance where the consent of )oth spouses is reEuired, 5oint
(ana*e(ent or ad(inistration does not reEuire that the hus)and and wife always act
to*ether. Dach spouse (ay validly e6ercise full power of (ana*e(ent alone, su)5ect to
the intervention of the court in proper cases as provided under Article 124 of the /a(ily
Code. 6 6 6.A
+he Court of Appeals is correct. 9etitioners erroneously interchan*e the ter(s Areal
party in interestA and Aindispensa)le party.A A real party in interest is the party who
stands to )e )enefited or in5ured )y the 5ud*(ent of the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.
15
?n the other hand, an indispensa)le party is a party in interest
without who( no final deter(ination can )e had of an action,
17
in contrast to a
necessary party, which is one who is not indispensa)le )ut who ou*ht to )e 5oined as a
party if co(plete relief is to )e accorded as to those already parties, or for a co(plete
deter(ination or settle(ent of the clai( su)5ect of the action.
1.
+he spouses Carandan* are indeed correct that Ai!f a suit is not )rou*ht in the na(e of
or a*ainst the real party in interest, a (otion to dis(iss (ay )e filed on the *round that
the co(plaint states no cause of action.A
1'
Fowever, what dis(issal on this *round
entails is an e6a(ination of whether the parties presently pleaded are interested in the
outco(e of the liti*ation, and o+ whether all persons interested in such outco(e are
actually pleaded. +he latter Euery is relevant in discussions concernin* indispensa)le
and necessary parties, )ut o+ in discussions concernin* real parties in interest. :oth
indispensa)le and necessary parties are considered as real parties in interest, since
)oth classes of parties stand to )e )enefited or in5ured )y the 5ud*(ent of the suit.
Iuirino and Mila*ros de #uC(an were (arried )efore the effectivity of the /a(ily Code
on & Au*ust 1-''. As they did not e6ecute any (arria*e settle(ent, the re*i(e of
con5u*al partnership of *ains *overn their property relations.
1-
All property acEuired durin* the (arria*e, whether the acEuisition appears to have )een
(ade, contracted or re*istered in the na(e of one or )oth spouses, is presu(ed to )e
con5u*al unless the contrary is proved.
20
Credits are personal properties,
21
acEuired
durin* the ti(e the loan or other credit transaction was e6ecuted. +herefore, credits
loaned durin* the ti(e of the (arria*e are presu(ed to )e con5u*al property.
ConseEuently, assu(in* that the four chec4s created a de)t for which the spouses
Carandan* are lia)le, such credits are presu(ed to )e con5u*al property. +here )ein*
no evidence to the contrary, such presu(ption su)sists. As such, Iuirino de #uC(an,
)ein* a co"owner of specific partnership property,
22
is certainly a real party in interest.
Dis(issal on the *round of failure to state a cause of action, )y reason that the suit was
alle*edly not )rou*ht )y a real party in interest, is therefore unwarranted.
2o now we co(e to the discussion concernin* indispensa)le and necessary parties.
Bhen an indispensa)le party is not )efore the court, the action should li4ewise )e
dis(issed.
2&
+he a)sence of an indispensa)le party renders all su)seEuent actuations
of the court void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the a)sent parties )ut even
as to those present.
24
?n the other hand, the non"5oinder of necessary parties do not
result in the dis(issal of the case. ,nstead, 2ection -, Rule & of the Rules of Court
provides for the conseEuences of such non"5oinder@
2ec. -. %on"5oinder of necessary parties to )e pleaded. > Bhenever in any pleadin* in
which a clai( is asserted a necessary party is not 5oined, the pleader shall set forth his
na(e, if 4nown, and shall state why he is o(itted. 2hould the court find the reason for
the o(ission un(eritorious, it (ay order the inclusion of the o(itted necessary party if
5urisdiction over his person (ay )e o)tained.
+he failure to co(ply with the order for his inclusion, without 5ustifia)le cause, shall )e
dee(ed a waiver of the clai( a*ainst such party.
+he non"inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court fro( proceedin* in
the action, and the 5ud*(ent rendered therein shall )e without pre5udice to the ri*hts of
such necessary party.
%on"co(pliance with the order for the inclusion of a necessary party would not warrant
the dis(issal of the co(plaint. +his is an e6ception to 2ection &, Rule 1. which allows
the dis(issal of the co(plaint for failure to co(ply with an order of the court, as 2ection
-, Rule & specifically provides for the effect of such non"inclusion@ it shall not prevent
the court fro( proceedin* in the action, and the 5ud*(ent rendered therein shall )e
without pre5udice to the ri*hts of such necessary party. 2ection 11, Rule & li4ewise
provides that the non"5oinder of parties is not a *round for the dis(issal of the action.
?ther than the indispensa)le and necessary parties, there is a third set of parties@ the
pro"for(a parties, which are those who are reEuired to )e 5oined as co"parties in suits
)y or a*ainst another party as (ay )e provided )y the applica)le su)stantive law or
procedural rule.
25
An e6a(ple is provided )y 2ection 4, Rule & of the Rules of Court@
2ec. 4. 2pouses as parties. > Fus)and and wife shall sue or )e sued 5ointly, e6cept as
provided )y law.
9ro"for(a parties can either )e indispensa)le, necessary or neither indispensa)le nor
necessary. +he third case occurs if, for e6a(ple, a hus)and files an action to recover a
property which he clai(s to )e part of his e6clusive property. +he wife (ay have no
le*al interest in such property, )ut the rules nevertheless reEuire that she )e 5oined as a
party.
,n cases of pro"for(a parties who are neither indispensa)le nor necessary, the *eneral
rule under 2ection 11, Rule & (ust )e followed@ such non"5oinder is not a *round for
dis(issal. Fence, in a case concernin* an action to recover a su( of (oney, we held
that the failure to 5oin the spouse in that case was not a 5urisdictional defect.
27
+he non"
5oinder of a spouse does not warrant dis(issal as it is (erely a for(al reEuire(ent
which (ay )e cured )y a(end(ent.
2.
Conversely, in the instances that the pro"for(a parties are also indispensa)le or
necessary parties, the rules concernin* indispensa)le or necessary parties, as the case
(ay )e, should )e applied. +hus, dis(issal is warranted only if the pro"for(a party not
5oined in the co(plaint is an indispensa)le party.
Mila*ros de #uC(an, )ein* presu(ed to )e a co"owner of the credits alle*edly
e6tended to the spouses Carandan*, see(s to )e either an indispensa)le or a
necessary party. ,f she is an indispensa)le party, dis(issal would )e proper. ,f she is
(erely a necessary party, dis(issal is not warranted, whether or not there was an order
for her inclusion in the co(plaint pursuant to 2ection -, Rule &.
Article 10' of the /a(ily Code provides@
Art. 10'. +he con5u*al partnership shall )e *overned )y the rules on the contract of
partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is e6pressly deter(ined in this Chapter
or )y the spouses in their (arria*e settle(ents.
+his provision is practically the sa(e as the Civil Code provision it superceded@
Art. 14.. +he con5u*al partnership shall )e *overned )y the rules on the contract of
partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is e6pressly deter(ined in this Chapter.
,n this connection, Article 1'11 of the Civil Code provides that A0a1 partner is a co"owner
with the other partners of specific partnership property.A +a4en with the presu(ption of
the con5u*al nature of the funds used to finance the four chec4s used to pay for
petitioners8 stoc4 su)scriptions, and with the presu(ption that the credits the(selves
are part of con5u*al funds, Article 1'11 (a4es Iuirino and Mila*ros de #uC(an co"
owners of the alle*ed credit.
:ein* co"owners of the alle*ed credit, Iuirino and Mila*ros de #uC(an (ay separately
)rin* an action for the recovery thereof. ,n the fairly recent cases of *alolo/ v.
,ular
2'
and Adlawan v. Adlawan,
2-
we held that, in a co"ownership, co"owners (ay )rin*
actions for the recovery of co"owned property without the necessity of 5oinin* all the
other co"owners as co"plaintiffs )ecause the suit is presu(ed to have )een filed for the
)enefit of his co"owners. ,n the latter case and in that of $e 7uia v. Court of
Appeals,
&0
we also held that Article 4'. of the Civil Code, which provides that any of the
co"owners (ay )rin* an action for e5ect(ent, covers all 4inds of action for the recovery
of possession.
&1
,n su(, in suits to recover properties, all co"owners are real parties in interest. Fowever,
pursuant to Article 4'. of the Civil Code and relevant 5urisprudence, any one of the(
(ay )rin* an action, any 4ind of action, for the recovery of co"owned properties.
+herefore, only one of the co"owners, na(ely the co"owner who filed the suit for the
recovery of the co"owned property, is an indispensa)le party thereto. +he other co"
owners are not indispensa)le parties. +hey are not even necessary parties, for a
co(plete relief can )e accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit
is presu(ed to have )een filed for the )enefit of all co"owners.
&2
Be therefore hold that Mila*ros de #uC(an is not an indispensa)le party in the action
for the recovery of the alle*edly loaned (oney to the spouses Carandan*. As such, she
need not have )een i(pleaded in said suit, and dis(issal of the suit is not warranted )y
her not )ein* a party thereto.
Bhether or not respondents were a)le to prove the loan sou*ht to )e collected fro(
petitioners
,n the second and third issues presented )y the spouses Carandan*, they clai( that the
de #uC(ans failed to prove the alle*ed loan for which the spouses Carandan* were
held lia)le. As previously stated, spouses Iuirino and Mila*ros de #uC(an paid for the
stoc4 su)scriptions of the spouses Carandan*, a(ountin* to 9&&7,&.5.00. +he de
#uC(ans clai( that these pay(ents were in the for( of loans andGor advances and it
was a*reed upon )etween the late Iuirino de #uC(an, 2r. and the spouses Carandan*
that the latter would repay hi(. 9etitioners, on the other hand, ar*ue that there was an
oral pre"incorporation a*ree(ent wherein it was a*reed that Arcardio Carandan* would
always (aintain his 47U eEuity participation in the corporation even if the capital
structures were increased, and that Iuirino de #uC(an would personally pay the eEuity
sharesGstoc4 su)scriptions of Arcardio Carandan* with no cost to the latter.
?n this (ain issue, the Court of Appeals held@
0+he spouses Carandan*1 aver in its ninth assi*ned error that 0the de #uC(ans1 failed
to prove )y preponderance of evidence, either the e6istence of the purported loan or the
non"pay(ent thereof.
2i(ply put, preponderance of evidence (eans that the evidence as a whole adduced
)y one side is superior to that of the other. +he concept of preponderance of evidence
refers to evidence that is of *reater wei*ht, or (ore convincin*, than that which is
offered in opposition to it; it (eans pro)a)ility of truth.
0+he spouses Carandan*1 ad(itted that it was indeed 0the de #uC(ans1 who paid their
stoc4 su)scriptions and their reason for not rei()ursin* the latter is the alle*ed pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent, to which they offer no clear proof as to its e6istence.
,t is a )asic rule in evidence that each party (ust prove his affir(ative alle*ation. +hus,
the plaintiff or co(plainant has to prove his affir(ative alle*ations in the co(plaints and
the defendant or respondent has to prove the affir(ative alle*ations in his affir(ative
defenses and counterclai(s.
&&
+he spouses Carandan*, however, insist that the de #uC(ans have not proven the loan
itself, havin* presented evidence only of the pay(ent in favor of the Carandan*s. +hey
clai(@
,t is an undenia)le fact that pay(ent is not eEuivalent to a loan. /or instance, if Mr. AAA
decides to pay for Mr. A:8sA o)li*ation, that pay(ent )y Mr. AAA cannot, )y any stretch of
i(a*ination, possi)ly (ean that there is now a loan )y Mr. A:A to Mr. AAA. +here is a
possi)ility that such pay(ent )y Mr. AAA is purely out of *enerosity or that there is a
(utual a*ree(ent )etween the(. As applied to the instant case, that (utual a*ree(ent
is the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent supra! e6istin* )etween Mr. de #uC(an and the
petitioners """ to the effect that the for(er shall )e responsi)le for payin* stoc4
su)scriptions of the latter. +hus, when Mr. de #uC(an paid for the stoc4 su)scriptions
of the petitioners, there was no loan to spea4 of, )ut only a co(pliance with the pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent.
&4
+he spouses Carandan* are (ista4en. ,f indeed a Mr. AAA decides to pay for a Mr. A:8sA
o)li*ation, the presu(ption is that Mr. A:A is inde)ted to Mr. AAA for such a(ount that
has )een paid. +his is pursuant to Articles 12&7 and 12&. of the Civil Code, which
provide@
Art. 12&7. +he creditor is not )ound to accept pay(ent or perfor(ance )y a third person
who has no interest in the fulfill(ent of the o)li*ation, unless there is a stipulation to the
contrary.
Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, e6cept
that if he paid without the 4nowled*e or a*ainst the will of the de)tor, he can recover
only insofar as the pay(ent has )een )eneficial to the de)tor.
Art. 12&.. Bhoever pays on )ehalf of the de)tor without the 4nowled*e or a*ainst the
will of the latter, cannot co(pel the creditor to su)ro*ate hi( in his ri*hts, such as those
arisin* fro( a (ort*a*e, *uarantee, or penalty.
Articles 12&7 and 12&. are clear that, even in cases where the de)tor has no
4nowled*e of pay(ent )y a third person, and even in cases where the third person paid
a*ainst the will of the de)tor, such pay(ent would produce a de)t in favor of the payin*
third person. ,n fact, the only conseEuences for the failure to infor( or *et the consent
of the de)tor are the followin*@ 1! the third person can recover only insofar as the
pay(ent has )een )eneficial to the de)tor; and 2! the third person is not su)ro*ated to
the ri*hts of the creditor, such as those arisin* fro( a (ort*a*e, *uarantee or penalty.
&5
Be say, however, that this is (erely a presu(ption. :y virtue of the parties8 freedo( to
contract, the parties could stipulate otherwise and thus, as su**ested )y the spouses
Carandan*, there is indeed a possi)ility that such pay(ent )y Mr. AAA was purely out of
*enerosity or that there was a (utual a*ree(ent )etween the(. :ut such (utual
a*ree(ent, )ein* an e6ception to presu(ed course of events as laid down )y Articles
12&7 and 12&., (ust )e adeEuately proven.
+he de #uC(ans have successfully proven their pay(ent of the spouses Carandan*8s
stoc4 su)scriptions. +hese pay(ents were, in fact, ad(itted )y the spouses Carandan*.
ConseEuently, it is now up to the spouses Carandan* to prove the e6istence of the pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent that was their defense to the purported loan.
Jnfortunately for the spouses Carandan*, the only testi(ony which touched on the
e6istence and su)stance of the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent, that of petitioner Arcardio
Carandan*, was stric4en off the record )ecause he did not su)(it hi(self to a cross"
e6a(ination of the opposin* party. ?n the other hand, the testi(onies of Ro(eo
2aavedra,
&7
Ro)erto 2. Carandan*,
&.
#ertrudes R. Dste)an,
&'
Ceferino :asilio,
&-
and
Ma. 3uisa Carandan*
40
touched on (atters other than the e6istence and su)stance of
the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent. 2o aside fro( the fact that these witnesses had no
personal 4nowled*e as to the alle*ed e6istence of the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent, the
testi(onies of these witnesses did not even (ention the e6istence of a pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent.
Borse, the testi(onies of petitioners Arcadio Carandan* and Ma. 3uisa Carandan*
even contradicted the e6istence of a pre"incorporation a*ree(ent )ecause when they
were as4ed )y their counsel re*ardin* the (atter of the chec4 pay(ents (ade )y the
late Iuirino A. de #uC(an, 2r. in their )ehalf, they said that they had already paid for it
there)y ne*atin* their own defense that there was a pre"incorporation a*ree(ent
e6cusin* the(selves fro( payin* Mr. de #uC(an the a(ounts he advanced or loaned
to the(. +his )asic and irrefuta)le fact can )e *leaned fro( their testi(onies which the
private respondents are Euotin* for easy reference@
a. Bith respect to the testi(ony of Ma. 3uisa Carandan*
I@ %ow, can you tell this Fonora)le Court how do you feel with respect to the Co(plaint
of the plaintiff in this case char*in* you that you paid for this year and as4in* enou*h to
paid sic! your ta6V
A@ Be have paid already, so, we are not lia)le for anythin* pay(ent sic!.
41
). Bith respect to the testi(ony of Arcadio Carandan*
AI@ Fow (uchV
A@ 940,000.00 to 950,000.00 per (onth.
I@ +he plaintiff also clai(ed thru witness Dd*ar Ra*asa, that there were receipts issued
for the pay(ent of your shares; which receipts were (ar4ed as D6hi)its A#A to A3A
9laintiff!.
,8( showin* to you these receipts so (ar4ed )y the plaintiff as their e6hi)its which were
issued in the na(e of Ma. 3uisa Carandan*, your wife; and also, Arcadio M.
Carandan*. Bill you please *o over this ?fficial Receipt and state for the records, who
(ade for the pay(ent stated in these receipts in your na(eV
A@ , paid for those shares.A
42
+here )ein* no testi(ony or docu(entary evidence provin* the e6istence of the pre"
incorporation a*ree(ent, the spouses Carandan* are forced to rely upon an alle*ed
ad(ission )y the ori*inal plaintiff of the e6istence of the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent.
9etitioners clai( that the late Iuirino A. de #uC(an, 2r. had ad(itted the e6istence of
the pre"incorporation a*ree(ent )y virtue of para*raphs 1& and 14 of their Answer and
para*raph 4 of private respondents8 Reply.
9ara*raphs 1& and 14 of petitioners8 Answer dated . <uly 1--2 state in full@
1&. 2o(eti(e in %ove()er, 1-.& or therea)out, herein plaintiff invited defendant
Arcadio M. Carandan* to a 5oint venture )y poolin* to*ether their technical e6pertise,
eEuip(ents, financial resources and franchise. 9laintiff proposed to defendant and
(utually a*reed on the followin*@
1. +hat they would or*aniCe a corporation 4nown as Ma)uhay :roadcastin*
2yste(s, ,nc.
2. Considerin* the technical e6pertise and talent of defendant Arcadio M.
Carandan* and his new eEuip(ents he )ou*ht, and his s4ill in repairin* and
(odifyin* radioGco((unication eEuip(ents into hi*h proficiency, said defendant
would have an eEuity participation in the corporation of 47U, and plaintiff 54U
)ecause of his financial resources and franchise.
&. +hat defendant would always (aintain his 47U eEuity participation in the
corporation even if the capital structures are increased, and that plaintiff would
personally pay the eEuity sharesGstoc4 su)scriptions of defendant with no cost to
the latter.
4. +hat )ecause of defendant8s e6pertise in the trade includin* the (ar4etin*
aspects, he would )e the 9resident and #eneral Mana*er, and plaintiff the
Chair(an of the :oard.
5. +hat considerin* their past and trustworthy relations, they would (aintain such
relations in the 5oint venture without any (ental reservation for their co((on
)enefit and success of the )usiness.
14. Favin* (utually a*reed on the a)ove arran*e(ents, the sin*le proprietorship
of plaintiff was i((ediately spun"off into a corporation now 4nown as Ma)uhay
:roadcastin* 2yste(, ,nc. +he incorporators are plaintiff and his fa(ily
(e()ersGno(inees controllin* 5ointly 54U of the stoc4s and defendant Arcadio
M. Carandan* controllin* sin*ly 47U as previously a*reed.
4&
Meanwhile, para*raphs & and 4 of private respondents8 Reply dated 2- <uly 1--2 state
in full@
&. 9laintiffs ad(its the alle*ation in para*raph 1&.1 of the Answer only insofar the
plaintiff and defendant Arcadio M. Carandan* or*aniCed a corporation 4nown as
Ma)uhay :roadcastin* 2yste(s, ,nc. 9laintiff specifically denies the other alle*ations in
para*raph 1& of the Answer, the sa(e )ein* devoid of any le*al or factual )ases. +he
truth of the (atter is that defendant Arcadio M. Carandan* was not a)le to pay plaintiff
the a*reed a(ount of the lease for a nu()er of (onths forcin* the plaintiff to ter(inate
lease. Additionally, the records would show that it was the defendant Arcadio M.
Carandan* who proposed a 5oint venture with the plaintiff.
,t appears that plaintiff a*reed to the for(ation of the corporation principally )ecause of
a directive of then 9resident Marcos indicatin* the need to )roaden the ownership of
radio )roadcastin* stations. +he plaintiff owned the franchise, the radio trans(itter, the
antenna tower, the )uildin* containin* the radio trans(itter and other eEuip(ent. $erily,
he would )e placed in a *reat disadvanta*e if he would still have to personally pay for
the shares of defendant Arcadio M. Carandan*.
4. 9laintiff ad(its the alle*ations in para*raph 14 of the Answer.
44
,n effect, the spouses Carandan* are relyin* on the fact that Iuirino de #uC(an stated
that he ad(itted para*raph 14 of the Answer, which incidentally contained the openin*
clause Ah!avin* (utually a*reed on the a)ove arran*e(ents, 6 6 6.A
Ad(issions, however, should )e clear and una()i*uous. +his purported ad(ission )y
Iuirino de #uC(an ree4s of a()i*uity, as the clause Ah!avin* (utually a*reed on the
a)ove arran*e(ents,A see(s to )e a (ere introduction to the state(ent that the sin*le
proprietorship of Iuirino de #uC(an had )een converted into a corporation. ,f Iuirino
de #uC(an had (eant to ad(it para*raph 1&.&, he could have easily said so, as he did
the other para*raphs he cate*orically ad(itted. ,nstead, Iuirino de #uC(an e6pressly
stated the opposite@ that Ap!laintiff specifically denies the other alle*ations of para*raph
1& of the Answer.A
45
+he Reply further(ore states that the only portion of para*raph 1&
which Iuirino de #uC(an had ad(itted is para*raph 1&.1, and only insofar as it said
that Iuirino de #uC(an and Arcardio Carandan* or*aniCed Ma)uhay :roadcastin*
2yste(s, ,nc.
47
All the fore*oin* considered, we hold that Iuirino de #uC(an had not ad(itted the
alle*ed pre"incorporation a*ree(ent. As there was no ad(ission, and as the testi(ony
of Arcardio Carandan* was stric4en off the record, we are constrained to rule that there
was no pre"incorporation a*ree(ent renderin* Iuirino de #uC(an lia)le for the
spouses Carandan*8s stoc4 su)scription. +he pay(ent )y the spouses de #uC(an of
the stoc4 su)scriptions of the spouses Carandan* are therefore )y way of loan which
the spouses Carandan* are lia)le to pay.18wphi1
Bhether or not the lia)ility of the spouses Carandan* is 5oint and solidary
/inally, the Court of Appeals also upheld the R+C Decision insofar as it decreed a
solidary lia)ility. Accordin* to the Court of Appeals@
Bith re*ards sic! the tenth assi*ned error, 0the spouses Carandan*1 contend that@
A+here is a)solutely no evidence, testi(onial or docu(entary, showin* that the
purported o)li*ation of 0the spouses Carandan*1 is 5oint and solidary. 6 6 6
A/urther(ore, the purported o)li*ation of 0the spouses Carandan*1 does not at all
Eualify as one of the o)li*ations reEuired )y law to )e solidary 6 6 6.A
,t is apparent fro( the facts of the case that 0the spouses Carandan*1 were (arried way
)efore the effectivity of the /a(ily Code hence; their property re*i(e is con5u*al
partnership under the Civil Code.
,t (ust )e noted that for (arria*es *overned )y the rules of con5u*al partnership of
*ains, an o)li*ation entered into )y the hus)and and wife is char*ea)le a*ainst their
con5u*al partnership and it is the partnership, which is pri(arily )ound for its repay(ent.
+hus, when the spouses are sued for the enforce(ent of the o)li*ation entered into )y
the(, they are )ein* i(pleaded in their capacity as representatives of the con5u*al
partnership and not as independent de)tors, such that the concept of 5oint and solidary
lia)ility, as )etween the(, does not apply.
4.
+he Court of Appeals is correct insofar as it held that when the spouses are sued for the
enforce(ent of the o)li*ation entered into )y the(, they are )ein* i(pleaded in their
capacity as representatives of the con5u*al partnership and not as independent de)tors.
Fence, either of the( (ay )e sued for the whole a(ount, si(ilar to that of a solidary
lia)ility, althou*h the a(ount is char*ea)le a*ainst their con5u*al partnership property.
+hus, in the case cited )y the Court of Appeals, Alipio v. Court of Appeals,
4'
the two sets
of defendant"spouses therein were held lia)le for 925,&00.00 each, char*ea)le to their
respective con5u*al partnerships.
BFDRD/?RD, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affir(in* the 5ud*(ent rendered
a*ainst the spouses Carandan*, is here)y A//,RMDD with the followin*
M?D,/,CA+,?%@ +he spouses Carandan* are ?RDDRDD to pay the followin* a(ounts
fro( their con5u*al partnership properties@
1! 9&&7,&.5.00 representin* the spouses Carandan*8s loan to Iuirino de
#uC(an; and
2! ,nterest on the precedin* a(ount at the rate of twelve percent 12U! per
annu( fro( 5 <une 1--2 when the co(plaint was filed until the principal a(ount
can )e fully paid; and
&! 920,000.00 as attorney8s fees.
%o costs.
2? ?RDDRDD.
SECON, ,IVISION


REYNAL,O BALOLOY a! G.R. No. 158868
A,ELINA BALOLOY40I?E,
9etitioners,

9resent@

9J%?, J., Chairman,
- versus - AJ2+R,A"MAR+,%DR,S
CA33D<?, 2R.,
+,%#A, and
CF,C?"%ARAR,?, JJ.

9ro(ul*ated@
AL$RE,O 0#LAR,
Respondent. 2epte()er -, 2004
6 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 6


, E C I S I O N


CALLE?O, SR., J.@


:efore us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Court, as a(ended, of the Decision
011
of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. C$ %o.
510'1, which affir(ed the Decision
021
of the Re*ional +rial Court of 2orso*on, :ranch
51, in Civil Case %o. -&"5'.1.

+he antecedents are as follows@


?n May 11, 1--&, respondent Alfredo Fular filed a co(plaint for Euietin* of title of
real property with da(a*es a*ainst the children and heirs of ,lu(inado :aloloy, na(ely,
Anacorita, Antonio, and petitioners Reynaldo and Adelina, all surna(ed :aloloy. +he
respondent alle*ed, inter alia, in his co(plaint that his father, Astrolo*o Fular, was the
owner of a parcel of residential land located in 2itio 9a*Te, :iriran, <u)an, 2orso*on,
with an area of 2'. sEuare (eters, and that such lot was part of 3ot %o. &&4. of the
<u)an Cadastre. +he respondent alle*ed that ,lu(inado :aloloy, the petitioners8
predecessor"in"interest, was a)le to secure a /ree 9atent over the property throu*h
fraud on March 1, 1-7', on the )asis of which the Re*ister of Deeds issued ?ri*inal
Certificate of +itle ?C+! %o. 9"17540 in his na(e. +he respondent later discovered that
in the cadastral survey of lands in <u)an, the property of his father, which actually
consisted of 1,405 sEuare (eters was (ade to for( part of 3ot %o. &&5&, the property
of ,lu(inado :aloloy. Accordin* to the respondent, even if the residential land was (ade
to for( part of 3ot %o. &&5& re*istered under the na(e of ,lu(inado :aloloy, he had
acEuired ownership of the property )y acEuisitive prescription, as he and his
predecessors had )een in continuous, uninterrupted and open possession of the
property in the concept of owners for (ore than 70 years.

+he respondent prayed for alternative reliefs that, after due hearin*, 5ud*(ent )e
rendered in his favor, thus@

a! Declarin* the plaintiff as the a)solute owner of the land in Euestion;

)! ?rderin* the defendants to perpetually refrain fro( distur)in*
plaintiff in his peaceful possession in the land in Euestion;

c! ?rderin* the defendants to re(ove their houses in the land in
Euestion, and to declare ?C+ %o. 9"17540, and whatever paper, for(,
docu(ent or proceedin* the defendants (ay have, as null and void
and without any effect whatsoever as far as the land in Euestion is
concerned as they cast cloud upon the title of the plaintiff;

d! ,n the alternative, defendants )e ordered to reconvey the title in
favor of the plaintiff as far as the land in Euestion is concerned;

e! ?rderin* the defendants to 5ointly and severally pay the plaintiff the
a(ount of 950,000.00 as (oral da(a*es; 95,000.00 as attorney8s fee
plus 9500.00 for every appearance or hearin* of his lawyer in
court; 91,500.00 as consultation fee; 95,000.00 as incidental liti*ation
e6penses; 920,000.00 as e6e(plary da(a*es; and to pay the costs.

9laintiff further prays for such other relief 0as are1 5ust and eEuita)le in
the pre(ises.
0&1


Th' E-(!'c' oA +h' R'.&o!'+

+he respondent adduced evidence that the 2pouses 3ino and $ictoriana Dstopin
were the ori*inal owners of a parcel of land located in :aran*ay :iriran, <u)an,
2orso*on, desi*nated as 3ot %o. &&4. of the <u)an Cadastre. A (a5or portion of the
property, where a house of stron* (aterials was constructed, was a*ricultural, while the
rest was residential. +he respondent also averred that the 2pouses Dstopin declared
the property in their na(es under +a6 Declaration %o. 4.-0. ?n the north of the
a*ricultural portion of the property was the road leadin* to :iriran, while north of the
residential portion was a cree4 canal! and the property of ,lu(inado.


Bhen 3ino Dstopin died intestate, his widow, $ictoriana 3a*ata, e6ecuted a Deed
of A)solute 2ale
041
on %ove()er 11, 1-71 over the a*ricultural portion of 3ot %o. &&4.,
which had an area of 15,-07 sEuare (eters, (ore or less, in favor of Astrolo*o Fular,
(arried to 3orenCa Fular. 2hortly thereafter, on %ove()er 25, 1-71, 3a*ata e6ecuted a
Deed of A)solute 2ale
051
over the residential portion of the property with an area of 2'.
sEuare (eters, includin* the house constructed thereon, in favor of Fular. Fular and his
fa(ily, includin* his son, the respondent, then resided in the property. ,n 1-71 or
therea)outs, ,lu(inado as4ed Fular8s per(ission to construct a house on a portion of
3ot %o. &&4. near the road, and the latter a*reed. ,n l-.., 3orenCa Fular, wife of
Astrolo*o, declared the residential land in the latter8s na(e under +a6 Declaration %o.
7'41.
071

Darlier, or on Au*ust 14, 1-45, ,rene #riarte had e6ecuted a Deed of A)solute
2ale over a coconut land located in :aran*ay :iriran, <u)an, with an area of 7,777
sEuare (eters in favor of Martiniano :al)edina, with the followin* )oundaries@ %orth,
Ale5andro #ruta; 2outh, 3ino Dstopin; Dast, River 9a*Te; Best, 9edro #repal and
Dste)an #repal.
0.1
2u)seEuently, after a cadastral survey was conducted on lands in
<u)an, the property of :al)edina was desi*nated as 3ot %o. &&5&, with the followin*
)oundaries@ %orth@ 3ot %o. &&5& portion!, Ale5andro #ruta; 2outh@ 3ino Dstopin; Best@
3ot %o. &&4-; Dast@ cree4. A trail was then esta)lished )etween 3ot %o. &&5& and 3ot
%o. &&4. resultin* in the decrease of 3ot %o. &&5& owned )y :al)edina to 4,751 sEuare
(eters. Fe declared the property under his na(e under +a6 Declaration %o. 1-1 with
the followin* )oundaries@ %orth@ 3ot %o. &&5& portion! Ale5andro #ruta; 2outh@ trail;
Dast@ cree4; Best@ 3ot %o. &&4-.
0'1

?n <une 4, 1-51, :al)edina e6ecuted a Deed of A)solute 2ale over 3ot %o. &&5&
with an area of only 4,751 sEuare (eters in favor of ,lu(inado.
0-1
+he latter declared the
property in his na(e under +a6 Declaration %o. 5&5-.
0101
,lu(inado filed an application
with the :ureau of 3ands for a free patent over the entirety of 3ot %o. &&5& on <anuary
5, 1-70.
0111
Fe indicated in his application that the property was not occupied )y any
person and was disposa)le or aliena)le pu)lic land. ,n support thereof, he e6ecuted an
affidavit wherein he declared that he purchased a)out one"half portion of the property in
1-51 )ased on a deed of a)solute sale attached to said affidavit; that in 1-5., he
purchased the other one"half portion, )ut Kfor econo(ic reasons,L no deed of sale was
e6ecuted )y the parties. Fe also alle*ed that the i(prove(ents on the land consisted of
coconut trees.
0121
+he :ureau of 3ands processed the application in due course.

,n the (eanti(e, ,lu(inado constructed his house on a portion of 3ot %o. &&5&
near the trail road! leadin* to :iriran. Fe and his fa(ily, includin* his children, forthwith
resided in said house.

?n March 1, 1-7', the 2ecretary of A*ricultural and %atural Resources approved
,lu(inado8s application and issued /ree 9atent %o. &'401- coverin* 3ot %o. &&5& with
an area of -,&02 sEuare (eters, on the )asis of which ?C+ %o. 9"17540 was thereafter
issued )y the Re*ister of Deeds on March 1, 1-7'.
01&1


?n Au*ust 2, 1-.5, Ale5andro #ruta had e6ecuted a deed of a)solute sale over a
portion of 3ot %o. &&5& with an area of 4,751 sEuare (eters in favor of Dstelito Fi5e, the
hus)and of petitioner Adelina :aloloy, one of ,lu(inado8s children.
0141

:efore he left for e(ploy(ent in 2audi Ara)ia in 1-.-, respondent Fular had his
house constructed near the trail road! on 3ot %o. &&4., which, however, occupied a )i*
portion of 3ot %o. &&5&.
0151

,lu(inado died intestate on %ove()er 2-, 1-'5. Fis widow and their children
continued residin* in the property, while petitioner Reynaldo :aloloy, one of ,lu(inado8s
children, later constructed his house near that of his deceased father. Bhen Astrolo*o
died intestate on Dece()er 25, 1-'-, he was survived )y his children, <ose, Ro(eo,
Anacleto, Dlena, 3eo, +eresita, and the respondent, a(on* others,
0171
who continued to
reside in their house.
01.1

2o(eti(e in l--1, the respondent8s house helper was cleanin* the )ac4yard, )ut
was prevented fro( doin* so )y petitioner Adelina :aloloy who clai(ed that their father
,lu(inado owned the land where the respondent8s house was located. +o deter(ine
the veracity of the clai(, the respondent had 3ot %o. &&5& surveyed )y #eodetic
Dn*ineer Rodolfo Cunanan on /e)ruary 17, 1--&, in the presence of :al)edina,
Antonio :aloloy and petitioner Reynaldo :aloloy. Cunanan prepared a 2pecial 24etch
9lan of 3ot %o. &&5&
01'1
showin* that the house of ,lu(inado was constructed on 3ot %o.
&&5&
01-1
near the road )ehind the houses owned )y Astrolo*o and Alfredo.
0201
+he
en*ineer discovered that the residential area deeded )y 3a*ata to Fular had an area of
1,405 sEuare (eters, instead of 2'. sEuare (eters only.
0211

,n their Answer to the co(plaint, the heirs of ,lu(inado :aloloy averred that
,lu(inado8s house was )uilt in 1-72 on a portion of 3ot %o. &&5&, which the latter
purchased fro( :al)edina, and not on a portion of 3ot %o. &&4. which Fular purchased
fro( 3a*ata. +hey alle*ed that Fular constructed his house on a portion of 3ot %o.
&&5& after securin* the per(ission of their father ,lu(inado, and that the respondent
had no cause of action for the nullification of /ree 9atent %o. &'401- and ?C+ %o. 9"
17540 )ecause only the 2tate, throu*h the ?ffice of the 2olicitor #eneral, (ay file a
direct action to annul the said patent and title; and even if the respondent was the real
party in interest to file the action, such actions had lon* since prescri)ed. +he heirs of
:aloloy prayed that 5ud*(ent )e rendered in their favor, thus@
BFDRD/?RD, it is (ost respectfully prayed of the Fonora)le
Court to D,2M,22 this case pursuant to para*raph 15, et seE., hereof,
andGor DDC,DD it in favor of the defendants )y J9F?3D,%# the sanctity
of ?C+ %o. 9"17540 and orderin* plaintiff to@

1. RD29DC+ defendants8 proprietary ri*hts and interests on the
property in Euestion covered )y ?C+ %o. 9"17540;
2. $ACA+D it at his sole and e6clusive e6pense, and never to set foot
on it ever a*ain;
&. 9AO defendants@
a! M?RA3 DAMA#D2 at 950,000.00 DACF;
)! AC+JA3 DAMA#D2 and J%RDA3,RDD 9R?/,+2
at 91,000.00GM?%+F C?M9J+DD J9 +? +FD +,MD ?/
9AOMD%+ 93J2 3D#A3 RA+D ?/ ,%+DRD2+;
c! DQDM93ARO DAMA#D2 of 950,000.00
d! A++O82 /DD2 and 3,+,#A+,?% DQ9D%2D2
of 9100,000.00; and
e! +FD C?2+2 ?/ +F,2 2J,+.

DD/D%DA%+2 pray for all other reliefs and re(edies consistent
with law and eEuity.
0221


Th' E-(!'c' Aor +h' P'+(+(o'r.

2o(eti(e in 1-'2, Fular as4ed per(ission fro( ,lu(inado to construct his house
on 3ot %o. &&5& near the road leadin* to :iriran. ,lu(inado a*reed, in the presence of
his dau*hter, petitioner Adelina :aloloy. As per the plan of 3ot %o. &&5& certified )y a
Director of the :ureau of 3ands on %ove()er 7, 1-71, 3ot %o. &&5& had an area of
-,&02 sEuare (eters.
02&1


As *leaned fro( the 24etch 9lan of 3ot %os. &&4. and &&5& prepared on
/e)ruary ., 1--1 )y #eodetic Dn*ineer 2alvador :alilo, the houses of the :aloloy
si)lin*s and those of Astrolo*o and Alfredo were located in 3ot %o. &&5&.
0241
,n the said
s4etch plan, 3ot %o. &&5& had an area of -,&02 sEuare (eters, while 3ot %o. &&4. had
an area of 15,-05 sEuare (eters. Bhen apprised of Fular8s clai( over the property, the
petitioners and their co"heirs filed a co(plaint for unlawful detainer with the Municipal
+rial Court of <u)an, doc4eted as Civil Case %o. &&1. +he case was, however,
dis(issed for lac4 of 5urisdiction.

?n Dece()er 4, 1--5, the trial court rendered 5ud*(ent in favor of the
respondent. +he fallo of the decision reads@

aG Declarin* plaintiff the a)solute owner of the land in Euestion,
consistin* of 1,405 sEuare (eters, (ore or less, and entitled to the
peaceful possession thereof;

)G ?rderin* the defendants to reconvey the title to the plaintiff as far
as the land in Euestion is concerned within fifteen 15! days
counted fro( the finality of the decision, failin* in which, the Cler4
of Court is here)y ordered to e6ecute the necessary docu(ent of
reconveyance of the title in favor of the plaintiff after an approved
survey plan is (ade;

cG ?rderin* defendants to re(ove their houses fro( the land in
Euestion at their own e6pense within fifteen 15! days after the
decision has )eco(e final;

dG ?rderin* the defendants to pay 5ointly and severally plaintiff the
a(ount of 95,000.00 as attorney8s fees. 95,000.00 as incidental
liti*ation e6penses;

eG +o pay the costs.

2? ?RDDRDD.
0251



+he trial court ruled that the property su)5ect of the co(plaint, with an area of
1,405 sEuare (eters, was part of 3ot %o. &&4. which the 2pouses Dstopin owned, and
which they later sold to Astrolo*o Fular. +he trial court also held that ,lu(inado
co((itted fraud in securin* the free patent and the title for the property in
Euestion, and that when $ictoriana 3a*ata e6ecuted the deed of a)solute sale on the
residential portion of 3ot %o. &&4., she did not 4now that it for(ed part of 3ot %o.
&&5&. ,t further held that the action of the plaintiff to nullify the title and patent was
i(prescripti)le.

+he petitioners filed on Dece()er ', 1--5 a (otion to reopen the case to ad(it
+a6 Declaration %os. 7-5. and 4.-0 coverin* 3ot %o. &&4., under the na(es of
Astrolo*o Fular and $ictoriana 3a*ata, respectively, in which it was declared that 3ot
%o. &&4. was coconut land. +he trial court ruled that the (otion had )een (ooted )y
its decision.

?n appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered 5ud*(ent affir(in* the decision of the
trial court, and thereafter denied the (otion for reconsideration thereof.

Th' Pr'.'+ P'+(+(o


+he petitioners, who are still residin* on the su)5ect property, filed their petition
for review on certiorari for the reversal of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

+he issues for resolution are@

1! whether all the indispensa)le parties had )een i(pleaded )y the respondent
in the trial court;
2! whether the said respondent had a cause of action a*ainst the petitioners for
the nullification of /ree 9atent %o. &'401- and ?C+ %o. 9"17540; for reconveyance
and for possession of the su)5ect property; and for da(a*es; and
&! whether the respondent had acEuired ownership over the property throu*h
acEuisitive prescription.

+he first issue, while not raised )y the parties in the trial court and in the Court of
Appeals, is so interwoven with the other issues raised therein and is even decisive of
the outco(e of this case; hence, such issue (ust )e delved into and resolved )y this
Court.
0271


Be note that the action of the respondent in the trial court is for@
a! reinvidicatoria, to declare the respondent the a)solute owner of the su)5ect property
and its reconveyance to hi( as a conseEuence of the nullification of /ree 9atent %o.
&'401- and ?C+ %o. 9"17540; )! publiciana, to order the petitioners and the other
heirs of ,lu(inado :aloloy to vacate the property and deliver possession thereof to hi(;
and c! da(a*es and attorney8s fees.

,t is the contention of the respondent that the su)5ect property was sold )y
3a*ata to his father, Astrolo*o Fular, in 1-71. Fe adduced evidence that when his
parents died intestate, they were survived )y their children, the respondent and his
si)lin*s Dlena, <ose, Ro(eo, Anacleto, 3eo, and +eresita. Article 10.' of the Civil Code
provides that where there are two or (ore heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is,
)efore partition, owned in co((on )y such heirs, su)5ect to the pay(ent of the de)ts of
the deceased. Jntil a division is (ade, the respective share of each cannot )e
deter(ined and every co"owner e6ercises, to*ether with his co"participants, 5oint
ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to the use and en5oy(ent of the
sa(e.

Jnder Article 4'. of the %ew Civil Code, any of the co"owners (ay )rin* an
action in e5ect(ent. +his article covers all 4inds of actions for the recovery of
possession, includin* an accion publiciana and a reinvidicatory action. A co"owner (ay
)rin* such an action without the necessity of 5oinin* all the other co"owners as co"
plaintiffs )ecause the suit is dee(ed to )e instituted for the )enefit of all.
02.1
Any
5ud*(ent of the court in favor of the co"owner will )enefit the others )ut if such
5ud*(ent is adverse, the sa(e cannot pre5udice the ri*hts of the uni(pleaded co"
owners. ,f the action is for the )enefit of the plaintiff alone who clai(s to )e the sole
owner and entitled to the possession thereof, the action will not prosper unless he
i(pleads the other co"owners who are indispensa)le parties.

,n this case, the respondent alone filed the co(plaint, clai(in* sole ownership
over the su)5ect property and prayin* that he )e declared the sole owner thereof. +here
is no proof that the other co"owners had waived their ri*hts over the su)5ect property or
conveyed the sa(e to the respondent or such co"owners were aware of the case in the
trial court. +he trial court rendered 5ud*(ent declarin* the respondent as the sole
owner of the property and entitled to its possession, to the pre5udice of the latter8s
si)lin*s. 9atently then, the decision of the trial court is erroneous.

Jnder 2ection ., Rule & of the Rules of Court, the respondent was (andated to
i(plead his si)lin*s, )ein* co"owners of the property, as parties. +he respondent failed
to co(ply with the rule. ,t (ust, li4ewise, )e stressed that the Repu)lic of the
9hilippines is also an indispensa)le party as defendant )ecause the respondent sou*ht
the nullification of ?C+ %o. 9"17540 which was issued )ased on /ree 9atent %o.
&'401-. Jnless the 2tate is i(pleaded as party"defendant, any decision of the Court
would not )e )indin* on it. ,t has )een held that the a)sence of an indispensa)le party
in a case renders ineffective all the proceedin*s su)seEuent to the filin* of the
co(plaint includin* the 5ud*(ent.
02'1
+he a)sence of the respondent8s si)lin*s, as
parties, rendered all proceedin*s su)seEuent to the filin* thereof, includin* the
5ud*(ent of the court, ineffective for want of authority to act, not only as to the a)sent
parties )ut even as to those present.
02-1


Dven if we *lossed over the procedural lapses of the respondent, we rule that he
failed to prove the (aterial alle*ations of his co(plaint a*ainst the petitioners; and that
he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

+he )urden of proof is on the plaintiff to esta)lish his case )y the
reEuisite )uantum of evidence. ,f he clai(s a ri*ht *ranted as created )y law or under a
contract of sale, he (ust prove his clai( )y co(petent evidence. Fe (ust rely on the
stren*th of his own evidence and not on the wea4ness or a)sence of the evidence of
that of his opponent.
0&01
Fe who clai(s a )etter ri*ht to real estate property (ust prove
not only his ownership of the sa(e )ut also the identity thereof.
0&11
,n ,u/ v. ,u/,
0&21
we
held that where a property su)5ect of controversy is duly re*istered under the +orrens
syste(, the presu(ptive conclusiveness of such title should )e *iven wei*ht and in the
a)sence of stron* and co(pellin* evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should )e
considered as the owner of the property until his title is nullified or (odified in an
appropriate ordinary action. A +orrens Certificate is evidence of an indefeasi)le title to
property in favor of the person in whose na(e appears therein.
0&&1
2uch holder is
entitled to the possession of the property until his title is nullified.

+he petitioners aver that 3ot %o. &&4. owned )y the 2pouses Dstopin was
coconut, and not residential, land. +he petitioners contend that, under the deed of
a)solute sale, $ictoriana 3a*ata e6ecuted on %ove()er 25, 1-71 in favor of Astrolo*o
Fular, she sold the residential portion of 3ot %o. &&4.; however, the latter constructed
his house on a portion of 3ot %o. &&5& which ,lu(inado had purchased fro( :al)edina,
now covered )y ?C+ %o. 9"17540. +he petitioners assert that alon* with their (other
Anacorita and their )rother Antonio :aloloy, they constructed their houses on a part of
3ot %o. &&5&, titled in the na(e of their father ,lu(inado; hence, they could not )e
dispossessed of the said property. +he petitioners posit that, whether the house of
Fular was constructed on a portion of 3ot %o. &&5& of the property of :al)edina or
#ruta is irrelevant )ecause )oth properties are now covered )y ?C+ %o. 9"17540
under the na(e of ,lu(inado, their predecessor"in"interest.

+he Court of Appeals ruled that $ictoriana 3a*ata owned the su)5ect property,
which turned out to )e 1,405 sEuare (eters, and sold the sa(e to Fular. ,n contrast,
the R+C declared in its decision that while under the deed of a)solute sale e6ecuted )y
,rene #riarte in favor of :al)edina, 3ot %o. &&5& had an area of 7,777 sEuare (eters,
#riarte actually owned only 4,751 sEuare (eters; a portion of the lot was actually
owned )y 3ino Dstopin. Fence, :al)edina sold only 4,751 sEuare (eters to
,lu(inado
0&41
)ecause he was aware that he owned only 4,751 sEuare (eters of the
land. ,t also held that, un4nown to 3a*ata, a portion of 3ot %o. &&4. was declared as
part of 3ot %o. &&5& when the lands in <u)an were surveyed. +he trial court concluded
that 3a*ata erroneously declared, under the deed of a)solute sale e6ecuted on
%ove()er 25, 1-71 in favor of Fular, that the property was part of 3ot %o. &&4..

+he trial and appellate courts erred in their decisions.

+he evidence on record shows that ,rene #riarte owned a parcel of land with an
area of 7,777 sEuare (eters, (ore or less.
0&51
Bhen she sold the property to Martiniano
:al)edina on Au*ust 14, 1-45, it was )ounded on the south )y the property of 3ino
Dstopin. +here was no trail yet )etween the property of #riarte on the south and of 3ino
Dstopin on the north. ,n the (eanti(e, however, a road trail! leadin* to :iriran was
esta)lished )etween the property of :al)edina on the south and that of 3ino Dstopin on
the north. +hereafter, a cadastral survey of the lands in <u)an was conducted )y the
:ureau of 3ands. +he property of :al)edina was desi*nated as a portion of 3ot %o.
&&5&, while that of Dstopin was desi*nated as 3ot %o. &&4.. +he other portion of 3ot
%o. &&5&, with an area of 4,571 sEuare (eters, )elon*ed to Ale5andro #ruta. :ecause
of the construction of the road, the property of :al)edina, which was a part of 3ot %o.
&&5&, was reduced to 4,751 sEuare (eters. :al)edina declared, under +a6 Declaration
%o. &-1, that 3ot %o. &&5& had an area of 4,751 sEuare (eters and was coconut
land
0&71
and that his property was )ounded on the south )y a trail road!. 3ino Dstopin
declared 3ot %o. &&4. under his na(e for ta6ation purposes, in which he stated that his
property was )ounded on the north )y the trail *oin* to :iriran.
0&.1
Clearly, then, 3ot %o.
&&5& and 3ot %o. &&4. had a co((on )oundary > the trail road! *oin* to :iriran.

:al)edina sold his property, which was a portion of 3ot %o. &&5&, with an area of
4,751 sEuare (eters to ,lu(inado :aloloy on <une 4, 1-51.
0&'1
Jnder the deed of
a)solute sale, the property was )ounded on the south )y the trail road! owned )y 3ino
Dstopin.
0&-1
+he Dn*lish translation of the deed of sale attached as pa*e '5 to the R+C
Records, which )oth the trial court and the appellate court relied upon, is incorrect.
+he ori*inal deed of a)solute sale, which is in 2panish, states that the )oundary
of the property on the south is 9con camino, 3ino Dstopin,L while the Dn*lish version of
the deed, indicates that the property is )ounded Kon the south )y 3ino Dstopin.L :ein*
an earlier docu(ent, the deed in 2panish si*ned )y the parties therefore should
prevail. Confor(a)ly to such deed, ,lu(inado :aloloy declared in +a6 Declaration %o.
5&5- under his na(e that the property is )ounded on the south )y a trail,
0401
and not )y
3ot %o. &&4. owned )y 3ino Dstopin.

+he respondent failed to adduce any docu(entary evidence to prove how the
2pouses Dstopin acEuired the disputed property. +he respondent8s reliance on the
testi(onies of Melissa Dstopin, the dau*hter of the 2pouses Dstopin, and on 9orfirio
#ua(os as well as the May ', 1--& Affidavit of Martiniano :al)edina, and the deed of
sale e6ecuted )y $ictoriana 3a*ata on %ove()er 2., 1-71 in favor of Astrolo*o Fular to
corro)orate his clai( over the lot in Euestion, is (isplaced.

/irst. 9er the testi(ony of 9orfirio #ua(os, the witness of the respondent, 3ino
Dstopin purchased the disputed property in 1-41 fro( ,rene #riarte and insisted that
there was a deed of sale evidencin* the sale@

Atty. Dealca@
I +he area of the land in Euestion is 1,405 sE. (., you clai( that way
)ac4 in 1-44 the owner of the land was 3ino Dstopin; 841 to 844V
A 1-41.

I And you said that 3ino Dstopin was a)le to acEuire the land )y
purchaseV
A +hat was very lon* ti(e when 3ino Dstopin sold the property.

I My Euestion is whether you 4now )ecause you testified earlier that
3ino Dstopin was a)le to acEuire the land )y purchase; do you
confir( thatV
A Oes, 2ir.

I /ro( who(V
A /ro( ,rene #riarte.

I Bere you present when that sale was consu((atedV
A , was not there.

I 2o you do not 4now how (uch was it )ou*ht )y 3ino Dstopin fro(
,rene #riarteV
A %o, 2ir.

I Oou do not 4now whether a docu(ent to that effect was actually
drafted and e6ecutedV
A +here was.

I Fave you seen the docu(entV
A , did not see )ut there was a docu(ent.
I Oou (aintain there was a docu(ent )ut you did not see a
docu(ent, is that itV
A ,n (y )elief there was a docu(ent.

I ,n your )elief, how did you or*aniCe that )elief when you did not
see a docu(entV
A , insist there was a docu(ent.

I +hat is why, why are you insistin* when you did not see a
docu(entV
A Bell, durin* the sale that docu(ent was used.

I Fow was it used when you did not see that docu(entV
A Bhen the deed of sale was e6ecuted , did not see the docu(ent,
)ut , insist there was a docu(ent.

I +hat8s why, how were you a)le to say )efore the court that there
was a docu(ent when you contend that you did not see anyV
A +here was )asis in the sale W the sale was )ased on a
docu(ent. Oou cannot sell a property without docu(entV sic!

I ,s that your )eliefV
A Oes, 2ir.

I :ut you did not see any docu(entV

Atty. Diesta@

Already answered.

Bitness@

A , did not see.

Atty. Dealca@

I Oou said that that docu(ent was used when the property was sold
)y 3ino Dstopin to Alfredo Fular. . .
A ,n 1-71. Oes.
0411


Fowever, the respondent failed to adduce in evidence the said deed or even an
authentic copy thereof. +he respondent did not offer any 5ustification for his failure to
adduce the sa(e in evidence. As a*ainst the respondent8s ver)al clai( that his father
acEuired the property fro( 3a*ata, the +orrens title of ,lu(inado :aloloy (ust prevail.
0421

2econd. +he respondent even failed to adduce in evidence any ta6 declarations
over the disputed property under the na(e of ,rene #riarte andGor 3ino Dstopin, or realty
ta6 pay(ent receipts in their na(es fro( 1-41 to %ove()er 1-71. +he docu(ents are
circu(stantial evidence to prove that ,rene #riarte clai(ed ownership over the disputed
property and that 3ino Dstopin acEuired the sa(e fro( her. After all, such ta6
declarations and ta6 receipts can )e stron* evidence of ownership of land when
acco(panied )y possession for a period sufficient for acEuisitive prescription.
04&1

+hird. +he respondent even failed to adduce in evidence +a6 Declaration %o.
4.-0 coverin* the two parcels of land under the na(e of 3ino Dstopin to prove his clai(
that 3ot %o. &&4. consisted of a*ricultural and residential lands. Be note that the
petitioners appended a certified true copy of +a6 Declaration %o. 4.-0 under the na(e
of $ictoriana 3a*ata over 3ot %o. &&4. to their Motion to Reopen the Case. ,n the said
declaration, 3ot %o. &&4. was descri)ed as coconut land; this is contrary to the
respondent8s clai( that the said lot was then residential, and that the )oundary of the
property on the north was the road to :iriran which, in turn, is consistent with the
petitioners8 clai(.
0441
Jnfortunately, the trial court denied the said (otion on the *round
that it was (ooted )y its decision.

/ourth. Durin* the cadastral survey of lands in <u)an, the lot of #ruta and that of
:al)edina, inclusive of the su)5ect property, were desi*nated as 3ot %o. &&5& with a
total area of -,&02 sEuare (eters under their na(es, while that of 3ino Dstopin was
desi*nated as 3ot %o. &&4. with an area of 15,-07 sEuare (eters. ,lu(inado :aloloy
applied for a free patent over 3ot %o. &&5&, includin* the disputed property, under his
na(e. +he respondent failed to adduce any evidence that the 2pouses Dstopin andGor
Astrolo*o Fular opposed :al)edina andGor ,lu(inado8s clai( of ownership of 3ot %o.
&&5& durin* the survey and after the filin* of the application. A propos is our rulin*
in 6r)uia!a v. Court of Appeals@
0451

As succinctly o)served )y respondent Court of Appeals in
assessin* the totality of the evidence >

Be do not a*ree with defendants that they are also the occupants
and possessors of the su)5ect lot 5ust )ecause it Kis ad5acent to their titled
property.L 9recisely, the )oundaries of defendants8 titled property were
deter(ined, delineated and surveyed durin* the cadastral survey of
Dipolo* and thereafter indicated in their certificate of title in order that the
e6tent of their property will )e 4nown and fi6ed. 2ince the su)5ect lot was
already found to )e outside their titled property, defendants have no )asis
in clai(in* it or other ad5acent lots for that (atter. ?therwise, the very
purpose of the cadastral survey as a process of deter(inin* the e6act
)oundaries of ad5oinin* properties will )e defeated.

Defendants8 own title, ?.C.+. %o. 0"&5. in the na(es of <ose
A*uirre and Cristina #onCales!, in fact )elies their clai( of occupation and
possession over the ad5acent su)5ect lot. D6a(inin* said title, we note
that@ 1! the cadastral survey of Dipolo* was conducted fro( <anuary,
1-2& to %ove()er 1-25; 2! defendants8 titled property was one of those
lots surveyed and this was desi*nated as 3ot %o. 272&; &! durin* the
survey, it was already deter(ined and 4nown that 3ot %o. 272& is
)ounded on the northeast, southeast, southwest and west )y 3ot %o. 444&
as we have seen in our narration of facts, the su)5ect lot is a su)division
lot of 3ot %o. 7552 which was ori*inally identified as 3ot %o. 444&":"1,
Dipolo* Cadastre '5 D6t.@ hence, the su)5ect lot is a portion of 3ot %o.
444&!; and 4! ?.C.+. %o. 0"&5. was issued on ?cto)er 11, 1-75 on the
stren*th of the 5ud*(ent rendered on <uly &1 sic!, 1-41 )y the then Court
of /irst ,nstance of Ra()oan*a del %orte in Cadastral Case %o. 7, 3RC
Cadastral Record %o. .57.

/ro( the fore*oin* facts, we find that as early as <anuary, 1-2&
when the cadastral survey was started, the )oundaries of 3ot %os. 272&
and 444& were already deter(ined and delineated. 2ince the su)5ect lot
was surveyed to )e part of 3ot %o. 444&, it (eans that durin* that ti(e
defendants8 predecessors"in"interest never clai(ed ownership or
possession over the su)5ect lot. ?therwise, they would have co(plained
so that the su)5ect lot could )e e6cluded fro( 3ot %o. 444& and included
in 3ot %o. 272&, they )ein* ad5acent lots. ,t is o)vious then that
defendants8 predecessors only clai(ed 3ot %o. 272& and they pursued
their clai( in Cadastral Case %o. 7, 3RC Cadastral Record %o. .57 until
?.C.+. %o. 0"&5. was issued to the(. +he contention of defendants that
they and their predecessors"in"interest occupied and possessed the
su)5ect lot since ti(e i((e(orial therefore is not true.
0471


/ifth. Jnder the deed of a)solute sale dated %ove()er 25, 1-71, 3a*ata sold to
Astrolo*o Fular 3ot %o. &&4., and not 3ot %o. &&5&. ,n 2eterans #ederation of the
0hilippines v. Court of Appeals,
04.1
we ruled that@

9etitioner $/9 (aintains that the deed of sale was valid and
enforcea)le and that it was perfected at the very (o(ent that the parties
a*reed upon the thin* which was the o)5ect of the sale and upon the
price. +he parties herein had a*reed on the parcel of land that petitioner
would purchase fro( respondent 9%R, and the sa(e was descri)ed
therein; thus, petitioner $/9 cannot conveniently set aside the technical
description in this a*ree(ent and insist that it is the le*al owner of the
property erroneously descri)ed in the certificate of title. 9etitioner can
only clai( ri*ht of ownership over the parcel of land that was the o)5ect of
the deed of sale and nothin* else.
04'1


2i6th. Jnder the said deed of sale dated %ove()er 11, 1-71, $ictoriana 3a*ata
sold 3ot %o. &&4. which had an area of 15,-07 sEuare (eters and covered )y +a6
Declaration %o. 4.-0. +he deed does not state that what was sold was only a portion of
3ot %o. &&4., e6cludin* therefro( the disputed property. +his is understanda)le, since
the su)5ect property is a portion of 3ot %o. &&5& owned )y Ale5andro #ruta and
,lu(inado :aloloy, and not of 3ino Dstopin andGor $ictoriana 3a*ata. 3a*ata could not
have sold a portion of 3ot %o. &&5& which she does not own. As the 3atin ada*e
*oes@ K-"+ $A1 :6+$ -+- ,A*"1.;

2eventh. +he :al)edina8s Affidavit dated May ', 1--& offered )y the respondent
to prove the contents thereof is inad(issi)le in evidence a*ainst the petitioners.
:al)edina did not testify; as such, the petitioners were deprived of their ri*ht to cross"
e6a(ine hi(. +he said affidavit is thus hearsay and )arren of pro)ative wei*ht. +he
affidavit varies the contents of the deed of a)solute sale which he :al)edina! e6ecuted
in favor of ,lu(inado (ore than forty years earlier. ,n the said affidavit, it was (ade to
appear that :al)edina sold to ,lu(inado on <une 4, 1-51 only a portion of 3ot &&5& with
an area of &,&&& sEuare (eters, when under the said deed of a)solute sale, the
property that was sold consisted of 4,751 sEuare (eters. +he affidavit is proscri)ed )y
2ection -, Rule 1&0 of the Rules of Court, which provides@
2ection -. "vidence of written a!reements. - Bhen the ter(s of
an a*ree(ent have )een reduced to writin*, it is considered as containin*
all the ter(s a*reed upon and there can )e, )etween the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such ter(s other than the contents
of the written a*ree(ent.
. . .

,t )ears stressin* that the deed of a)solute sale e6ecuted )y :al)edina in favor
of :aloloy was notariCed )y the <ustice of the 9eace who was an D6"?fficio %otary
9u)lic; hence, entitled to full pro)ative wei*ht.

Di*hth. +he 2pecial 24etch 9lan of 3ot %o. &&5& prepared )y #eodetic Dn*ineer
Rodolfo 9. Cunanan
04-1
cannot prevail over ?C+ %o. 9"17540. ,n fact, the plan even
)uttressed the case for the petitioners )ecause it shows that the su)5ect property is a
portion of 3ot %o. &&5&, and not of 3ot %o. &&4., covered )y ?C+ %o. 9"17540 under
the na(e of ,lu(inado :aloloy, the deceased father of the petitioners.

%inth. +he conclusion of the R+C that 3a*ata in fact sold a portion of 3ot %o.
&&4. under the deed of a)solute sale dated %ove()er 25, 1-71, unaware that the
property was a part of 3ot %o. &&5&, is )ased on (ere speculations and sur(ises.

,lu(inado :aloloy included in his application for a free patent the property of
Ale5andro #ruta, and was a)le to secure a free patent over said property in addition to
his own. As such, #ruta, not the respondent, is the proper party to assail such free
patent, as well as ?C+ %o. 9"17540 which was issued )ased thereon.

IN LIG0T O$ ALL T0E $OREGOING, the petition is GRANTE,. +he decisions
of the Re*ional +rial Court and the Court of Appeals are REVERSE, and SET
ASI,E. +he co(plaint of the respondent is ,ISMISSE,. %o costs.

SO OR,ERE,.


/,R2+ D,$,2,?%
6G.R. No. 120962. Oc+o;'r 9, 20037
MAN#EL T. ,E G#IA, petitioner, vs. CO#RT O$ APPEALS %$or*'r S(3+h ,(-(.(o/
a! ?OSE B. ABE?O, r'&r'.'+'! ;< h(. A++or'<4(4
$ac+,0'r*''D()!a A;'Eo4R(-'ra, respondents.
, E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.@
Th' Ca.'
+his is a 9etition for Review on Certiorari
011
assailin* the 22 Au*ust
1--4 Decision
021
as well as the 2. <une 1--5 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA"
#.R. C$ %o. &-'.5. +he Court of Appeals affir(ed the Decision
0&1
of the Re*ional +rial
Court Ktrial courtL! of Malolos, :ulacan, :ranch 17, in Civil Case %o. '.-7"M. +he trial
court8s Decision ordered petitioner Manuel +. De #uia KDD #J,AL! to turn over to
private respondent <ose :. A)e5o KA:D<?L! possession of the one half X! undivided
portion of a fishpond and to pay actual da(a*es and attorney8s fees.
Th' A+'c'!'+.
?n 12 May 1-'7, A:D<?
041
instituted an action for recovery of possession with
da(a*es a*ainst DD #J,A. ,n his co(plaint, A:D<? alle*ed that he is the owner of the
X undivided portion of a property used as a fishpond K/,2F9?%DL! situated in
Meycauayan, :ulacan and covered )y +C+ %o. +"7&5' of the :ulacan Re*ister of
Deeds. Fe alle*ed ownership over appro6i(ately &-,711 sEuare (eters out of the
/,2F9?%D8s total area of .-,220 sEuare (eters. A:D<? further averred that DD #J,A
continues to possess and use the /,2F9?%D without any contract and without payin*
rent to A:D<?8s da(a*e and pre5udice. A:D<? also co(plained that DD #J,A refuses
to surrender ownership and possession of the /,2F9?%D despite repeated de(ands to
do so after DD #J,A8s su)lease contract over the /,2F9?%D had e6pired. A:D<?
as4ed the trial court to order DD #J,A to vacate an appro6i(ate area of &-,711 sEuare
(eters as well as pay da(a*es.
DD #J,A, a lawyer )y profession, appeared on his own )ehalf. Fe filed his Answer
on 12 <anuary 1--0 after the Court of Appeals resolved several issues concernin* the
validity of the service of su((ons on hi(. ,n his Answer, DD #J,A alle*ed that the
co(plaint does not state a cause of action and has prescri)ed. Fe clai(ed that the
/,2F9?%D was ori*inally owned )y Ma6i(a +er(ulo who died intestate with 9ri(itiva
3e5ano as her only heir. Accordin* to hi(, A:D<? is not the owner of the entire
/,2F9?%D )ut the heirs of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano who authoriCed hi( to possess the entire
/,2F9?%D. Fe assailed A:D<?8s ownership of the X undivided portion of the
/,2F9?%D as void and clai(ed ownership over an undivided half portion of the
/,2F9?%D for hi(self. DD #J,A sou*ht pay(ent of da(a*es and rei()urse(ent for
the i(prove(ents he introduced as a )uilder in *ood faith.
+he trial court set the pre"trial and reEuired the parties to file their pre"trial
)riefs. A:D<? filed his pre"trial )rief
051
on 05 April 1--0. DD #J,A filed his pre"trial
)rief
071
on &1 <uly 1--0. DD #J,A8s pre"trial )rief raised as the only issue in the case the
a(ount of da(a*es in the for( of rent that DD #J,A should pay A:D<?. DD #J,A also
su)(itted an ?ffer to Co(pro(ise,
0.1
offerin* to settle A:D<?8s clai( for 9&00,000
and to lease the entire /,2F9?%D to any party of A:D<?8s choice.
Fearin* co((enced on &0 <uly 1--0. A:D<? rested his case on 4 Dece()er
1--0. DD #J,A8s last witness co(pleted her testi(ony on 22 %ove()er 1--1. +he trial
court su((ariCed the evidence presented )y A:D<? and DD #J,A as follows@
Dvidence adduced fro( plaintiff shows that there are two parcels of land coverin* a
fishpond with a total area of .-,220 sE. (. (ore or less, situated at J)ihan,
Meycauayan, :ulacan and covered )y +C+ %o. 7&5' eEually owned )y 9ri(itiva
3e5ano and 3orenCa Aranie*o (arried to <uan A)e5o D6h. A!. +he one half undivided
portion owned )y 3orenCa Aranie*o correspondin* to &-,711 sE. (. was later
purchased )y plaintiff fro( his father +eofilo A)e5o D6h. :!, the only heir of the ori*inal
owner on %ove()er 22, 1-'&. 9rior to this sale on <uly &0, 1-.4 the whole fishpond
.-,220! was the su)5ect of a K2alin n* 9a(u(usisyon* n* 9alaisdaanL e6ecuted )y
the heirs of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano with the 4nowled*e and consent of +eofilo A. A)e5o in favor
of one Aniano $icta and defendant. +he contract provided that the period of lease shall
)e until %ove()er &0, 1-.-. Bhen the contract e6pired and defendant failed to
surrender the fishpond, written de(ands the last of which was on %ove()er 2., 1-'&
were (ade for defendants to pay )ac4 rental and to vacate the pre(ises in Euestion
D6h. D Y D!. Defendant refused to deliver possession and also to pay the rentals
due. ,n anticipation, however, that defendant will vacate the fishpond, plaintiff,
on Dece()er 21, 1-'& entered into a two year KPasunduan n* :uwisan n* 9alaisdaanL
with Ruperto C. $illarico for a consideration of 950,000.00 D6h. #!. +his contract,
despite its e6ecution and even already notariCed, had to )e cancelled and the a(ount
of950,000.00 returned )y plaintiff to $illarico when the defendant did not heed the
de(and to vacate the fishpond. /or unpaid rental, actual as well as (oral and
e6e(plary da(a*es, plaintiff as4s pay(ent of 9450,000.00 and 920,000.00 attorney8s
fees.
?n the other hand, defendant8s evidence tends to show that the entire fishpond with an
area of .-,200 sE. (. was leased to hi( )y the heirs of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano. 2u)seEuently,
defendant )eca(e the a)solute owner of one half of the undivided area of the fishpond
and he Euestioned plaintiffs ownership of the other half as void and fraudulent. As to
the area pertainin* to plaintiff, defendant clai(ed that he introduced i(prove(ents
worth9500,000 and )ein* in *ood faith, he as4ed that he should )e rei()ursed )y
plaintiff. ,n his pre"trial )rief, however, defendant raised the only issue which is the
a(ount of da(a*es plaintiff is entitled to in the for( of rental. Fence, the thrust of the
testi(onies of defendant8s witnesses particularly :en Ru)en Ca(ar*o and Marta
/ernando 9eTa was the a(ount of rental of fishponds in the sa(e locality as the
fishpond in Euestion at a *iven ti(e. Fowever, the docu(entary evidence D6hs. 1 and
2! in support of their testi(ony were not offered as evidence.
0'1
+he trial court rendered its decision on ' <une 1--2, disposin* as follows@
BFDRD/?RD, pre(ises considered, 5ud*(ent is here)y rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and a*ainst the defendant and here)y orders that@
1. Defendant shall turn over possession to plaintiff one half undivided
portion of the .-,200 sE. (. fishpond who shall en5oy the )enefits
and fruits in eEual share with the defendant effective i((ediately
until such ti(e that partition of the property is effected;
2. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff the a(ount of 9272,500.00 )y way
of actual or co(pensatory da(a*es;
& Defendant shall pay plaintiff 920,000.00 as and for attorney8s
fees; and
4. +o pay the costs.
2? ?RDDRDD.
0-1
A**rieved, DD #J,A went to the Court of Appeals insistin* the trial court erred in
orderin* hi( to vacate and surrender possession of the X undivided portion of the
/,2F9?%D and to pay actual da(a*es and attorney8s fees. +he Court of Appeals
found DD #J,A8s appeal without (erit and affir(ed the trial court8s decision. Jpon DD
#J,A8s (otion for reconsideration, the appellate court reduced the co(pensatory
da(a*es fro( 9272,500 to 9212,500.
Fence, the instant petition.
+he undisputed facts as found )y the trial court and adopted in toto )y the Court of
Appeals are restated as follows@
1. +he su)5ect of the dispute are two undivided parcels of land used as a
fishpond situated in :arrio J)ihan, Meycauayan, :ulacan, ori*inally co"
owned )y 9ri(itiva 3e5ano and 3orenCa Aranie*o (arried to <uan A)e5o.
2. +he /,2F9?%D is re*istered under the na(es of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano and
3orenCa Aranie*o under +C+ %o. 7&5' of the :ulacan Re*ister of Deeds as
follows@
0R''1'2A %"JA-+, #ilipina, of le!al a!e, sin!le - < share= and
%+R"->A ARA-'"7+, #ilipina, of le!al a!e, married to Juan Abejo, <
share, ---
&. +he /,2F9?%D has a total land area of appro6i(ately .-,220 sEuare
(eters. A:D<? is see4in* to recover possession of the X undivided portion
of the /,2F9?%D containin* &-,711 sEuare (eters.
4. DD #J,A alon* with a certain Aniano $icta! acEuired possession of the
entire /,2F9?%D )y virtue of a docu(ent captioned (alin n!
0amumusis/on! n! 0alaisdaan K3ease ContractL! e6ecuted )etween hi(
and the heirs of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano. +he 3ease Contract was effective fro( &0
<uly 1-.4 up to &0 %ove()er 1-.- for a consideration of 9100,000.
5. +he 3ease Contract was e6ecuted with the 4nowled*e and consent of +eofilo
A)e5o, sole heir of 3orenCa Aranie*o A)e5o. +eofilo A)e5o acEuired 3orenCa
Aranie*o A)e5o8s X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D )y intestate
succession.
7. +eofilo A)e5o now deceased! sold his X undivided share in the
/,2F9?%D to his son, A:D<?, on 22 %ove()er 1-'&.
.. DD #J,A continues to possess the entire /,2F9?%D and to derive
inco(e fro( the property despite the e6piration of the 3ease Contract and
several de(ands to vacate (ade )y +eofilo A)e5o and )y his successor"in"
interest, A:D<?. +he last de(and letter was dated 2. %ove()er 1-'&.
'. A:D<? filed his co(plaint for recovery of possession with da(a*es a*ainst
DD #J,A on 12 May 1-'7.
-. DD #J,A8s clai( of ownership over the other X undivided portion of
the /,2F9?%D has not )een finally ad5udicated for or a*ainst hi(.
DD #J,A offers the verified Complaint for Annulment of Real "state ort!a!e and
Contract of %ease with 0reliminar/ 'njunction si*ned )y the heirs of 9ri(itiva 3e5ano as
proof of his ownership of the other undivided half portion of the /,2F9?%D. Records
show that DD #J,A filed the co(plaint for hi(self and as attorney"in fact of the heirs of
9ri(itiva 3e5ano K3e5ano FeirsL!
0101
a*ainst 2pouses +eofilo Morte and An*elina
$illarico, 2pouses Ruperto and Mila*ros $illarico, et al. KDefendantsL!. +he case was
raffled to :ranch 12 of the Re*ional +rial Court of Malolos, :ulacan, and doc4eted as
Civil Case. %o. '7"2."M. +he co(plaint alle*ed that DD #J,A acEuired his X undivided
share in the /,2F9?%D fro( the 3e5ano Feirs in /e)ruary 1-'7. DD #J,A and the
3e5ano Feirs sou*ht to annul the ?asulatan n! (an!laan and ?asulatan n! 0a!bubuwis
n! 0alaisdaan, e6ecuted on 10 %ove()er 1-.- )y 9ri(itiva 3e5ano in favor of the
Defendants. DD #J,A and the 3e5ano Feirs clai(ed that 9ri(itiva 3e5ano si*ned these
docu(ents under duress and without consideration.
+he trial court rendered 5ud*(ent
0111
on 2' /e)ruary 1--2 a*ainst DD #J,A and the
3e5ano Feirs as follows@
BFDRD/?RD, the evidence havin* shown the plaintiffs, particularly Manuel De #uia,
their successor"in"interest, not entitled upon the facts and the law to the relief prayed for
in the a(ended co(plaint, the sa(e is here)y D,2M,22DD with costs a*ainst said
plaintiff. ,nstead, as prayed for )y defendants, 5ud*(ent is here)y rendered@
1. > Declarin* the KPasulatan n* 2an*laanL D6hs. KAL Y K1L!
dated %ove()er 10, 1-.-, and the KPasulatan n* 9a*)u)uwis
n* 9alaisdaanL D6hs. KCL YL&L! also dated %ove()er 10, 1-.-,
as valid for all le*al intents and purposes;
2. > ?rderin* the D6"?fficio 2heriff, R+C, :ulacan, to proceed
with the e6tra5udicial foreclosure of the su)5ect real estate
(ort*a*e; and
&. > ?rderin* plaintiffs to pay defendants attorney8s fees in the
a(ount of 920,000.00.
2? ?RDDRDD.
0121
+he Court of Appeals affir(ed the trial court in a Decision dated &0 Au*ust 2002 in
CA"#.R. C$ %o. &'0&1. +he Court of Appeals found the clai( of force and inti(idation
in the e6ecution of the docu(ents as hi*hly i(pro)a)le since 9ri(itiva 3e5ano8s son,
Renato Davis, witnessed the si*nin* of the docu(ents and found nothin* irre*ular at
the ti(e. +he appellate court also held that assu(in* Defendants threatened DD #J,A
and the 3e5ano Feirs with i((ediate foreclosure, Defendants were (erely e6ercisin*
their le*iti(ate ri*ht of foreclosin* the (ort*a*ed property for non"pay(ent of the
loan. ,n addition, 9ri(itiva 3e5ano8s lawyer and notary pu)lic, Atty. Ma(erto A)aTo,
testified that the parties appeared )efore hi( to affir( the contents of the
docu(ents. Fe also stated that he was present when Defendants paid 9ri(itiva 3e5ano
Davis and her son Renato. As of this writin*, DD #J,A has a pendin* (otion for
reconsideration )efore the Court of Appeals. ,n the event the Court of Appeals8 Decision
attains finality, DD #J,A (ay lose whatever ri*ht he clai(s over the /,2F9?%D.
Th' Tr(a) Co1r+C. R1)(D
+he trial court ruled that A:D<? has the ri*ht to de(and that DD #J,A vacate and
surrender an area eEuivalent to A:D<?8s X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D. +he
trial court e6plained that DD #J,A8s su)lease contract e6pired in 1-.- and A:D<?
acEuired his father8s share in 1-'&. Fowever, the trial court pointed out that A:D<?
failed to present evidence of the 5udicial or e6tra"5udicial partition of the
/,2F9?%D. +he identification of the specific area pertainin* to A:D<? and his co"
owner is vital in an action to recover possession of real property. %evertheless, the trial
court declared that pendin* partition, it is only 5ust that DD #J,A pay A:D<? a
reasona)le a(ount as rental for the use of A:D<?8s share in the /,2F9?%D. DD #J,A
ad(itted this o)li*ation when he raised as sole issue in his pre"trial )rief how (uch rent
he should pay A:D<?. DD #J,A even proposed 9&00,000 as the reasona)le
a(ount )ut under certain conditions which A:D<? found unaccepta)le.
,n deter(inin* the reasona)le rent due to A:D<?, the trial court considered the
3ease Contract )etween A:D<? and a certain Ruperto C. $illarico which provided for
a yearly rent of925,000 for X undivided portion of the /,2F9?%D. +he trial court
declared that the total a(ount of rent due is 9212,500, co(puted fro( %ove()er 1-'&
when A:D<? )eca(e a co"owner of the /,2F9?%D up to 1--1
01&1
or a period of ei*ht
and one half years. +he trial court further ordered DD #J,A to pay an
additional 950,000 which represents the a(ount A:D<? returned to Ruperto
C. $illarico when they cancelled the 3ease Contract )etween the( due to DD
#J,A8s refusal to vacate the /,2F9?%D.
3astly, the trial court ruled that pendin* partition, A:D<? as co"owner has the ri*ht
to possess the /,2F9?%D and to receive an eEual share in the )enefits fro( the
/,2F9?%D effective i((ediately. Jntil there is a partition, and while there is no
contract of lease, the Civil Code provisions on co"ownership shall *overn the ri*hts of
the parties.
Th' Co1r+ oA A&&'a).C R1)(D
+he Court of Appeals affir(ed the trial court8s decision. +he Court of Appeals
de)un4ed DD #J,A8s clai( that partition and not recovery of possession was the proper
re(edy under the circu(stances. +he Court of Appeals pointed out that DD #J,A8s
failure to respect A:D<?8s ri*ht over his X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D 5ustifies
the action for recovery of possession. +he trial court8s decision effectively enforces
A:D<?8s ri*ht over the property which DD #J,A violated )y possession and use without
payin* co(pensation. Accordin* to the Court of Appeals, partition would constitute a
(echanical aspect of the decision 5ust li4e accountin* when necessary.
+he Court of Appeals li4ewise re5ected DD #J,A8s clai( that the award of
co(pensatory da(a*es of 9242,000, co(puted )ased on the rent stipulated in the
3ease Contract )etween A:D<? and Ruperto C. $illarico, is *rossly e6or)itant. +he
Court of Appeals clarified that the a(ount the trial court awarded was 9272,500 and
not 9242,000 as erroneously alle*ed )y DD #J,A. +he Court of Appeals pointed out
that the notariCed 3ease Contract )etween A:D<? and Ruperto C. $illarico carries
(ore evidentiary wei*ht than the testi(onies of DD #J,A8s witnesses, :en
Ru)en Ca(ar*o and Marta /ernando 9eTa. +he Court of Appeals also upheld the
award of attorney8s fees since the parties could have avoided liti*ation had DD #J,A
heeded the 5ustifia)le de(ands of A:D<?.
?n (otion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reduced the co(pensatory
da(a*es fro( 9272,500 to 9212,500. +he Court of Appeals e6plained that the trial
court correctly co(puted the total a(ount of rent due at 9212,500. +he trial court erred,
however, in addin* the su( of 950,000 representin* the rent for 1-'& and 1-'4 which
A:D<? returned to Ruperto C. $illarico. +he appellate court clarified that the su(
of 9212,500 was arrived at )y (ultiplyin* the rent of 925,000 )y 'X years. +he 'X
year period already included the two (onths rent received fro( and then su)seEuently
rei()ursed to Ruperto C. $illarico.
Th' I..1'.
DD #J,A raises the followin* issues in his Me(orandu(@
,.
+FD C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% A//,RM,%# +FD +R,A3
C?JR+82 DDC,2,?% DD%O,%# 9D+,+,?%DR82 93DA /?R
D,2M,22A3 ?/ +FD C?M93A,%+ /?R /A,3JRD +? 2+A+D A
CAJ2D ?/ AC+,?%;

,,.
+FD C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% A//,RM,%# +FD +R,A3
C?JR+82 ?RDDR D,RDC+,%# 9D+,+,?%DR +? +JR% ?$DR
+FD ?%D"FA3/ J%D,$,DDD 9?R+,?% ?/ +FD /,2F9?%D
BF,CF ,2 2+,33 J%DDR A 2+A+D ?/ C?"?B%DR2F,9;

,,,.
+FD C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% A//,RM,%#, ,% 9AR+,
+FD ABARD ?/ AC+JA3 ?R C?M9D%2A+?RO DAMA#D2
DD29,+D 3ACP ?/ CRDD,:3D D$,DD%CD +? 2J99?R+ +FD
2AMD;

,$.
+FD C?JR+ ?/ A99DA32 DRRDD ,% A//,RM,%# +FD ABARD
?/ A++?R%DO82 /DD2 ,% 9R,$A+D RD29?%DD%+82 /A$?R.
0141
,n essence, this Court is as4ed to resolve@ 1! whether an action for recovery of
possession and turn"over of the X undivided portion of a co((on property is proper
)efore partition; and 2! whether there is sufficient )asis for the award of co(pensatory
da(a*es and attorney8s fees.
Th' Co1r+C. R1)(D
+he petition is partly (eritorious.
First and Second Issues: Cause of Action and Turn!ver of "ossession
DD #J,A contends that a co"owner cannot clai( a definite portion fro( the property
owned in co((on until there is a partition. DD #J,A ar*ues that A:D<? should have
filed an action for partition instead of recovery of possession since the court cannot
i(ple(ent any decision in the latter case without first a partition. DD #J,A contends
that an action for recovery of possession cannot prosper when the property su)5ect of
the action is part of an undivided, co"owned property. +he procedural (ode adopted )y
A:D<?, which is recovery of possession, (a4es enforce(ent difficult if not i(possi)le
since there is still no partition of the su)5ect property.
Jnder Article 4'4 of the Civil Code, Kthere is co"ownership whenever the ownership
of an undivided thin* or ri*ht )elon*s to different persons.L A co"owner of an undivided
parcel of land is an Kowner of the whole, and over the whole he e6ercises the ri*ht of
do(inion, )ut he is at the sa(e ti(e the owner of a portion which is truly
a)stract.L
0151
?n the other hand, there is no co"ownership when the different portions
owned )y different people are already concretely deter(ined and separately
identifia)le, even if not yet technically descri)ed.
0171
Article 4'. of the Civil Code provides, K0a1ny one of the co"owners (ay )rin* an
action in e5ect(ent.L +his article covers all 4inds of actions for the recovery of
possession. Article 4'. includes forci)le entry and unlawful detainer accion interdictal!,
recovery of possession accion publiciana., and recovery of ownership accion de
reivindicacion!. +he su((ary actions of forci)le entry and unlawful detainer see4 the
recovery of physical possession only. +hese actions are )rou*ht )efore (unicipal trial
courts within one year fro( dispossession. Fowever, accion publiciana, which is a
plenary action for recovery of the ri*ht to possess, falls under the 5urisdiction of the
proper re*ional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for (ore than one
year. Accion de reivindicacion, which see4s the recovery of ownership, also falls under
the 5urisdiction of the proper re*ional trial court.
01.1
A< co4oB'r *a< A()' a ac+(o 1!'r Ar+(c)' 298 o+ o)< aDa(.+ a +h(r!
&'r.o, ;1+ a).o aDa(.+ ao+h'r co4oB'r Bho +a>'. '3c)1.(-' &o..'..(o a!
a..'r+. '3c)1.(-' oB'r.h(& oA +h' &ro&'r+<.
01'1
,n the latter case, however, the only
purpose of the action is to o)tain reco*nition of the co"ownership. +he plaintiff cannot
see4 e6clusion of the defendant fro( the property )ecause as co"owner he has a ri*ht
of possession. +he plaintiff cannot recover any (aterial or deter(inate part of the
property.
01-1
,n #ermo$ena %. &n$reso with Spouse Jose &n$reso v. 'estoria (e )a Cru*
and #erminio (e )a Cru*,
0201
we reiterated the rule that a co"owner cannot recover a
(aterial or deter(inate part of a co((on property prior to partition as follows@
,t is a )asic principle in civil law that )efore a property owned in co((on is actually
partitioned, all that the co"owner has is an ideal or a)stract Euota or proportionate share
in the entire property. A co"owner has no ri*ht to de(and a concrete, specific or
deter(inate part of the thin* owned in co((on )ecause until division is effected his
ri*ht over the thin* is represented only )y an ideal portion.
As such, the only effect of an action )rou*ht )y a co"owner a*ainst a co"owner will )e to
o)tain reco*nition of the co"ownership; the defendant cannot )e e6cluded fro( a
specific portion of the property )ecause as a co"owner he has a ri*ht to possess and
the plaintiff cannot recover any (aterial or deter(inate part of the property. +hus, the
courts a )uo erred when they ordered the delivery of one"half X! of the )uildin* in favor
of private respondent.
,ndisputa)ly, DD #J,A has )een in e6clusive possession of the entire /,2F9?%D
since <uly 1-.4. ,nitially, DD #J,A disputed A:D<?8s clai( of ownership over the X
undivided portion of the /,2F9?%D. 2u)seEuently, he i(plicitly reco*niCed A:D<?8s X
undivided share )y offerin* to settle the case for 9&00,000 and to vacate the
property. Durin* the trial proper, neither DD #J,A nor A:D<? asserted or (anifested a
clai( of a)solute and e6clusive ownership over the entire /,2F9?%D. :efore this
Court, DD #J,A li(its the issues to the propriety of )rin*in* an action for recovery of
possession and the recovery of co(pensatory da(a*es.
/ollowin* the inherent and peculiar features of co"ownership, while A:D<? and DD
#J,A have eEual shares in the /,2F9?%D Euantitatively spea4in*, they have the sa(e
ri*ht in a Eualitative sense as co"owners. 2i(ply stated, A:D<? and DD #J,A are
owners of the whole and over the whole, they e6ercise the ri*ht of do(inion. Fowever,
they are at the sa(e ti(e individual owners of a X portion, which is truly a)stract
)ecause until there is partition, such portion re(ains indeter(inate or unidentified.
0211
As
co"owners, A:D<? and DD #J,A (ay 5ointly e6ercise the ri*ht of do(inion over the
entire /,2F9?%D until they partition the /,2F9?%D )y identifyin* or se*re*atin* their
respective portions.
2ince a co"ownership su)sists )etween A:D<? and DD #J,A, 5udicial or e6tra"
5udicial partition is the proper recourse. An action to de(and partition is i(prescripti)le
and not su)5ect to laches.
0221
Dach co"owner (ay de(and at any ti(e the partition of the
co((on property unless a co"owner has repudiated the co"ownership under certain
conditions.
02&1
%either A:D<? nor DD #J,A has repudiated the co"ownership under the
conditions set )y law.
+o recapitulate, we rule that a co"owner (ay file an action for recovery of possession
a*ainst a co"owner who ta4es e6clusive possession of the entire co"owned
property. Fowever, the only effect of such action is a reco*nition of the co"
ownership. +he courts cannot proceed with the actual partitionin* of the co"owned
property. +hus, 5udicial or e6tra"5udicial partition is necessary to effect physical division
of the /,2F9?%D )etween A:D<? and DD #J,A. An action for partition is also the
proper foru( for accountin* the profits received )y DD #J,A fro( the
/,2F9?%D. Fowever, as a necessary conseEuence of such reco*nition, A:D<? shall
e6ercise an eEual ri*ht to possess, use and en5oy the entire /,2F9?%D.
DD #J,A further clai(s that the trial and appellate courts erred when they ordered
the recovery of rent when the e6act identity of the portion in Euestion had not yet )een
clearly defined and delineated. Accordin* to DD #J,A, an order to pay da(a*es in the
for( of rent is pre(ature )efore partition.
Be disa*ree.
+he ri*ht of en5oy(ent )y each co"owner is li(ited )y a si(ilar ri*ht of the other co"
owners. A co"owner cannot devote co((on property to his e6clusive use to the
pre5udice of the co"ownership.
0241
Fence, if the su)5ect is a residential house, all the co"
owners (ay live there with their respective fa(ilies to the e6tent possi)le. Fowever, if
one co"owner alone occupies the entire house without opposition fro( the other co"
owners, and there is no lease a*ree(ent, the other co"owners cannot de(and the
pay(ent of rent. Co-'r.')<, (A +h'r' (. a aDr''*'+ +o )'a.' +h' ho1.', +h' co4
oB'r. ca !'*a! r'+ Aro* +h' co4oB'r Bho !B')). ( +h' ho1.'.
+he co"owners can either e6ercise an eEual ri*ht to live in the house, or a*ree to
lease it. ,f they fail to e6ercise any of these options, they (ust )ear the
conseEuences. ,t would )e un5ust to reEuire the co"owner to pay rent after the co"
owners )y their silence have allowed hi( to use the property.
0251
,n case the co"owners a*ree to lease a )uildin* owned in co((on, a co"owner
cannot retain it for his use without payin* the proper rent.
0271
Moreover, where part of the
property is occupied e6clusively )y so(e co"owners for the e6ploitation of an industry,
the other co"owners )eco(e co"participants in the accessions of the property and
should share in its net profits.
02.1
+he 3e5ano Feirs and +eofilo A)e5o a*reed to lease the entire /,2F9?%D to DD
#J,A. After DD #J,A8s lease e6pired in 1-.-, he could no lon*er use the entire
/,2F9?%D without payin* rent. +o allow DD #J,A to continue usin* the entire
/,2F9?%D without payin* rent would pre5udice A:D<?8s ri*ht to receive rent, which
would have accrued to his X share in the /,2F9?%D had it )een leased to others.
02'1
2ince A:D<? acEuired his X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D on 22 %ove()er
1-'&, DD #J,A should pay A:D<? reasona)le rent for his possession and use of
A:D<?8s portion )e*innin* fro( that date. +he co(pensatory da(a*es of 925,000 per
year awarded to A:D<? is the fair rental value or the reasona)le co(pensation for the
use and occupation of the leased property,
02-1
considerin* the circu(stances at that
ti(e. DD #J,A shall continue to pay A:D<? a yearly rent of 925,000 correspondin*
to A:D<?8s X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D. Fowever, A:D<? has the option
either to e6ercise an eEual ri*ht to occupy the /,2F9?%D, or to file a new petition
)efore the trial court to fi6 a new rental rate in view of chan*ed circu(stances in the last
20 years.
A:D<? (ade an e6tra5udicial de(and on DD #J,A )y sendin* the 2. %ove()er
1-'& de(and letter. +hus, the rent in arrears should earn interest at 7U per annu(
fro( 2. %ove()er 1-'&until finality of this decision pursuant to Article 220-
0&01
of the
Civil Code. +hereafter, the interest rate is 12U per annu( fro( finality of this decision
until full pay(ent.
0&11

Third Issue: )ac+ of Credib,e &vidence to Support Award of Compensatory
(ama$es
DD #J,A contends the 9212,500 in rent awarded to A:D<? is e6or)itant. Fe
assails as dou)tful and self"servin* evidence the 3ease Contract )etween A:D<? and
Ruperto C. $illarico that served as )asis for the yearly rent of 925,000 for A:D<?8s
share in the /,2F9?%D.
DD #J,A says the trial and appellate courts should have *iven credence to the
testi(onies of his witnesses, :en Ru)en Ca(ar*o KCa(ar*oL! and Marta /ernando
9eTa K9eTaL! that rentals of fishponds in the sa(e vicinity are for (uch lesser
considerations.
+his issue involves cali)ration of the whole evidence considerin* (ainly the
credi)ility of witnesses. As a rule, a party (ay raise only Euestions of law in an appeal
)y certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. +he 2upre(e Court is not duty")ound
to analyCe and wei*h a*ain the evidence considered in the proceedin*s )elow.
0&21
More
so in the instant case, where the Court of Appeals affir(ed the factual findin*s of the
trial court.
0&&1
,t is not true that the trial court disre*arded the testi(onies
of Ca(ar*o and 9eTa )ecause DD #J,A failed to present docu(entary evidence to
support their testi(onies. Actually, the trial and appellate courts found the testi(onies
of Ca(ar*o and 9eTa unconvincin*. <ud*es cannot )e e6pected to rely on the
testi(onies of every witness. ,n ascertainin* the facts, they deter(ine who are credi)le
and who are not. ,n doin* so, they consider all the evidence )efore the(.
0&41
Be find no co*ent reason to overturn the trial and appellate courts8 evaluation of the
witnesses8 testi(onies. Be li4ewise find reasona)le the 925,000 yearly co(pensation
for A:D<?8s X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D. ,ndeed, )ein* a Euestion of fact, it is
for the trial and appellate courts to decide and this Court will not distur) their findin*s
unless clearly )aseless or irrational. +he e6ception does not o)tain in this case.
Fourth Issue: Attorney-s Fees
+he trial court did not err in i(posin* attorney8s fees of 920,000. Attorney8s fees
can )e awarded in the cases enu(erated in Article 220' of the Civil Code specifically@
666
2! Bhere the defendant8s act or o(ission has co(pelled the plaintiff to
liti*ate with third persons or to incur e6penses to protect his interest;
666
DD #J,A is a lawyer and he should have 4nown that a co"owner could not ta4e
e6clusive possession of a co((on property. Althou*h DD #J,A offered to settle the
case out of court, such offer was (ade under conditions not accepta)le to
A:D<?. Certainly, A:D<? was still put to unnecessary e6pense and trou)le to protect
his interest under para*raph 2!, Article 220' of the Civil Code.
:0ERE$ORE, the Decision dated 22 Au*ust 1--4 and Resolution dated 2. <une
1--5 of the Court of Appeals in CA"#.R. C$ %o. &-'.5 is A//,RMDD with respect to
that portion orderin* Manuel +. De #uia to pay <ose :. A)e5o co(pensatory da(a*es
of 9212,500 and attorney8s fees of 920,000, and M?D,/,DD as follows@
1. +he co"ownership )etween Manuel +. De #uia and <ose :. A)e5o over the
entire /,2F9?%D covered )y +C+ %o. 7&5' of the :ulacan Re*ister of
Deeds is reco*niCed without pre5udice to the outco(e of CA>#.R. C$ %o.
&'0&1 pendin* )efore the Court of Appeals and other cases involvin* the
sa(e property;
2. Manuel +. De #uia and <ose :. A)e5o shall eEually en5oy possession and
use of the entire /,2F9?%D prior to partition;
&. +he co(pensatory da(a*es of 925,000 per annu( representin* rent fro(
2. %ove()er 1-'& until May 1--2 shall earn interest at 7U per annu( fro(
2. %ove()er 1-'& until finality of this decision, and thereafter at 12U per
annu( until full pay(ent;
4. Manuel +. de #uia shall pay <ose :. A)e5o a yearly rent of 925,000 fro(
<une 1--2 until finality of this decision, with interest at 7U per annu( durin*
the sa(e period, and thereafter at 12U interest per annu( until full pay(ent;
5. After finality of this decision and for as lon* as Manuel +. de #uia e6clusively
possesses the entire /,2F9?%D, he shall pay <ose :. A)e5o a yearly rental
of 925,000 for the latter8s X undivided share in the /,2F9?%D, unless <ose
:. A)e5o secures fro( the proper court an order fi6in* a different rental rate
in view of possi)le chan*ed circu(stances.
SO OR,ERE,.
/,R2+ D,$,2,?%
6G.R. No. 125233. March 9, 20007
S&o1.'. ALEGAN,ER CR#" a! A,ELAI,A CR#", petitioners, vs. ELE#TERIO
LEIS, RAYM#N,O LEIS, ANASTACIO L. LAG,ANO, LORETA L. CAYON,A a! +h'
0ONORABLE CO#RT O$ APPEALS, respondents. L'3EH 1r(.
, E C I S I O N
=AP#NAN, J.@
9rivate respondents, the heirs of spouses Adriano 3eis and #ertrudes ,sidro,
011
filed an
action )efore the Re*ional +rial Court R+C! of 9asi* see4in* the nullification of the
contracts of sale over a lot e6ecuted )y #ertrudes ,sidro in favor of petitioner Ale6ander
CruC, as well as the title su)seEuently issued in the na(e of the latter. 9rivate
respondents clai(ed that the contracts were vitiated )y fraud as #ertrudes was illiterate
and already '0 years old at the ti(e of the e6ecution of the contracts; that the price for
the land was insufficient as it was sold only for 9&-,0'&.00 when the fair (ar4et value of
the lot should )e 91,000.00 per sEuare (eter, instead of 9&-0.00, (ore or less; and
that the property su)5ect of the sale was con5u*al and, conseEuently, its sale without the
4nowled*e and consent of private respondents was in dero*ation of their ri*hts as heirs.
+he facts that *ave rise to the co(plaint@ <uriZ s(is
Adriano and #ertrudes were (arried on 1- April 1-2&. ?n 2. April 1-55, #ertrudes
acEuired fro( the then Depart(ent of A*riculture and %atural Resources DA%R! a
parcel of land with an area of one hundred 100! sEuare (eters, situated at :o. 2to.
%iTo, Mari4ina, RiCal and covered )y +ransfer Certificate of +itle +C+! %o. 42245. +he
Deed of 2ale descri)ed #ertrudes as a widow. ?n 2 March 1-57, +C+ %o. 4&100 was
issued in the na(e of A#ertrudes ,sidro,A who was also referred to therein as a Awidow.A
?n 2 Dece()er 1-.&, Adriano died. ,t does not appear that he e6ecuted a will )efore
his death.
?n 5 /e)ruary 1-'5, #ertrudes o)tained a loan fro( petitioners, the spouses Ale6ander
and Adelaida CruC, in the a(ount of 915,000.00 at 5U interest, paya)le on or )efore 5
/e)ruary 1-'7. +he loan was secured )y a (ort*a*e over the property covered )y +C+
%o. 4&100. #ertrudes, however, failed to pay the loan on the due date.
Jna)le to pay her outstandin* o)li*ation after the de)t )eca(e due and paya)le, on 11
March 1-'7, #ertrudes e6ecuted two contracts in favor of petitioner Ale6ander CruC.
+he first is deno(inated as APasunduan,A which the parties concede is a pacto de
retro sale, *rantin* #ertrudes one year within which to repurchase the property. +he
second is a APasunduan n* +uwiran* :ilihan,A a Deed of A)solute 2ale coverin* the
sa(e property for the price of 9&-,0'&.00, the sa(e a(ount stipulated in the
APasunduan.A <55[ uris
/or failure of #ertrudes to repurchase the property, ownership thereof was consolidated
in the na(e of Ale6ander CruC in whose na(e +C+ %o. 1&05'4 was issued on 21 April
1-'., cancelin* +C+ %o. 4&100 in the na(e of #ertrudes ,sidro.
?n - <une 1-'., #ertrudes ,sidro died. +hereafter, her heirs, herein private
respondents, received de(ands to vacate the pre(ises fro( petitioners, the new
owners of the property. 9rivate respondents responded )y filin* a co(plaint as
(entioned at the outset.
?n the )asis of the fore*oin* facts, the R+C rendered a decision in favor of private
respondents. +he R+C held that the land was con5u*al property since the evidence
presented )y private respondents disclosed that the sa(e was acEuired durin* the
(arria*e of the spouses and that Adriano contri)uted (oney for the purchase of the
property. +hus, the court concluded, #ertrudes could only sell to petitioner spouses her
one"half share in the property.
+he trial court also ruled that no fraud attended the e6ecution of the contracts.
%evertheless, the APasunduan,A providin* for a sale con pacto de retro, had superseded
the APasunduan n* +uwiran* :ilihan,A the deed of a)solute sale. +he trial court did not
consider the pacto de retro sale an eEuita)le (ort*a*e, despite the alle*edly insufficient
price. %onetheless, the trial court found for private respondents. ,t rationaliCed that
petitioners failed to co(ply with the provisions of Article 170. of the Civil Code reEuirin*
a 5udicial order for the consolidation of the ownership in the vendee a retro to )e
recorded in the Re*istry of 9roperty.
+he dispositive portion of the R+CHs Decision reads@ le6
BFDRD/?RD, in the li*ht of all the fore*oin*, 5ud*(ent is here)y
rendered@
1. Declarin* D6hi)it # > APasunduan n* +uwiran* :ilihanA %ull and $oid
and declar0in*1 that the title issued pursuant thereto is li4ewise %ull and
$oid;
2. Declarin* the property in liti*ation as con5u*al property;
&. ?rderin* the Re*istry of Deeds of Mari4ina :ranch to reinstate the title
of #ertrudes ,sidro;
4. ?rderin* the plaintiff0s1 0sic1 to co(ply with the provision0s1 of Article
170. in relation to Article 1717 of the Civil Code;
5. ?rderin* the defendant0s1 to pay plaintiff0s1 915,000.00 no(inal
da(a*es for the violation of plaintiffs8 ri*hts;
7. ?rderin* the defendant0s1 to pay plaintiff0s1 the su( of 9',000.00 as
and for attorney8s fees;
.. Dis(issin* defendant0sH1 counterclai(; and
'. ?rderin* defendant0s1 to pay the cost of suit. <4s(
2? ?RDDRDD.
021
9etitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals in vain. +he Court of Appeals affir(ed the
decision of the Re*ional +rial Court, holdin* that since the property was acEuired durin*
the (arria*e of #ertrudes to Adriano, the sa(e was presu(ed to )e con5u*al property
under Article 170 of the Civil Code. +he appellate court, li4e the trial court, also noted
that petitioner did not co(ply with the provisions of Article 170. of the Civil Code.
9etitioners are now )efore this Court see4in* the reversal of the decision of the Court of
Appeals. /irst, they contend that the su)5ect property is not con5u*al )ut is owned
e6clusively )y #ertrudes, who was descri)ed in the Deed of 2ale )etween #ertrudes
and the DA%R as well as in +C+ %o. 4&100 as a widow. 2econd, assu(in* the land
was con5u*al property, petitioners ar*ue that the sa(e )eca(e #ertrudes8 e6clusively
when, in 1-.-, she (ort*a*ed the property to the Daily 2avin*s :an4 and 3oan
Association. +he )an4 later foreclosed on the (ort*a*e in 1-'1 )ut #ertrudes
redee(ed the sa(e in 1-'&. Chief
+he paraphernal or con5u*al nature of the property is not deter(inative of the ownership
of the disputed property. ,f the property was paraphernal as contended )y petitioners,
#ertrudes ,sidro would have the a)solute ri*ht to dispose of the sa(e, and a)solute title
and ownership was vested in petitioners upon the failure of #ertrudes to redee( the
property. ?n the other hand, if the property was con5u*al, as private respondents
(aintain, upon the death of Adriano 3eis, the con5u*al partnership was ter(inated,
0&1
entitlin* #ertrudes to one"half of the property.
041
Adriano8s ri*hts to the other half, in
turn, were trans(itted upon his death to his heirs,
051
which includes his widow #ertrudes,
who is entitled to the sa(e share as that of each of the le*iti(ate children.
071
+hus, as a
result of the death of Adriano, a re*i(e of co"ownership arose )etween #ertrudes and
the other heirs in relation to the property.
,ncidentally, there is no (erit in petitioners8 contention that #ertrudes8 rede(ption of the
property fro( the Daily 2avin*s :an4 vested in her ownership over the sa(e to the
e6clusion of her co"owners. Be dis(issed the sa(e ar*u(ent )y one of the petitioners
in 9aul(itan vs. Court of Appeals,
0.1
where one of the petitioners therein clai(ed
ownership of the entire property su)5ect of the case )y virtue of her rede(ption thereof
after the sa(e was forfeited in favor of the provincial *overn(ent for non"pay(ent of
ta6es. Be held, however, that the rede(ption of the land Adid not ter(inate the co"
ownership nor *ive her title to the entire land su)5ect of the co"ownership.A Be
e6pounded, Euotin* our pronounce(ent in Adille vs. Court of Appeals@
0'1
+he petition raises a purely le*al issue@ May a co"owner acEuire e6clusive
ownership over the property held in co((onV Ds(sc
Dssentially, it is the petitioner8s contention that the property su)5ect of
dispute devolved upon hi( upon the failure of his co"heirs to 5oin hi( in its
rede(ption within the period reEuired )y law. Fe relies on the provisions
of Article 1515 of the old Civil Code, Article 171& of the present Code,
*ivin* the vendee a retro the ri*ht to de(and rede(ption of the entire
property.
+here is no (erit in this petition.
+he ri*ht of repurchase (ay )e e6ercised )y a co"owner with respect to
his share alone C,$3 C?DD, art. 1712; C,$,3 C?DD 1''-!, art. 1514.!.
Bhile the records show that petitioner redee(ed the property in its
entirety, shoulderin* the e6penses therefor, that did not (a4e hi( the
owner of all of it. ,n other words, it did not put to end the e6istin* state of
co"ownership (upra, Art. 4'-!. +here is no dou)t that rede(ption of
property entails a necessary e6pense. Jnder the Civil Code@ Ds((is
Art. 4''. Dach co"owner shall have a ri*ht to co(pel the other co"owners
to contri)ute to the e6penses of preservation of the thin* or ri*ht owned in
co((on and to the ta6es. Any one of the latter (ay e6e(pt hi(self fro(
this o)li*ation )y renouncin* so (uch of his undivided interest as (ay )e
eEuivalent to his share of the e6penses and ta6es. %o such waiver shall
)e (ade if it is pre5udicial to the co"ownership.
+he result is that the property re(ains to )e in a condition of co"
ownership. Bhile a vendee a retro, under Article 171& of the Code, A(ay
not )e co(pelled to consent to a partial rede(ption,A the rede(ption )y
one co"heir or co"owner of the property in its totality does not vest in hi(
ownership over it. /ailure on the part of all the co"owners to redee( it
entitles the vendee a retro to retain the property and consolidate title
thereto in his na(e (upra, art. 170.!. :ut the provision does not *ive to
the redee(in* co"owner the ri*ht to the entire property. ,t does not provide
for a (ode of ter(inatin* a co"ownership.
,t is conceded that, as a rule, a co"owner such as #ertrudes could only dispose of her
share in the property owned in co((on. Article 4-& of the Civil Code provides@
AR+. 4-&. Dach co"owner shall have the full ownership of his part of the
fruits and )enefits pertainin* thereto, and he (ay therefore alienate,
assi*n or (ort*a*e it, and even su)stitute another person in its
en5oy(ent, e6cept when personal ri*hts are involved. :ut the effect of the
alienation or the (ort*a*e, with respect to the co"owners, shall )e li(ited
to the portion which (ay )e allotted to hi( in the division upon the
ter(ination of the co"ownership. Ds"(so
Jnfortunately for private respondents, however, the property was re*istered in +C+ %o.
4&100 solely in the na(e of A#ertrudes ,sidro, widow.A Bhere a parcel of land, for(in*
part of the undistri)uted properties of the dissolved con5u*al partnership of *ains, is sold
)y a widow to a purchaser who (erely relied on the face of the certificate of title thereto,
issued solely in the na(e of the widow, the purchaser acEuires a valid title to the land
even as a*ainst the heirs of the deceased spouse. +he rationale for this rule is that Aa
person dealin* with re*istered land is not reEuired to *o )ehind the re*ister to
deter(ine the condition of the property. Fe is only char*ed with notice of the )urdens on
the property which are noted on the face of the re*ister or the certificate of title. +o
reEuire hi( to do (ore is to defeat one of the pri(ary o)5ects of the +orrens syste(.A
0-1
As *leaned fro( the fore*oin* discussion, despite the Court of Appeals8 findin* and
conclusion that #ertrudes as well as private respondents failed to repurchase the
property within the period stipulated and has lost all their ri*hts to it, it still ruled a*ainst
petitioners )y affir(in* the Re*ional +rial CourtHs decision on the pre(ise that there was
no co(pliance with Article 170. of the Civil Code reEuirin* a 5udicial hearin* )efore
re*istration of the property in the na(e of petitioners. +his provision states@ Ms"es(
AR+. 170.. ,n case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the
vendee )y virtue of the failure of the vendor to co(ply with the provisions
of article 1717 shall not )e recorded in the Re*istry of 9roperty without a
5udicial order, after the vendor has )een duly heard.
+he aforeEuoted article is intended to (ini(iCe the evils which the pacto de retro sale
has caused in the hands of usurers. A 5udicial order is necessary in order to deter(ine
the true nature of the transaction and to prevent the interposition of )uyers in *ood faith
while the deter(ination is )ein* (ade.
0101
D"6s(
,t )ears stressin* that notwithstandin* Article 170., the recordin* in the Re*istry of
9roperty of the consolidation of ownership of the vendee is not a condition sine )ua
non to the transfer of ownership. 9etitioners are the owners of the su)5ect property
since neither #ertrudes nor her co"owners redee(ed the sa(e within the one"year
period stipulated in the APasunduan.A +he essence of a pacto de retro sale is that title
and ownership of the property sold are i((ediately vested in the vendee a retro,
su)5ect to the resolutory condition of repurchase )y the vendor a retro within the
stipulated period. /ailure thus of the vendor a retro to perfor( said resolutory condition
vests upon the vendee )y operation of law a)solute title and ownership over the
property sold. As title is already vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to consolidate
his title under Article 170. of the Civil Code does not i(pair such title or ownership for
the (ethod prescri)ed thereunder is (erely for the purpose of re*isterin* the
consolidated title.
0111
:0ERE$ORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is M?D,/,DD in that the petitioners
are dee(ed owners of the property )y reason of the failure of the vendor, #ertrudes
,sidro, to repurchase the sa(e within the period stipulated. Fowever, +ransfer
Certificate of +itle %o. 1&05'4, in the na(e of Ale6ander M. CruC, which was issued
without 5udicial order, is here)y ordered CA%CD33DD, and +ransfer Certificate of +itle
%o. 4&100 in the na(e of #ertrudes ,sidro is ordered RD,%2+A+DD, without pre5udice
to co(pliance )y petitioners with the provisions of Article 170. of the Civil Code.
SO OR,ERE,.
CR#" - LEIS4 R'!'*&+(o a! Co4oB'r.h(&
Redemption b/ a co-owner doesn@t terminate the co-ownership nor !ive her title to the
whole propert/ subject of the co-ownership
$ACTS@
3eis and ,sidro (arried each other in 1-2&. ,sidro su)seEuently acEuired fro( the
Depart(ent of A*riculture and %atural Resources a parcel of land, which was titled in
her na(e, with the description that she was a KwidowL. 3eis only passed away in 1-.&
without e6ecutin* a will.
,sidro then secured a loan fro( CruC 9h9 15,000, with 5U interest! secured )y a
(ort*a*e on the land fro( DA%R, )ut failed to pay on due date. ,sidro e6ecuted 2
contracts in favor of CruC@ an Deed of A)solute 2ale and a Contract indicatin* a pacto
de retro sale. ,sidro still failed to repurchase the property within 1 year, so she
consolidated the ownership of the land in favor of CruC.
Bhen ,sidro died, CruC de(anded her heirs to vacate the pre(ises. +he heirs then filed
a co(plaint with the R+C averrin* that the land was con5u*al property havin* )een
purchased durin* their (arria*e. +he R+C found in favor of the heirs. +he case was
appealed to the CA, )ut the CA (erely affir(ed the rulin* )ecause CruC failed to *et a
5udicial order to have the land consolidated in his na(e after failure of ,sidro to co(ply
with the reEuire(ents of the ri*ht to repurchase Art. 170.!.
ISS#E@
Bhether or not the land in Euestion is con5u*al property, and therefore su)5ect to the
rules on co"ownershipV
0EL,@
Althou*h the land was purchased durin* the (arria*e, upon 3eis8 death, the con5u*al
property re*i(e ceased, and *ave ,sidro an eEual portion of 3eis8 half of the property to
)e divided a(on* his le*iti(es. Co"ownership of the land then )e*an.
Fowever, upon failure of ,sidro the heirs to e6ercise the ri*ht to repurchase, the
ownership of the land transferred to CruC. Despite the +C+ )ein* void for non"
co(pliance with 170., the ownership did not transfer )ac4 to the heirs, for co(pliance
with 170. is (erely for purposes of re*isterin* the title in the +orrens 2yste(.
Repu)lic of the 9hilippines
S#PREME CO#RT
Manila
D% :A%C
G.R. No. L42656 No-'*;'r 19, 1912
RICAR,O PAR,ELL Y CR#" a!
VICENTA ORTI" Y $ELIN ,E PAR,ELL, plaintiffs"appellees,
vs.
GASPAR ,E BARTOLOME Y ESCRIBANO a!
MATIL,E ORTI" Y $ELIN ,E BARTOLOME, defendants"appellants.
7aspar de *artolome, in his own behalf.
*. 7imenez >oboli, for appellees.

TORRES, J.:
+his is an appeal )y )ill of e6ceptions, fro( the 5ud*(ent of ?cto)er 5, 1-0., where)y
the Fonora)le Dionisio Chanco, 5ud*e, a)solved the defendants fro( the co(plaint,
and the plaintiff fro( a counterclai(, without special findin* as to costs.
Counsel for the spouses Ricardo y CruC and $icente ?rtiC y /elin de 9ardell, the first of
who(, a)sent in 2pain )y reason of his e(ploy(ent, conferred upon the second
sufficient and a(ple powers to appear )efore the courts of 5ustice, on <une ', 1-05, in
his written co(plaint, alle*ed that the plaintiff, $icente ?rtiC, and the defendant, Matilde
?rtiC, are the duly reco*niCed natural dau*hters of the spouses Mi*uel ?rtiC and Cali6ta
/elin y 9aula who died in $i*an, ,locos 2ur, in 1'.5 and 1''2, respectively; that Cali6ta
/elin, prior to her death, e6ecuted on Au*ust 1., 1'.7, a nuncupative will in $i*an
where)y she (ade her four children, na(ed Manuel, /rancisca, $icenta, and Matilde,
surna(ed ?rtiC y /elin, her sole and universal heirs of all her property; that, of the
persons enu(erated, Manuel died )efore his (other and /rancisca a few years after
her death, leavin* no heirs )y force of law, and therefore the only e6istin* heirs of the
said testatri6 are the plaintiff $icenta ?rtiC and the defendant Matilde ?rtiC; that, aside
fro( so(e personal property and 5ewelry already divided a(on* the heirs, the testatri6
possessed, at the ti(e of the e6ecution of her will, and left at her death the real
properties which, with their respective cash values, are as follows@
1. A house of stron* (aterial, with the lot on which it is )uilt, situated
on Dscolta 2treet, $i*an, and valued at
97,000.00
2. A house of (i6ed (aterial, with the lot on which it stands, at %o. ''
Bashin*ton 2treet, $i*an; valued at
1,500.00
&. A lot on Ma*allanes 2treet, $i*an; valued at 100.00
4. A parcel of rice land, situated in the )arrio of 2an <ulian, $i*an;
valued at
70.00
5. A parcel of rice land in the pue)lo of 2anta 3ucia; valued at '7.00
7. +hree parcels of land in the pue)lo of Candon; valued at 150.00
+otal .,'-7.00
+hat, on or a)out the first (onths of the year 1''', the defendants, without 5udicial
authoriCation, nor friendly or e6tra5udicial a*ree(ent, too4 upon the(selves the
ad(inistration and en5oy(ent of the said properties and collected the rents, fruits, and
products thereof, to the serious detri(ent of the plaintiffsH interest; that, notwithstandin*
the different and repeated de(ands e6tra5udicially (ade upon Matilde ?rtiC to divide the
afore(entioned properties with the plaintiff $icente and to deliver to the latter the one"
half thereof, to*ether with one"half of the fruits and rents collected therefro(, the said
defendant and her hus)and, the self"styled ad(inistrator of the properties (entioned,
had )een delayin* the partition and delivery of the said properties )y (eans of un4ept
pro(ises and other e6cuses; and that the plaintiffs, on account of the e6traordinary
delay in the delivery of one"half of said properties, or their value in cash, as the case
(i*ht )e, had suffered losses and da(a*es in the su( of 9',000. 2aid counsel for the
plaintiffs therefore as4ed that 5ud*(ent )e rendered )y sentencin* the defendants,
#aspar de :artolo(e, and Matilde ?rtiC /elin de :artolo(e, to restore and deliver to
the plaintiffs one"half of the total value in cash, accordin* to appraisal, of the undivided
property specified, which one"half a(ounted appro6i(ately to 9&,-4', or if dee(ed
proper, to reco*niCe the plaintiff $icenta ?rtiC to )e vested with the full and a)solute
ri*ht of ownership to the said undivided one"half of the properties in Euestion, as
universal testa(entary heir thereof to*ether with the defendant Matilde ?rtiC, to
inde(nify the plaintiffs in the su( of 9',000, for losses and da(a*es, and to pay the
costs.
Counsel for the defendants, in his answer denied the facts alle*ed in para*raphs 1, 4, 7,
., and ' thereof, inas(uch as, upon the death of the liti*atin* sisterHs )rother Manuel,
their (other, who was still livin*, was his heir )y force of law, and the defendants had
never refused to *ive to the plaintiff $icente ?rtiC her share of the said properties; and
stated that he ad(itted the facts alle*ed in para*raph 2, provided it )e understood,
however, that the surna(e of the defendantHs (other was /elin, and not /eliu, and that
Mi*uel ?rtiC died in 2pain, and not in $i*an; that he also ad(itted para*raph & of the
co(plaint, with the difference that the said surna(e should )e /elin, and li4ewise
para*raph 5, e6cept the part thereof relatin* to the personal property and the 5ewelry,
since the latter had not yet )een divided; that the said 5ewelry was in the possession of
the plaintiffs and consisted of@ one 3oCada *old chrono(eter watch with a chain in the
for( of a )ridle cur) and a watch char( consistin* of the en*ravin* of a posta*e sta(p
on a stone (ounted in *old and )earin* the initials M. ?., a pair of cuff )uttons (ade of
*old coins, four s(all *old )uttons, two fin*er rin*s, another with the initials M. ?., and a
*old )racelet; and that the defendants were willin* to deliver to the plaintiffs, in
confor(ity with their petitions, one"half of the total value in cash, accordin* to
appraise(ent, of the undivided real properties specified in para*raph 5, which half
a(ounted to 9&,-4'.
,n a special defense said counsel alle*ed that the defendants had never refused to
divide the said property and had in fact several years )efore solicited the partition of the
sa(e; that, fro( 1''7 to 1-01, inclusive, there was collected fro( the property on Calle
Dscolta the su( of 2'' pesos, )esides a few other s(all a(ounts derived fro( other
sources, which were delivered to the plaintiffs with other lar*er a(ounts, in 1'-1, and
fro( the property on Calle Bashin*ton, called %a :uinta, --0.-5 pesos, which
proceeds, added to*ether, (ade a total of 1,2.'.-5 pesos, savin* error or o(ission;
that, )etween the years a)ove(entioned, Dscolta, and that on Calle Bashin*ton,%a
:uinta, &.7.&&, which (ade a total of 1,141..1, savin* error or o(ission; that, in 1'-.,
the wor4 of reconstruction was )e*un of the house on Calle Dscolta, which )een
destroyed )y an earthEua4e, which wor4 was not finished until 1-0& and reEuired an
e6penditure on the part of the defendant Matilde ?rtiC, of 5,0-1.52 pesos; that all the
collections (ade up to Au*ust 1, 1-05, includin* the rent fro( the stores, a(ounted to
only 9&,754.15, and the e6penses, to 97,252.&2, there )ein*, conseEuently, a )alance
of 92,5-'.1., which divided )etween the sisters, the plaintiff and the defendant, would
(a4e the latterHs share 91,2--.0'; that, as shown )y the papers 4ept )y the plaintiffs, in
the year 1'-1 the defendant :artolo(e presented to the plaintiffs a state(ent in
settle(ents of accounts, and delivered to the person duly authoriCed )y the latter for the
purpose, the su( of 92,707.2-, which the said settle(ent showed was owin* his
principals, fro( various sources; that, the defendant :artolo(e havin* )een the
ad(inistrator of the undivided property clai(ed )y the plaintiffs, the latter were owin*
the for(er le*al re(uneration of the percenta*e allowed )y law for ad(inistration; and
that the defendants were willin* to pay the su( of 9&,-4', one"half of the total value of
the said properties, deductin* therefro( the a(ount found to )e owin* the( )y the
plaintiffs, and as4ed that 5ud*(ent )e rendered in their favor to ena)le the( to recover
fro( the latter that a(ount, to*ether with the costs and e6penses of the suit.
+he defendants, in their counter clai(, repeated each and all of the alle*ations
contained in each of the para*raphs of section 10 of their answer; that the plaintiffs
were o)li*ed to pay to the ad(inistrator of the said property the re(uneration allowed
hi( )y law; that, as the revenues collected )y the defendants a(ounted to no (ore
than 9&,754.15 and the e6penditures incurred )y the(, to 97,252.&2, it followed that the
plaintiffs owed the defendants 91,2--.0', that is one"half of the difference )etween the
a(ount collected fro( and that e6tended on the properties, and as4ed that 5ud*(ent )e
therefore rendered in their )ehalf to ena)le the( to collect this su( fro( the plaintiffs,
Ricardo 9ardell and $icenta ?rtiC, with le*al interest thereon fro( Dece()er ., 1-04,
the date when the accounts were rendered, to*ether with the su(s to which the
defendant :artolo(e was entitled for the ad(inistration of the undivided properties in
Euestion.
:y a written (otion of Au*ust 21, 1-05, counsel for the plaintiffs reEuested per(ission
to a(end the co(plaint )y insertin* i((ediately after the words Aor respective
appraisal,A fifth line of para*raph 5, the phrase Ain cash in accordance with the
assessed value,A and li4ewise further to a(end the sa(e, in para*raph 7 thereof, )y
su)stitutin* the followin* word in lieu of the petition for the re(edy sou*ht@ A:y reason
of all the fore*oin*, , )e* the court to )e pleased to render the 5ud*(ent )y sentencin*
the defendants, #aspar de :artolo(e and Matilde ?rtiC /elin de :artolo(e, to restore
and deliver to the plaintiffs an e6act one"half of the total vale of the undivided properties
descri)ed in the co(plaint, such value to )e ascertained )y the e6pert appraisal of two
co(petent persons, one of who( shall )e appointed )y the plaintiffs and the other )y
the defendants, and, in case of disa*ree(ent )etween these two appointees such value
shall )e deter(ined )y a third e6pert appraiser appointed )y the court, or, in a proper
case, )y the price offered at pu)lic auction; or, in lieu thereof, it is reEuested that the
court reco*niCe the plaintiff, $icenta ?rtiC, to )e vested with a full and a)solute ri*ht to
an undivided one"half of the said properties; further(ore, it is prayed that the plaintiffs
)e awarded an inde(nity of 9',000 for losses and da(a*es, and the costs.A
%otwithstandin* the opposition of the defendants, the said a(end(ent was ad(itted )y
the court and counsel for the defendants were allowed to a period of three days within
which to present a new answer. An e6ception was ta4en to this rulin*.
+he proper proceedin*s were had with reference to the valuation of the properties
concerned in the division sou*ht and incidental issues were raised relative to the
partition of so(e of the( and their award to one or the other of the parties. Due
consideration was ta4en of the aver(ents and state(ents of )oth parties who a*reed
)etween the(selves, )efore the court, that any of the( (i*ht at any ti(e acEuire, at the
valuation fi6ed )y the e6pert 5udicial appraiser, any of the properties in Euestion, there
)ein* none in e6istence e6cluded )y the liti*ants. +he court, therefore, )y order of
Dece()er 2', 1-05, ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to acEuire, at the valuation
deter(ined )y the said e6pert appraiser, the )uildin* 4nown as %a :uinta, the lot on
which it stands and the warehouses and other i(prove(ents co(prised within the
inclosed land, and the seeds lands situated in the pue)los of $i*an and 2anta 3ucia;
and that the defendants were li4ewise entitled to acEuire the house on Calle Dscolta,
the lot on Calle Ma*allanes, and the three parcels of land situated in the pue)lo of
Candon.
After this partition had )een (ade counsel for the defendants, )y a writin* of March ',
1-07, set forth@ +hat, havin* petitioned for the appraise(ent of the properties in
Euestion for the purpose of their partition, it was not to )e understood that he desired
fro( the e6ception duly entered to the rulin* (ade in the (atter of the a(end(ent to
the co(plaint; that the properties retained )y the defendants were valued at 9-,&10,
and those retained )y the plaintiffs, at 92,''5, one"half of which a(ounts each party
had to deliver to the other, as they were pro indivisoproperties; that, therefore, the
defendants had to pay the plaintiffs the su( of 9&,212.50, after deductin* the a(ount
which the plaintiffs were o)li*ed to deliver to the defendants, as one"half of the price of
the properties retained )y the for(er; that, notwithstandin* that the a(ount of the
counterclai( for the e6penses incurred in the reconstruction of the pro indiviso property
should )e deducted fro( the su( which the defendants had to pay the plaintiffs, the
for(er, for the purpose of )rin*in* the (atter of the partition to a close, would deliver to
the latter, i((ediately upon the si*nin* of the instru(ent of purchase and sale, the su(
of 9&,212.50, which was one"half of the value of the properties alloted to the
defendants; such delivery, however, was not to )e understood as a renounce(ent of the
said counterclai(, )ut only as a (eans for the final ter(ination of the pro indiviso status
of the property.
+he case havin* )een heard, the court on ?cto)er 5, 1-0., rendered 5ud*(ent holdin*
that the revenues and the e6penses were co(pensated )y the residence en5oyed )y
the defendant party, that no losses or da(a*es were either caused or suffered, nor
li4ewise any other e6pense )esides those afore(entioned, and a)solved the
defendants fro( the co(plaint and the plaintiffs fro( the counterclai(, with no special
findin* as to costs. An e6ception was ta4en to this 5ud*(ent )y counsel for the
defendants who (oved for a new trial on the *rounds that the evidence presented did
not warrant the 5ud*(ent rendered and that the latter was contrary to law. +his (otion
was denied, e6ception whereto was ta4en )y said counsel, who filed the proper )ill of
e6ceptions, and the sa(e was approved and forwarded to the cler4 of this court, with a
transcript of the evidence.
:oth of the liti*atin* sisters assented to a partition )y halves of the property left in her
will )y their (other at her death; in fact, durin* the course of this suit, proceedin*s were
had, in accordance with the a*ree(ent (ade, for the division )etween the( of the said
hereditary property of co((on ownership, which division was reco*niCed and approved
in the findin*s of the trial court, as shown )y the 5ud*(ent appealed fro(.
+he issues raised )y the parties, aside fro( said division (ade durin* the trial, and
which have )een su)(itted to this court for decision, concern@ 1! +he inde(nity
clai(ed for losses and da(a*es, which the plaintiffs alle*e a(ount to 9',000, in
addition to the rents which should have )een derived fro( the house on Calle Dscolta,
$i*an; 2! the pay(ent )y the plaintiffs to the defendants of the su( of 91,2--.0',
de(anded )y way of counterclai(, to*ether with le*al interest thereon fro( Dece()er
., 1-04; &! the pay(ent to the hus)and of the defendant Matilde ?rtiC, of a percenta*e
clai(ed to )e due hi( as the ad(inistrator of the property of co((on ownership; 4!
the division of certain 5ewelry in the possession of the plaintiff $icenta ?rtiC; and 5! the
petition that the a(end(ent )e held to have )een i(properly ad(itted, which was
(ade )y the plaintiffs in their written (otion of Au*ust 21, 1-05, a*ainst the opposition
of the defendants, throu*h which ad(ission the latter were o)li*ed to pay the for(er
9-10.50.lawphil.net
:efore enterin* upon an e6planation of the propriety or i(propriety of the clai(s (ade
)y )oth parties, it is indispensa)le to state that the trial 5ud*e, in a)solvin* the
defendants fro( the co(plaint, held that they had not caused losses and da(a*es to
the plaintiffs, and that the revenues and the e6penses were co(pensated, in view of the
fact that the defendants had )een livin* for several years in the Calle Dscolta house,
which was pro indivisoproperty of 5oint ownership.
:y this findin* a)solvin* the defendants fro( the co(plaint, and which was acEuiesced
in )y the plaintiffs who (ade no appeal therefro(, the first issue has been
decided which was raised )y the plaintiffs, concernin* the inde(nity for losses and
da(a*es, wherein are co(prised the rents which should have )een o)tained fro( the
upper story of the said house durin* the ti(e it was occupied )y the defendants, Matilde
?rtiC and her hus)and, #aspar de :artolo(e.
%otwithstandin* the acEuiescence on the part of the plaintiffs, assentin* to the said
findin* where)y the defendants were a)solved fro( the co(plaint, yet, as such
a)solution is )ased on the co(pensation esta)lished in the 5ud*(ent of the trial court,
)etween the a(ounts which each party is entitled to clai( fro( the other, it is i(perative
to deter(ine whether the defendant Matilde ?rtiC, as coowner of the house on Calle
Dscolta, was entitled, with her hus)and, to reside therein, without payin* to her
coowner, $icenta ?rtiC, who, durin* the *reater part of the ti(e, lived with her hus)and
a)road, one"half of the rents which the upper story would have produced, had it )een
rented to a stran*er.
Article &-4 of the Civil Code prescri)es@
Dach coowner (ay use the thin*s owned in co((on, provided he uses the( in
accordance with their o)5ect and in such (anner as not to in5ure the interests of
the co((unity nor prevent the coowners fro( utiliCin* the( accordin* to their
ri*hts.
Matilde ?rtiC and her hus)and occupied the upper story, desi*ned for use as a dwellin*,
in the house of 5oint ownership; )ut the record shows no proof that, )y so doin*, the said
Matilde occasioned any detri(ent to the interest of the co((unity property, nor that she
prevented her sister $icenta fro( utiliCin* the said upper story accordin* to her ri*hts. ,t
is to )e noted that the stores of the lower floor were rented and accountin* of the rents
was duly (ade to the plaintiffs.
Dach coowner of realty held pro indiviso e6ercises his ri*hts over the whole property
and (ay use and en5oy the sa(e with no other li(itation than that he shall not in5ure the
interests of his coowners, for the reason that, until a division )e (ade, the respective
part of each holder can not )e deter(ined and every one of the coowners e6ercises,
to*ether with his other coparticipants, 5oint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in
addition to his use and en5oy(ent of the sa(e.
As the hereditary properties of the 5oint ownership of the two sisters, $icenta ?rtiC,
plaintiff, and Matilde ?rtiC, defendant, were situated in the 9rovince of ,locos 2ur, and
were in the care of the last na(ed, assisted )y her hus)and, while the plaintiff $icenta
with her hus)and was residin* outside of the said province the *reater part of the ti(e
)etween 1''5 and 1-05, when she left these ,slands for 2pain, it is not at all stran*e
that delays and difficulties should have attended the efforts (ade to collect the rents
and proceeds fro( the property held in co((on and to o)tain a partition of the latter,
especially durin* several years when, owin* to the insurrection, the country was in a
tur(oil; and for this reason, aside fro( that founded on the ri*ht of coownership of the
defendants, who too4 upon the(selves the ad(inistration and care of the properties of
5oint tenancy for purposes of their preservation and i(prove(ent, these latter are not
o)li*ed to pay to the plaintiff $icenta one"half of the rents which (i*ht have )een
derived fro( the upper of the story of the said house on Calle Dscolta, and, (uch less,
)ecause one of the livin* roo(s and the storeroo( thereof were used for the stora*e of
so(e )elon*in*s and effects of co((on ownership )etween the liti*ants. +he
defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupyin* with her hus)and the upper floor of the said
house, did not in5ure the interests of her coowner, her sister $icenta, nor did she prevent
the latter fro( livin* therein, )ut (erely e6ercised a le*iti(ate ri*ht pertainin* to her as
coowner of the property.
%otwithstandin* the a)ove state(ents relative to the 5oint"ownership ri*hts which
entitled the defendants to live in the upper story of the said house, yet in view of the fact
that the record shows it to have )een proved that the defendant MatildeHs hus)and,
#aspar de :artolo(e, occupied for four years a roo( or a part of the lower floor of the
sa(e house on Calle Dscolta, usin* it as an office for the 5ustice of the peace, a position
which he held in the capital of that province, strict 5ustice, reEuires that he pay his sister"
in"law, the plaintiff, one half of the (onthly rent which the said Euarters could have
produced, had they )een leased to another person. +he a(ount of such (onthly rental
is fi6ed at 917 in accordance with the evidence shown in the record. +his conclusion as
to :artolo(eHs lia)ility results fro( the fact that, even as the hus)and of the defendant
coowner of the property, he had no ri*ht to occupy and use *ratuitously the said part of
the lower floor of the house in Euestion, where he lived with his wife, to the detri(ent of
the plaintiff $icenta who did not receive one"half of the rent which those Euarters could
and should have produced, had they )een occupied )y a stran*er, in the sa(e (anner
that rent was o)tained fro( the roo(s on the lower floor that were used as stores.
+herefore, the defendant :artolo(e (ust pay to the plaintiff $icenta 9&'4, that is, one"
half of 9.7', the total a(ount of the rents which should have )een o)tained durin* four
years fro( the Euarters occupied as an office )y the 5ustice of the peace of $i*an.
Bith respect to the second Euestion su)(itted for decision to this court, relative to the
pay(ent of the su( de(anded as a counterclai(, it was ad(itted and proved in the
present case that, as a result of a serious earthEua4e on Au*ust 15, 1'-., the said
house on Calle Dscolta was left in ruins and uninha)ita)le, and that, for its
reconstruction or repair, the defendants had to e6pend the su( of 97,252.&2. +his
e6penditure, notwithstandin* that it was i(pu*ned, durin* the trial, )y the plaintiffs, was
duly proved )y the evidence presented )y the defendants. Dvidence, unsuccessfully
re)utted, was also introduced which proved that the rents produced )y all the rural and
ur)an properties of co((on ownership a(ounted, up to Au*ust 1, 1-05, to the su( of
9&,754.15 which, )ein* applied toward the cost of the repair wor4 on the said house,
leaves a )alance of 92,5-'.1., the a(ount actually advanced )y the defendants, for the
rents collected )y the( were not sufficient for the ter(ination of all the wor4 underta4en
on the said )uildin*, necessary for its co(plete repair and to replace it in a ha)ita)le
condition. ,t is therefore lawful and 5ust that the plaintiff $icenta ?rtiC, who was willin* to
sell to her sister Matilde for 91,500, her share in the house in Euestion, when it was in a
ruinous state, should pay the defendants one"half of the a(ount e6panded in the said
repair wor4, since the )uildin* after reconstruction was worth 9-,000, accordin* to
e6pert appraisal. ConseEuently, the counterclai( (ade )y the defendants for the
pay(ent to the( of the su( of 91,2--.0', is a proper de(and, thou*h fro( this su( a
reduction (ust )e (ade of 9&'4, the a(ount of one"half of the rents which should have
)een collected for the use of the Euarters occupied )y the 5ustice of the peace, the
pay(ent of which is incu()ent upon the hus)and of the defendant Matilde, as
aforesaid, and the )alance re(ainin*, 9-15.0', is the a(ount which the plaintiff $icenta
(ust pay to the defendants.
+he defendants clai( to )e entitled to the collection of le*al interest on the a(ount of
the counterclai(, fro( Dece()er ., 1-04. +his contention can not )e sustained,
inas(uch as, until this suit is finally decided, it could not )e 4nown whether the plaintiffs
would or would not )e o)li*ed to pay the su( whatever in rei()urse(ent of e6penses
incurred )y the plaintiffs in the repair wor4 on the said house on Calle Dscolta, whether
or not the defendants, in turn, were entitled to collect any such a(ount, and, finally,
what the net su( would )e which the plaintiffHs (i*ht have to pay as rei()urse(ent for
one"half of the e6penditure (ade )y the defendants. Jntil final disposal of the case, no
such net su( can )e deter(ined, nor until then can the de)tor )e dee(ed to )e in
arrears. ,n order that there )e an o)li*ation to pay le*al interest in connection with a
(atter at issue )etween the parties, it (ust )e declared in a 5udicial decision fro( what
date the interest will )e due on the principal concerned in the suit. +his rule has )een
esta)lished )y the decisions of the supre(e court of 2pain, in reference to articles
110', 110-, and 1110 of the Civil Code, reference on April 24, 1'7., %ove()er 1-,
1'7-, and /e)ruary 22, 1-01.
Bith re*ard to the percenta*e, as re(uneration clai(ed )y the hus)and of the
defendant Matilde for his ad(inistration of the property of co((on ownership,
inas(uch as no stipulation whatever was (ade in the (atter )y and )etween hi( and
his sister"in"law, the said defendant, the clai(ant is not entitled to the pay(ent of any
re(uneration whatsoever. ?f his own accord and as an officious (ana*er, he
ad(inistered the said pro indivisoproperty, one"half of which )elon*ed to his wife who
held it in 5oint tenancy, with his sister"in"law, and the law does not allow hi( any
co(pensation as such voluntary ad(inistrator. Fe is (erely entitled to a rei()urse(ent
for such actual and necessary e6penditures as he (ay have (ade on the undivided
properties and an inde(nity for the da(a*es he (ay have suffered while actin* in that
capacity, since at all events it was his duty to care for and preserve the said property,
half of which )elon*ed to his wife; and in e6chan*e for the trou)le occasioned hi( )y
the ad(inistration of his sister"in"lawHs half of the said property, he with his wife resided
in the upper story of the house afore(entioned, without pay(ent of one"half of the rents
said Euarters (i*ht have produced had they )een leased to another person.
Bith respect to the division of certain 5ewelry, petitioned for )y the defendants and
appellants only in their )rief in this appeal, the record of the proceedin*s in the lower
court does not show that the alle*ation (ade )y the plaintiff $icenta is not true, to the
effect that the deceased (other of the liti*ant sisters disposed of this 5ewelry durin* her
lifeti(e, )ecause, had she not done so, the will (ade )y the said deceased would have
)een e6hi)ited in which the said 5ewelry would have )een (entioned, at least it would
have )een proved that the articles in Euestion ca(e into the possession of the plaintiff
$icenta without the e6pressed desire and the consent of the deceased (other of the
said sisters, for the *ift of this 5ewelry was previously assailed in the courts, without
success; therefore, and in view of its inconsidera)le value, there is no reason for
holdin* that the said *ift was not (ade.
As re*ards the collection of the su( of 9-10.50, which is the difference )etween the
assessed value of the undivided real properties and the price of the sa(e as
deter(ined )y the 5udicial e6pert appraiser, it is shown )y the record that the rulin* of
the trial 5ud*e ad(ittin* the a(end(ent to the ori*inal co(plaint, is in accord with the
law and principles of 5ustice, for the reason that any of the coowners of a pro
indiviso property, su)5ect to division or sale, is entitled to petition for its valuation )y
co(petent e6pert appraisers. 2uch valuation is not pre5udicial to any of the 5oint owners,
)ut is )eneficial to their interests, considerin* that, as a *eneral rule, the assessed
value of a )uildin* or a parcel of realty is less than the actual real value of the property,
and this )ein* appraiser to deter(ine, in con5unction with the one selected )y the
plaintiffs, the value of the properties of 5oint ownership. +hese two e6perts too4 part in
the latter proceedin*s of the suit until finally, and durin* the course of the latter, the
liti*atin* parties a*reed to an a(ica)le division of the pro indiviso hereditary property, in
accordance with the price fi6ed )y the 5udicial e6pert appraiser appointed as a third
party, in view of the disa*ree(ent )etween and nonconfor(ity of the appraisers chosen
)y the liti*ants. +herefore it is i(proper now to clai( a ri*ht to the collection of the said
su(, the difference )etween the assessed value and that fi6ed )y the 5udicial e6pert
appraiser, for the reason that the increase in price, as deter(ined )y this latter
appraisal, redounded to the )enefit of )oth parties.
,n consideration of the fore*oin*, where)y the errors assi*ned to the lower court have
)een duly refuted, it is our opinion that, with a partial reversal of the 5ud*(ent appealed
fro(, in so far as it a)solves the plaintiffs fro( the counterclai( presented )y the
defendants, we should and here)y do sentence the plaintiffs to the pay(ent of the su(
of 9-15.0', the )alance of the su( clai(ed )y the defendants as a )alance of the one"
half of the a(ount which the defendants advanced for the reconstruction or repair of the
Calle Dscolta house, after deductin* fro( the total of such su( clai(ed )y the latter the
a(ount of 9&'4 which #aspar de :artolo(e, the hus)and of the defendant Matilde,
should have paid as one"half of the rents due for his occupation of the Euarters on the
lower floor of the said house as an office for the 5ustice of the peace court of $i*an; and
we further find@ 1! +hat the defendants are not o)li*ed to pay one"half of the rents
which could have )een o)tained fro( the upper story of the said house; 2! that the
plaintiffs can not )e co(pelled to pay the le*al interest fro( Dece()er ., 1-04, on the
su( e6panded in the reconstruction of the afore(entioned house, )ut only the interest
fi6ed )y law, at the rate of 7 per cent per annu(, fro( the date of the 5ud*(ent to )e
rendered in accordance with this decision; &! that the hus)and of the defendant Matilde
?rtiC is not entitled to any re(uneration for the ad(inistration of the pro indivisoproperty
)elon*in* to )oth parties; 4! that, neither is he entitled to collect fro( the plaintiffs the
su( of 9-10.50, the difference )etween the assessed valuation and the price set )y the
e6pert appraisal solicited )y the plaintiffs in their a(end(ent to the co(plaint; and, 5!
that no participation shall )e (ade of 5ewelry afore(entioned now in the possession of
the plaintiff $icenta ?rtiC. +he said 5ud*(ent, as relates to the points appealed, is
affir(ed, in so far as its findin*s a*ree with those of this decision, and is reversed, in so
far as they do not. %o special findin* is (ade re*ardin* the costs of )oth instances. 2o
ordered.
$ac+.@ 9etitioner $icenta ?rtiC y /elin de 9ardell and respondent Matilde ?rtiC y /elin
:artolo(e were the e6istin* heirs of the late Mi*uel ?rtiC and Cali6ta /elin. ?n 1''',
Matilde and co"defendant #aspar de :artolo(e y Dscri)ano too4 it upon the(selves
without an 5udicial authoriCation or even e6tra 5udicial a*ree(ent the ad(inistration
of the properties of the late Cali6ta and Mi*uel. +hese properties included a house in
Dscolta 2treet, $i*an, ,locos 2ur; a house in Bashin*ton 2treet, $i*an, ,locos 2ur; a lot
in Ma*allanes 2treet, $i*an, ,locos 2ur; parcels of rice land in 2an <ulian and 2ta.
3ucia; and parcels of land in Candon, ,locos 2ur.
$icenta filed an action in court as4in* that the 5ud*e(ent )e rendered in restorin* and
returnin* to the( one half of the total value of the fruits and rents, plus losses and
da(a*es fro( the afore(entioned properties. Fowever, respondent Matilde asserted
that she never refused to *ive the plaintiff her share of the said properties. $icenta also
ar*ued that Matilde and her hus)and, #aspar are o)li*ed to pay rent to the for(er for
their occupation of the upper story of the house in Dscolta 2treet.
I..1'@ Bhether or not Matilde and #aspar are o)li*ed to pay rent for their occupation of
the said property
0')!@ %o. +he Court ruled that the spouses are not lia)le to pay rent. +heir occupation
of the said property was a (ere e6ercise of their ri*ht to use the sa(e as a co"owner.
?ne of the li(itations on a co"owner8s ri*ht of use is that he (ust use it in such a way
so as not to in5ure the interest of the other co"owners. ,n the case at )ar, the other party
failed to provide proof that )y the occupation of the spouses :artolo(e, they prevented
$icenta fro( utiliCin* the sa(e