Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > January 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14676. January 31, 1963.]

CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JUAN NEME and FELICISIMA VILLAFRANCA, Defendants-Appellees.

Jose L. Lapak, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Rosario B. Zoño-Suñga for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION WHICH EXCLUDES SOME OF THE HEIRS; PARTICIPATION OF HEIRS NOT PREJUDICED BY SALE OF LAND. — A deed of extra-judicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious, and the sale of the land subject of the partition did not prejudice and affect the interest and participation of the heirs so excluded.

2. ID.; ID.; TO WHAT SECTION 4, RULE 73, RULES OF COURT, REFERS. — Section 4, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court refers only to the settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased by the heirs who make such partition among themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right to succeed.

3. ID.; ID.; DECEDENT’S DEATH WHILE SPANISH CIVIL CODE WAS IN EFFECT; RIGHT OF CO-HEIRS, TO DEMAND PARTITION IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. — Where the decedent died during the regime of the Spanish Civil Code, the distribution of his properties should be governed by said Code, Article 1965 of which provides that between co-heirs the right to demand the partition of the inheritance does not prescribe (Baysa, Et. Al. v. Baysa, 53 Off. Gaz. 7282).

4. REGISTRATION OF VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENTS; REGISTRATION THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT TRANSMITS TITLE. — Registration of a voluntary sale of land is the operative act that transmits or transfers title (Tuason v. Raymundo, 28 Phil., 635).


D E C I S I O N


PAREDES, J.:


This case was elevated to this Court "on purely questions of law." The record discloses that Maria Rocabo died intestate on February 17, 1937, leaving a parcel of land granted her under Homestead Patent No. 18532, issued on May 20, 1930, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 217 (Exh. A), of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte. She left three (3) daughters, named Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz and grandchildren, Candida, Emilia, Clemencia, Roberto and Isidra Villaluz, legitimate children of her deceased son Pedro Villaluz; Isabelo and Teodoro Napoles, legitimate sons of a deceased daughter, Severina Villaluz and Sinforosa and Leonor Napoles, legitimate daughters of another deceased daughter, Gregoria Villaluz.

After the approval of her application, but before the granting of the patent, on March 6, 1926, Maria Rocabo donated the southern portion of the land to Maria, and the northern portion to Patricia, in two notarial deeds of donations (Exhibits 1 and 7), giving them the right to present the deeds of donations to the Bureau of Lands. The said donees accepted the donations and took actual possession of their respective portions, but only Maria Villaluz remained on the entire land because Patricia left. Maria cultivated and improved the land from 1927 to 1938 inclusive. Maria and Patricia, however, forgot and cared not to present the deeds of donation to the Bureau of Lands. On March 27, 1930, the patent was granted and O.C.T. No. 217 was issued in the name of Maria Rocabo. Realizing that the deeds of donations were not in accordance with the formalities required by law, and because Sinforosa Villaluz, who had the custody of the title would not surrender it to the donees, unless given a share, upon the advise of a Notary Public, Carlos de Jesus, Maria, Patricia and Sinforosa, on September 1, 1939, executed a deed of extra-judicial partition (Exh. 2), among themselves, to the exclusion and without the knowledge and consent of their nephews and nieces, the herein plaintiffs-appellants, and in virtue thereof, O.C.T. No. 217 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in their names (Exh. 5), after having made representations that they were the only heirs of their mother, Maria Rocabo. On September 2, 1939, the 3 sisters declared the land for taxation purposes (Exh. 4). On September 11, 1939, they sold the land to Ramona Pajarillo, wife of Adriano Mago and Angela Pajarillo, wife of defendant Juan Neme (Exh. 3). Ramona and Angela declared the land for taxation purposes in their names (Exh. 6). On August 3, 1953, the heirs of Adriano and Ramona sold the undivided interest of the latter to Juan Neme (Exh. 8), who, on August 8, 1953, sold the southern half portion of the property in favor of defendant Felicisima Villafranca (Exh. 13). Thereafter, the plaintiffs-appellants came to know that the land which was in the administration of their aunts Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, was already in the possession of the defendants. After attempts of amicable settlement had failed, the plaintiffs on June 3, 1954, filed a complaint for partition of said land and recovery of their respective shares on the property and accounting of the fruits thereof.

It also appears that the deeds of sale of the land in question executed in favor of the defendants, had not been registered in favor of the defendants and had not been recorded in accordance with Public Land Act No. 141 and the Land Registration Law, Act No. 496; that the vendees failed to have their deed of sale (Exh. 3), annotated on said T.C.T. No. 269, or have the title thereof transferred in their names.

After due trial, the lower court rendered judgment, dismissing the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs, and declaring the defendants the owners of the land described in the complaint and in the T.C.T. No. 269. Plaintiffs in their appeal, claim that the lower court erred (1) In not finding that the extra-judicial partition (Exh. 2), only affected the partition of Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz, on the land in question and not the participation of the plaintiffs-appellants, as compulsory heirs of Maria Rocabo; (2) In finding that plaintiffs-appellants are already barred from claiming their participation thereon; and (3) In finding that defendants- appellees are owners, with right of possession, of the said land.

The contention of the plaintiffs-appellants is meritorious. The decision found to be an incontrovertible fact that the land in question should be divided among the heirs of the decedent Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria Villaluz and her grandchildren. Thus, the trial Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The settlement of the estate of Maria Rocabo was summarily affected by the extrajudicial partition executed on September 1, 1939, by the three surviving children to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who were entitled to inherit by representation. By virtue of the extrajudicial partition Exhibit 1, the Original Certificate of Title No. 217 in the name of Maria Rocabo was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in lieu thereof in favor of Sinforosa Villaluz, Patricia Villaluz and Maria Villaluz on September 6, 1939, to the prejudice of the plaintiffs . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, Maria having left no testament or last will, her heirs succeeded to the possession and ownership of the land in question from the time of her death (Art. 440, Old Civil Code, Art. 533, New Civil Code; Lubrico v. Arbado, 12 Phil. 391). The deed of extrajudicial partition (Exh. 2), was fraudulent and vicious, the same having been executed among the 3 sisters, without including their co-heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same. The partition, therefore, did not and could not prejudice the interest and participation of the herein plaintiffs-appellants, and the sale of the land to the defendants did not and could not also prejudice and affect plaintiffs- appellants’ interest and participation thereon. The cancellation of O.C.T. No. 217 and the issuance of T.C.T. No. 269, did not likewise prejudice the interest and the participation of the plaintiffs- appellants. The three sisters could not have sold what did not belong to them. Nemo dat quod non habet.

The trial court held that under Sec. 4, Rule 73 of the Rules, the plaintiffs’ cause of action had already prescribed. This section, however, refers only to the settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased by the heirs who make such partition among themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right to succeed. In case at bar, however, the 3 surviving sisters could not have ignored that they had co-heirs, the children of the 3 brothers who predeceased their mother. Considering that Maria Rocabo died during the regime of the Spanish Civil Code, the distribution of her properties should be governed by said Code, wherein it is provided that between co-heirs, the act to demand the partition of the inheritance does not prescribe (Art. 1965 [Old Civil Code], Baysa, Et. Al. v. Baysa, 53 Off. Gaz. 7282). Verily, the 3 living sisters were possessing the property as administratices or trustees for and in behalf of the other co-heirs, plaintiffs-appellants herein, who have the right to vindicate their inheritance, regardless of the lapse of time (Sevilla v. de los Angeles, L-7745; 51 Off. Gaz., 5590, and cases cited therein).

Moreover, the acquisition of the land in question is governed by the Public Land Act No. 141 and the Land Registration Law Act No. 496. And considering that the deed of sale had not been registered in accordance with the said laws, the same did not constitute a conveyance which would bind or affect the land, because the registration of a voluntary sale of land is the operative act that transmits or transfer title (Tuason v. Raymundo, 28 Phil. 635).

Defendants-appellees further argue that the extrajudicial partition should not be taken independently of the deeds of donation, as in fact, according to them, the crux of the case lies mainly in the two deeds of donation, which enabled the donees to possess the land and cut any and all rights of the plaintiffs-appellants to claim participation therein. In other words, it is pretended that after the alleged donations, the land in question was no longer a part of the intestate estate of Maria Rocabo, and the plaintiffs-appellants could no longer participate thereon. But the deeds of donation, according to the trial court, were defective and inoperative, because they were not executed in accordance with law. The trial court itself began to count the period of prescription "after the execution of the extrajudicial partition and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269." The donees themselves knew that the donations were defective and inoperative, otherwise they would not have subsequently decided to execute the deed of extra-judicial partition, which also goes to show that the rights of the three sisters and the vendees, stemmed from the said extrajudicial partition. The defendants-appellees finally argue that, this notwithstanding, the subsequent registration of the land in the names of the two donees and Sinforosa Villaluz pursuant to the extra-judicial partition on September 1, 1939, and the subsequent sale thereof by the registered owners to the defendants-appellees, on September 11, 1939, followed by the actual, adverse and continuous possession by the vendees and successors for more than 10 years, before the present complaint was filed, had barred the right of appellants to recover title of the property and claim participation therein. Having held that the three sisters were mere trustees of the property for the benefit of the appellants, and it appearing that they had not repudiated the trust, defendants-appellees’ pretension in this respect, is without merit. The finding in the appealed decision that "there is no evidence that the said defendants are not innocent purchasers and for value" (good faith), is of no moment in the case at bar. As heretofore adverted to, there was no effective sale at all, which would affect the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. Moreover, the lack of good faith on the part of the defendants-appellees can reasonably be inferred from their conduct in not presenting for registration the supposed deed of sale in their favor; in failing to annotate the sale on the T.C.T. of the alleged donees, and in not asking that a transfer certificate of title be issued in their (vendees’) names. It may also be reasonably concluded that if they did not present the deed of sale for registration, it was because they knew that their vendors were not the sole and only heirs so as to entitle them to the ownership of the land in question.

IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further and appropriate proceedings.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., took no part.

Makalintal, J., reserves his vote.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13873 January 31, 1963 - GENERAL INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14311 January 31, 1963 - MANILA SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL v. FAUSTO GABUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14653 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: RICARDO SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14801 January 31, 1963 - FILOMENA SILVA v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15467 January 31, 1963 - JESUS LANCITA, ET AL. v. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15484 January 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15656 January 31, 1963 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. WELLINGTON CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15754 January 31, 1963 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15948 January 31, 1963 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. CARLOS P. MACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963 - CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. L-16396 January 31, 1963 - BASILISA JUSTIVA v. JESUS GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16417 January 31, 1963 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16435 January 31, 1963 - DIOSDADO ESPINOSA v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16489 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BASBANIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16525 January 31, 1963 - JOSEPH REICH v. EDMUND SCHWESINGER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN v. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-16827 January 31, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. JOSE AGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. L-16884 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

  • G.R. No. L-17085 January 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17625 January 31, 1963 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17804 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17837 January 31, 1963 - ORIENTAL KAPOK INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17878 January 31, 1963 - AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18096 January 31, 1963 - MARIA ABON, ET AL. v. AMPARO E. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18129 January 31, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18178 January 31, 1963 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOILO v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-18184 January 31, 1963 - GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18240 January 31, 1963 - SOFRONIO C. QUIMSON, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18290 January 31, 1963 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. LEANDRO GRUET

  • G.R. No. L-18360 January 31, 1963 - TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, ET AL. v. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18389 January 31, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18480 January 31, 1963 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18515 January 31, 1963 - GERONIMO E. CAPARAS v. DOMINGO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18518 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TAGARO

  • G.R. No. L-18601-2 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUALHATI S. MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18704 January 31, 1963 - OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18742 January 31, 1963 - OFELIA DE GREARTE, ET AL. v. LONDON ASSURANCE

  • G.R. No. L-18746 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDERICK G. WEBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18879 January 31, 1963 - LOPE DAMASCO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-18941 January 31, 1963 - GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18982 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CRISANTO ARAGON