ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 145558.March 5, 2001]

ONG vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 5 2001.

G.R. No. 145558(Norberto P. Ong vs. Court of Appeals, Rosa Sy and Yu Siok Lian.)

On July 23, 1946, Soledad Parian, then living in common-law relation with Ong Yee, acquired a lot, consisting of 213 square meters, in No. 504 Fundidor St., San Nicolas, Binondo, Manila. The sale was duly registered and title to the lot was issued to Parian. Parian subsequently married Ong Yee. On September 27, 1949, the couple adopted Romeo Ong who later married Natividad Bautista by whom he begot four children. On November 14, 1986, after Ong Yee and Romeo Ong had died, Parian and Natividad, the latter acting in behalf of her minor children, sold the lot in question to Rosa Sy for P36,000.00. On January 1, 1988, Parian died.

On March 13, 1992, petitioner Norberto Ong, claiming to be the legitimate son of Parian and Ong Yee, filed an action for the annulment of the deed of sale executed by Parian and Natividad in favor of Rosa Sy. The trial court dismissed the case and upheld the validity of the sale. Its decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. As required by the Court, private respondent Rosa Sy filed her Comment on February 9, 2001.

The petition has no merit. It is well-settled that issues of fact or law not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (Gillego v. Diaz, 39 SCRA 88 (1971)). This rule applies with greater force in cases where the new position adopted by a party directly contradicts the earlier stance taken by him in the case.

In this case, petitioner alleged in his complaint that he is the legitimate son of Ong Yee and Soledad Parian and that the sale of the lot to respondent Rosa Sy is void for being prejudicial to his rights as a compulsory heir. However, in view of respondent Rosa Sy's allegation that he is not related to either Parian or Ong Yee and that his real name is Norberto P. Senetran, petitioner then claimed to be a "close blood relation to Soledad Parian."

The trial court ruled that the sale was valid and stated that even if petitioner was a relative of Soledad Parian, his right to inherit from her was transmitted only upon her death in 1988, with the result that he could not claim to have interest in the lot since it was no longer part of Parian's estate at that time, the same having been sold to Rosa Sy in 1986. In this petition, petitioner contends that he is an "heir or successor-in-interest" of Ong Yee and that since the lot was acquired during the time Parian was living in common-law relation with Ong Yee, the two became co-owners, pursuant to Art. 144 of the Civil Code. As "heir" of Ong Yee, the sale of the lot prior to the settlement of Yee's estate allegedly prejudiced his (petitioner's) hereditary right.

Petitioner's varying claims cannot be given consideration. Whether he is the legitimate son of Parian and Ong Yee or an heir of Ong Yee, petitioner can claim no right under Art. 144 of the Civil Code. Soledad Parian acquired the property in 1946, prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code. At that time, the rule on the matter was that a man and woman living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage have an equal interest in the properties they acquired through their joint and mutual labor (De Leon v. Villanueva, 51 Phil. 676 (1928)). Otherwise, the property would belong only to the person who acquired the same (Flores v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 94 Phil. 451 (1954)). Since, in the case at bar, petitioner has not presented any proof of such "joint efforts" on the part of Parian and Ong Yee, the lot acquired by Parian is presumed to be owned solely by her. There is even doubt whether Ong Yee could acquire an interest in the lot since it would seem he was not a citizen of the Philippines nor did he acquire such citizenship at any time during his coverture with Soledad Parian.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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