Property Aug 17, 2015 Orig

8/17/2019 Property Aug 17, 2015 Orig

1/58


2/58

PROPERTY AUGUST 17, 2015 2

1$$89 of the Court of Birst nstance of Manila, 6th (udicial

District +ranch , entitled '# T;< MATT

#T


3/58


Conse:uentl, in the case at ar, the trial court and the Court of Appeals cannot e

faulted in rulin* that the :uestioned ort*a*e constituted on the propert under

adinistration, authorit of the petitioner, is valid, notwithstandin* the lac of

udicial approval, with respect to her conu*al share and to her hereditar ri*hts. The

fact that what had een ort*a*ed was in custodia le*is is iaterial, insofar as her

conu*al share and hereditar share in the propert is concerned for after all, she was

the A+E)7FT< )#

there an clai that the ri*hts of the *overnent 4with reference to ta=es5 nor the

ri*hts of an heir or anod else have een preudiced for ipaired. As stated

Associate (ustice 4later Chief (ustice5 Manuel Moran in Jakosalem vs. Rafols, et

al., % hil. 618 G

The land in :uestion, descried in the appealed decision, ori*inall

elon*ed to (uan Mel*ar. The latter died and the udicial

adinistration of his estate was coenced in 191& and cae to a

close on Deceer 2, 192/, onl. Durin* the pendenc of the said

adinistration, that is, on (ul &, 191, Eusana Mel*ar, dau*hter of the deceased (uan Mel*ar, sold the land with the ri*ht of

repurchase to edro Cui, suect to the stipulation that durin* the

period for the repurchase she would continue in possession of the

land as lessee of the purchase. )n Deceer 12, 192$, the partition

of the estate left the deceased (uan Mel*ar was ade, and the

land in :uestion was adudicated to Eusana Mel*ar. n 1921, she

conveed, in paent of professional fees, one-half of the land in

favor of the defendant-appellee #icolas !afols, who entered upon

the portion thus conveed and has een in possession thereof up to

the present. )n (ul 2%, 1921, edro Cui rou*ht an action to

recover said half of the land fro #icolas !afols and the other half

fro the other defendants, and while that case was pendin*, or

aout Au*ust /, 192&, edro Cui donated the whole land in

:uestion to enerosa Teves, the herein plaintiff-appellant, after

trial, the lower court rendered a decision asolvin* #icolas !afols

as to the one-half of the land conveed to hi Eusana Mel*ar,

and declarin* the plaintiff owner of the other half e=press

acnowled*ent of the other defendants. The plaintiff appealed

fro that part of the ud*ent which is favorale to #icolas

!afols.

The lower court asolved #icolas !afols upon the theor that

Eusana Mel*ar could not have sold anthin* to edro Cui ecause

the land was then in custodia legis, that is, under udicial

adinistration. This is error. That the land could not ordinar e

levied upon while in custodia legis,does not ean that one of the

heirs a not sell the ri*ht, interest or participation which he has

or i*ht have in the lands under adinistration. The ordinar

e=ecution of propert in custodia le*is is prohiited in order to

avoid interference with the possession the court. +ut the sale

ade an heir of his share in an inheritance, suect to the result

of the pendin* adinistration, in no wise stands in the wa of such

adinistration.

The reference to udicial approval in Eec. , !ule 89 of the !ules of Court cannot

adversel affect the substantiveri*hts of private respondent to dispose of her deal

Inot inchoate, for the conu*al partnership ended with her husand>s death, and her

hereditar ri*hts accrued fro the oent of the death of the decedent 4Art. ,Civil Code5 share in the co-heirship andKor co-ownership fored etween her and

the other heirsKco-owners 4Eee Art. /9%, Civil Code, supra.5. Eec. , Art. 89 of the

Civil Code applies in a case where udicial approval has to e sou*ht in connection

with, for instance, the sale or ort*a*e of propert under adinistration for the

paent, sa of a conu*al det, and even here, the conu*al and hereditar shares of

the wife are e=cluded fro the re:uisite udicial approval for the reason alread

adverted to hereinaove, provided of course no preudice is caused others, includin*

the *overnent.

Moreover, petitioner is alread estopped fro :uestionin* the ort*a*e. An estoppela arise fro the ain* of a proise even thou*h without consideration, if it was

intended that the proise should e relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if

a refusal to enforce it would e virtuall to sanction the perpetration of fraud or

would result in other inustice 4onalo E Tradin* vs. Central +an, $ EC!A &$5.

!

E) )!D


4/58


G.R. No. 12/8 J&'0&r 18, 199/

HEROOTUS #. A!E$EO &'( EOSTHENES #. A!E$EO, petitioners,

vs.

HON. $ERNARO #. A$ESAIS, IGUEL A!E$EO, ALE3ANER

A!E$EO, NA#OLEON A!E$EO, RIALINO A!E$EO, RE#U$LI!A

A!E$EO, FILI#INAS A!E$EO &'( *U HA #ING, respondents.

Heminio L. Ruiz for petitioners.

icente !. Millora for private respondents.

Romero ". #u for respondent #u Hua Ping.

!A#OS, JR., J.:

The lower court>s urisdiction in approvin* a Deed of Conditional Eale e=ecuted

respondents-heirs and orderin* herein adinistrator-petitioner ;erodotus Aceedo to

sell the reainin* portions of said properties, despite the asence of its prior

approval as a proate court, is ein* challen*ed in the case at ar.

The late Beli= Aceedo left an estate consistin* of several real estate properties

located in 0ueon Cit and Caloocan Cit, with a conservative estiated value of

aout %$ illion. Eaid estate alle*edl has onl the followin* unsettled clais3

a. 8,9%.$$ representin* unpaid real estate ta=es due 0ueon

CitH

. 2$,2//.$$ as unpaid real estate ta=es due Caloocan CitH

c. The unpaid salariesKallowances of forer Adinistrator Mi*uel

Aceedo, and the incuent Adinistrator ;erodotus AceedoH

and

d. nheritance ta=es that a e due on the net estate.

The decedent was succeeded ei*ht heirs, two of who are the petitioners herein,and the others are the private respondents.

Due to the prolon*ed pendenc of the case efore the respondent Court for si=teen

ears, respondents-heirs filed a 'Motion for Approval of Eale', on )ctoer /, 1989.

The said sale involved the properties covered Transfer Certificate of Title #os.

1&&&69, 12$1/&, 91/&, and 18$9, all of which are re*istered in 0ueon Cit, and

for part of the estate. The consideration for said lots was twelve 4125 illion pesos

and that tie, the alread had a uer. t was further stated in said Motion that

respondents-heirs have alread received their proportionate share of the si= 465

illion pesos paid the uer, @u ;wa in*, as earnest oneH that the alance of

6,$$$,$$$.$$ is ore than enou*h to pa the unsettled clais a*ainst the estate.


5/58


Thus, the praed for the Court to direct the adinistrator, ;erodotus Aceedo

4referred to as petitioner-adinistrator hereafter53

1. to sell the properties entioned in the otionH

2. with the alance of 6 illion, to pa all the clais a*ainst thes assuption of paent of the realt ta=esH that the estate has no further dets

and thus, the intestate adinistrator a e terinated.

)n Au*ust 1, 199$, respondent Court issued an )rder, the dispositive portion of

which, stated, aon* others, to wit3 2


6/58


. the otion filed the heirs-ovants, dated )ctoer /, 1989,

prain* that the new adinistrator e directed to sell the properties

covered TCT #os. 1&&&69, 12$1/&, 91/& and 18$9, in favor

of @u ;wa in* is here deniedH and

c. the new adinistrator is here *ranted leave to ort*a*e soe properties of the estate at a ust and reasonale aount, suect to

the approval of the Court.

)n Deceer /, 199$, the respondent (ud*e issued an order resolvin* to call the

parties to a conference on Deceer 1, 199$. The conference was held, ut still the

parties were unale to arrive at an a*reeent. Eo, on (anuar /, 1991, it was

continued, wherein the parties actuall a*reed that the heirs e allowed to sell their

shares of the properties to @u ;wa in* for the price alread a*reed upon, while

herein petitioners ne*otiate for a hi*her price with @u ;wa in*.

etitioners, then, instead filed a 'Euppleental )pposition' to the approval of the

Deed of Conditional Eale.

)n March 29, 1991, the respondent Court issued the challen*ed )rder, the

dispositive portion of which states, to wit3

;

reconsidered and set aside, and another one is here issued as

follows3

1. Approvin* the conditional sale, dated Eepteer 1$, 1989,e=ecuted the heirs-ovants, in favor of @u ;wa in*,

pertainin* to their respective shares in the properties covered

TCT #os. 1&&&69, 12$1/&, 19/& and 18$9 of the !e*ister of

Deeds of 0ueon CitH

2. )rderin* the adinistrator ;erodotus Aceedo to sell the

reainin* portions of the said properties also in favor of @u ;wa

in* at the sae price as the sale e=ecuted the herein heirs-

ovantsH

%. )rderin* @u ;wa in* to deposit with the Court the total

reainin* alance of the purchase price for the said lots within

Tscop of TCT #os. 1&&&69, and 12$1/& is here denied. /

@u ;wa in*, on April /, 1991, deposited the reainin* alance of the purchase

price for the properties suect of the Deed of Conditional Eale in the aount of

6,&$$,$$$.$$.

etitioners herein received the :uestioned )rder on April 11, 1991. Twent one 4215

das thereafter, the filed a Motion for !econsideration, prain* that the Court

reinstate its )rder of Au*ust 1, 199$. To this, private respondents filed their

)pposition. 4

nstead of ain* a repl, petitioners herein filed a Euppleental Motion for

!econsideration. The otions for reconsideration of herein petitioners were denied

the respondent Court on Au*ust 2%, 1991.

)n Eepteer 2%, 1991, herein petitioners filed a Motion for artial

!econsideration, hopin* for the last tie that the would e ale to convince the

Court that its )rder dated March 29, 1991 in effect approvin* the conditional sale is

erroneous and eond its urisdiction.

)n )ctoer 1, 1991, the respondent Court denied the Motion for artial!econsideration for 'lac of erit'.

)n #oveer , 1991, private respondents filed a Motion for


7/58


e answer in the positiveL

n the case of !illena vs. $ourt of "ppeals, 5 this Court ade a pronounceent that it

is within the urisdiction of the proate court to approve the sale of properties of a

deceased person his prospective heirs efore final adudication. ;ence, it is error

to sa that this atter should e threshed out in a separate action.

The Court further elaorated that althou*h the !ules of Court do not specificall

state that the sale of an iovale propert elon*in* to an estate of a decedent, in a

special proceedin*, should e ade with the approval of the court, this authorit is

necessaril included in its capacit as a proate court. Therefore, it is clear that the

proate court in the case at ar, acted within its urisdiction in issuin* the )rder

approvin* the Deed of Conditional Eale.

e cannot countenance the position aintained herein petitioners that said

conditional sale is null and void for lac of prior court approval. The sale precisel

was ade conditional, the condition ein* that the sae should first e approved

the proate court.

etitioners herein anchor their clai on Eection , !ule 89 of the !ules of Court. t

is settled that court approval is necessar for the validit of an disposition of the

decedent>s estate. ;owever, reference to udicial approval cannot adversel affect the

sustantive ri*hts of the heirs to dispose of their ideal share in the co-heirship andKor

co-ownership aon* the heirs. 7

This Court had the occasion to rule that there is no dout that an heir can sell

whatever ri*ht, interest, or participation he a have in the propert under adinistration. This is a atter which coes under the urisdiction of the proate

court. 8

The ri*ht of an heir to dispose of the decedent>s propert, even if the sae is under

adinistration, is ased on the Civil Code provision 9 statin* that the possession of

hereditar propert is deeed transitted to the heir without interruption and fro

the oent of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. here

there are however, two or ore heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, efore its

partition, owned in coon such heirs. 1

The Civil Code, under the provisions on co-ownership, further :ualifies this

ri*ht. 11 Althou*h it is andated that each co-owner shall have the full ownership of

his part and of the fruits and enefits pertainin* thereto, and thus a alienate,

assi*n or ort*a*e it, and even sustitute another person in its enoent, the effect

of the alienation or the ort*a*e, with respect to the

co-owners, shall e liited to the portion which a e allotted to hi in the

division upon the terination of the co-ownership. 12 n other words, the law does not

prohiit a co-owner fro sellin*, alienatin* or ort*a*in* his ideal share in the

propert held in coon. 1/

As earl as 19/2, this Court has reco*nied said ri*ht of an heir to dispose of

propert under adinistration. n the case of %eves de Jakosalem vs. Rafols, et

al ., 14 it was said that the sale ade an heir of his share in an inheritance, suect

to the result of the pendin* adinistration, in no wise, stands in the wa of such

adinistration. The Court then relied on the provision of the )ld Civil Code, Article

//$ and Article %%9 which are still in force as Article &%% and Article /9%,

respectivel, in the new Civil Code. The Court also cited the words of a notedcivilist, Manresa3 'Fpon the death of a person, each of his heirs >ecoes the

undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which

i*ht e adudicated to hi, a counit of ownership ein* thus fored aon*

the co-owners of the estate which reains undivided>.'

rivate respondents havin* secured the approval of the proate court, a atter which

is un:uestional within its urisdiction, and havin* estalished private respondents>

ri*ht to alienate the decedent>s propert suect of adinistration, this etition should

e disissed for lac of erit.

!


8/58


G.R. No. 1584 No6ember 25, 1992

ONATO S. #AULITAN, JULIANA #. FANESA &'( ROOLFO

FANESA, petitioners,

vs.

!OURT OF A##EALS, ALI!IO #AULITAN, ELENA #AULITAN,

A$ELINO #AULITAN, ANITA #AULITAN, $A%ING #AULITAN,

AELINA #AULITAN &'( ANITO #AULITAN, respondents.

ROERO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seein* the reversal of the decision 1 of the

Court of Appeals, dated (ul 1/, 1982 in CA-.!. #o. 622&&-! entitled 'Alicio

aulitan, et al. v. Donato Ea*ario aulitan, et al.' which affired the decision 2 of

the then Court of Birst nstance 4now !TC5 of #e*ros )ccidental, 12th (udicial

District, +ranch ", +acolod Cit, in Civil Case #o. 11$.

The antecedent facts are as follows3


9/58


A*atona Ea*ario aulitan, who died soetie in 19&%, / left the two followin*

parcels of land located in the rovince of #e*ros )ccidental3 415 7ot #o. & with an

area of 1,9/6 s:uare eters covered )ri*inal Certificate of Title 4)CT5 #o. !)-

8%6H and 425 7ot #o. 1$91 with an area of 69,$8$ s:uare eters and covered

)CT #o. !)-116&%. Bro her arria*e with Ciriaco aulitan, who is also now

deceased, A*atona e*ot two le*itiate children, nael3 ascual aulitan, who

also died in 19&%, 4 apparentl shortl after his other passed awa, and Donato

aulitan, who is one of the petitioners. etitioner (uliana . Banesa is Donato>s

dau*hter while the third petitioner, !odolfo Banes, is (uliana>s husand. ascual

aulitan, the other son of A*atona Ea*ario, is survived the respondents, who are

his children, nae3 Alicio, s nae.

As re*ards 7ot #o. 1$91, Donato e=ecuted on Ma 28, 19/ a Deed of Eale over the

sae in favor of petitioner (uliana . Banesa, his dau*hter. 5

n the eantie, soetie in 19&2, for non-paent of ta=es, 7ot #o. 1$91 was

forfeited and sold at a pulic auction, with the rovincial overnent of #e*ros)ccidental ein* the uer. A Certificate of Eale over the land was e=ecuted the

rovincial Treasurer in favor of the rovincial +oard of #e*ros )ccidental.

)n Ma 29, 19/, (uliana . Banesa redeeed the propert fro the rovincial

overnent of #e*ros )ccidental for the aount of 2,9&9.$9. 7

)n learnin* of these transactions, respondents children of the late ascual aulitan

filed on (anuar 18, 19& with the Court of Birst nstance of #e*ros )ccidental a

Coplaint a*ainst petitioners to partition the properties plus daa*es.

etitioners set up the defense of prescription with respect to 7ot #o. & as an

affirative defense, contendin* that the Coplaint was filed ore than eleven ears

after the issuance of a transfer certificate of title to Donato aulitan over the land

as conse:uence of the re*istration with the !e*ister of Deeds, of Donato>s affidavit

e=traudiciall adudicatin* unto hiself 7ot #o. &. As re*ards 7ot #o. 1$91,

petitioner (uliana . Banesa claied in her Answer to the Coplaint that she ac:uired

e=clusive ownership thereof not onl eans of a deed of sale e=ecuted in her

favor her father, petitioner Donato aulitan, ut also wa of redeption fro

the rovincial overnent of #e*ros )ccidental.

Actin* on the petitioners> affirative defense of prescription with respect to 7ot #o.

&, the trial court issued an order dated April 22, 196 disissin* the coplaint as

to the said propert upon findin* erit in petitioners> affirative defense. This order,

which is not the oect of the present petition, has ecoe final after respondents>

failure to appeal therefro.

Trial proceeded with respect to 7ot #o. 1$91. n a decision dated Ma 2$, 19, thetrial court decided in favor of respondents as to 7ot #o. 1$91. Accordin* to the trial

court, the respondents, as descendants of A*atona Ea*ario aulitan were entitled to

one-half 41K25 of 7ot #o. 1$91, pro indiviso. The sale petitioner Donato aulitan

to his dau*hter, petitioner (uliana . Banesa, did not preudice their ri*hts. And the

repurchase (uliana . Banesa of the land fro the rovincial overnent of

#e*ros )ccidental did not vest in (uliana e=clusive ownership over the entire land

ut onl *ave her the ri*ht to e reiursed for the aount paid to redee the

propert. The trial court ordered the partition of the land and directed petitioners

Donato aulitan and (uliana . Banesa to pa private respondents certain aounts

representin* the latter>s share in the fruits of the land. )n the other hand, respondents

were directed to pa 1,/9.&& to (uliana . Banesa as their share in the redeption

price paid Banesa to the rovincial overnent of #e*ros )ccidental. The

dispositive portion of the trial court>s decision reads3

;

of action pleaded in the coplain as follows3

1. The deed of sale 4


10/58


Banesa and her husand !odolfo Banesa, while the reainin* half

shall elon* to plaintiffs, pro&indivisoH

2. 7ot 1$91, Cadastral Eurve of ontevedra, rovince of #e*ros

)ccidental, now covered TCT #o. !)-116&% 4#.A.5, is ordered

partitioned. The parties ust proceed to an actual partition

propert instruent of partition, suittin* the correspondin*

sudivision within si=t 46$5 das fro finalit of this decision,

and should the fail to a*ree, coissioners of partition a e

appointed the CourtH

%. endin* the phsical partition, the !e*ister of Deeds of #e*ros

)ccidental is ordered to cancel )ri*inal Certificate of Title #o.

!)-116&% 4#.A.5 coverin* 7ot 1$91, ontevedra Cadastre, and to

issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in the nae of

plaintiffs and defendants, one-half portion each, pro&indiviso, as

indicated in para*raph 1 aoveH

/. laintiffs are ordered to pa, ointl and severall, defendant

(uliana Banesa the aount of 1,/9.&& with interest at the le*al

rate fro Ma 28, 19/ until paidH

& Defendants Donato Ea*ario aulitan and (uliana aulitan

Banesa are ordered to account to plaintiffs and to pa the, ointl

and severall, the value of the produce fro 7ot 1$91 representin*

plaintiffs> share in the aount of &,$$$.$$ per ear fro 1966 up

to the tie of actual partition of the propert, and to pa the thesu of 2,$$$.$$ as attorne>s fees as well as the costs of the suit.

=== === ===

)n appeal, the Court of Appeals affired the trial court>s decision. ;ence this

petition.

To deterine the ri*hts and oli*ations of the parties to the land in :uestion, it is

well to review, initiall, the relatives who survived the decedent A*atona Ea*ario

aulitan. hen A*atona died in 19&%, she was survived two 425 sons, Donato

and ascual. A few onths later in the sae ear, ascual died, leavin* seven

children, the private respondents. )n the other had, Donato>s sole offsprin* was

petitioner (uliana . Banesa.

At the tie of the relevant transactions over the properties of decedent A*atona

Ea*ario aulitan, her son ascual had died, survived respondents, his children.

t is, thus, teptin* to appl the principles pertainin* to the ri*ht of representation as

re*ards respondents. t ust, however, e orne in ind that ascual did no

predecease his other, 8 thus precludin* the operation of the provisions in the Civil

Code on the ri*ht of representation 9 with respect to his children, the respondents.

hen A*atona Ea*ario aulitan died intestate in 19&2, her two 425 sons Donato

and ascual were still alive. Eince it is well-settled virtue of Article of the

Civil Code that 'ItJhe ri*hts to the succession are transitted fro the oent of the

death of the decedent,' 1 the ri*ht of ownership, not onl of Donato ut also of

ascual, over their respective shares in the inheritance was autoaticall and

operation of law vested in the in 19&% when their other died intestate. At that

sta*e, the children of Donato and ascual did not et have an ri*ht over the

inheritance since 'IiJn ever inheritance, the relative nearest in de*ree e=cludes theore distant

ones.' 11 Donato and ascual e=cluded their children as to the ri*ht to inherit fro

A*atona Ea*ario aulitan, their other.

Bro the tie of the death of A*atona Ea*ario aulitan to the suse:uent passin*

awa of her son ascual in 19&%, the estate reained unpartitioned. Article 1$8 of

the Civil Code provides3 'here there are two or ore heirs, the whole estate of the

decedent is, efore its partition, owned in coon such heirs, suect to the

paent of dets of the deceased.' 12 Donato and ascual aulitan were, therefore,

co-owners of the estate left their other as no partition was ever ade.

hen ascual aulitan died intestate in 19&%, his children, the respondents,

succeeded hi in the co-ownership of the disputed propert. ascual aulitan>s

ri*ht of ownership over an undivided portion of the propert passed on to his

children, who, fro the tie of ascual>s death, ecae co-owners with their uncle

Donato over the disputed decedent estate.

etitioner (uliana . Banesa clais ownership over 7ot #o. 1$91 virtue of two

transactions, nael3 4a5 the sale ade in her favor her father Donato aulitanH

and 45 her redeption of the land fro the rovincial of #e*ros )ccidental after it

was forfeited for non-paent of ta=es.


11/58


hen Donato aulitan sold on Ma 28, 19/ 7ot #o. 1$91 to his dau*hter (uliana

. Banesa, he was onl a co-owner with respondents and as such, he could onl sell

that portion which a e allotted to hi upon terination of the co-

ownership. 1/ The sale did not preudice the ri*hts of respondents to one half 41K25

undivided share of the land which the inherited fro their father. t did not vest

ownership in the entire land with the uer ut transferred onl the seller>s pro&

indiviso share in the propert 14 and conse:uentl ade the uer a co-owner of the

land until it is partitioned. n 'ailon&$asilao v. $ourt of "ppeals, 15 the Court,

throu*h (ustice rene !. Cortes, outlined the effects of a sale one co-owner

without the consent of all the co-owners, thus3

The ri*hts of a co-owner of a certain propert are clearl specified

in Article /9% of the Civil Code, Thus3

Art. /9%.


12/58


The ri*ht of repurchase a e e=ercised co-owner with respect

to his share alone 4C"7 C)D


13/58


G.R. No. 7/51 Otober 29, 199/

"IRGILIO $. AGUILAR, petitioner,

vs.

!OURT OF A##EALS &'( SENEN $. AGUILAR, respondents.

Jose F. Manacop for petitioner.

+iruello, Mu*co "ssociates La) -ffice for private respondent.

$ELLOSILLO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seein* to reverse and set aside the

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-! C" #o. $%9%% declarin* null and void

the orders of 2% and 26 April, 199, the ud*ent default of 26 (ul 199, and the

order of 22 )ctoer 199 of the then Court of Birst nstance of !ial, asa Cit,

+ranch %$, and directin* the trial court to set the case for pre-trial conference.

etitioner "ir*ilio and respondent Eenen are rothersH "ir*ilio is the oun*est of seven 45 children of the late Ma=iiano A*uilar, while Eenen is the fifth. )n 28

)ctoer 1969, the two rothers purchased a house and lot in araa:ue where their

father could spend and eno his reainin* ears in a peaceful nei*horhood.

nitiall, the rothers a*reed that "ir*ilio>s share in the co-ownership was two-thirds

while that of Eenen was one-third. + virtue of a written eorandu dated 2%

Beruar 19$, "ir*ilio and Eenen a*reed that henceforth their interests in the house

and lot should e e:ual, with Eenen assuin* the reainin* ort*a*e oli*ation of

the ori*inal owners with the Eocial Eecurit Este 4EEE5 in e=chan*e for his

possession and enoent of the house to*ether with their father.

Eince "ir*ilio was then dis:ualified fro otainin* a loan fro EEE, the rothers

a*reed that the deed of sale would e e=ecuted and the title re*istered in the

eantie in the nae of Eenen. t was further a*reed that Eenen would tae care of

their father and his needs since "ir*ilio and his fail were stain* in Ceu.

After Ma=iiano A*uilar died in 19/, petitioner deanded fro private respondent

that the latter vacate the house and that the propert e sold and proceeds thereof

divided aon* the.

+ecause of the refusal of respondent to *ive in to petitioner>s deands, the latter filed

on 12 (anuar 199 an action to copel the sale of the house and lot so that the the

could divide the proceeds etween the.

n his coplaint, petitioner praed that the proceeds of the sale, e divided on the

asis of two-thirds 42K%5 in his favor and one-third 41K%5 to respondent. etitioner also

praed for onthl rentals for the use of the house respondent after their father

died.

n his answer with counterclai, respondent alle*ed that he had no oection to the

sale as lon* as the est sellin* price could e otainedH that if the sale would e

effected, the proceeds thereof should e divided e:uallH and, that ein* a co-owner,

he was entitled to the use and enoent of the propert.

Fpon issues ein* oined, the case was set for pre-trial on 26 April 199 with the

lawers of oth parties notified of the pre-trial, and served with the pre-trial order,

with private respondent e=ecutin* a special power of attorne to his lawer to appear

at the pre-trial and enter into an aicale settleent in his ehalf. 1


14/58


)n 2$ April 199, Att. Manuel E. Tono*anua, counsel for respondent, filed a

otion to cancel pre-trial on the *round that he would e accopanin* his wife to

Dua*uete Cit where she would e a principal sponsor in a weddin*.

)n 2% April 199, findin* the reasons of counsel to e without erit, the trial court

denied the otion and directed that the pre-trial should continue as scheduled.

hen the case was called for pre-trial as scheduled on 26 April 199, plaintiff and

his counsel appeared. Defendant did not appearH neither his counsel in whose favor

he e=ecuted a special power of attorne to represent hi at the pre-trial.

Conse:uentl, the trial court, on otion of plaintiff, declared defendant as in default

and ordered reception of plaintiff>s evidence e parte.

)n Ma 199, defendant throu*h counsel filed an onius otion to reconsider

the order of default and to defer reception of evidence. The trial court denied the

otion and plaintiff presented his evidence.

)n 26 (ul 199, renderin* ud*ent default a*ainst defendant, the trial court

found hi and plaintiff to e co-owners of the house and lot, in e:ual shares on the

asis of their written a*reeent. ;owever, it ruled that plaintiff has een deprived of

his participation in the propert defendant>s continued enoent of the house and

lot, free of rent, despite deands for rentals and continued aneuvers of defendants,

to dela partition. The trial court also upheld the ri*ht of plaintiff as co-owner to

deand partition. Eince plaintiff could not a*ree to the aount offered defendant

for the forer>s share, the trial court held that this propert should e sold to a third

person and the proceeds divided e:uall etween the parties.

The trial court liewise ordered defendant to vacate the propert and pa plaintiff

1,2$$.$$ as rentals 2 fro (anuar 19& up to the date of decision plus interest fro

the tie the action was filed.

)n 1 Eepteer 199, defendant filed an onius otion for new trial ut on 22

)ctoer 199 the trial court denied the otion.

Defendant sou*ht relief fro the Court of Appeals prain* that the followin* orders

and decision of the trial court e set aside3 4a5 the order of 2% April 19$ denin*

defendants otion for postponeent of the pre-trial set on 26 April 199H 45 the

order of 26 April 199 declarin* hi in default and authoriin* plaintiff to present

his evidencee&parteH 4e5 the default ud*ent of 26 (ul 199H and, 4d5 the order

dated 22 )ctoer 199 denin* his onius otion for new trial.

)n 16 )ctoer 1986, the Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court of 26

April 199 as well as the assailed ud*ent rendered default., The appellate court

found the e=planation of counsel for defendant in his otion to cancel pre-trial as

satisfactor and devoid of a anifest intention to dela the disposition of the case. t

also ruled that the trial court should have *ranted the otion for postponeent filed

counsel for defendant who should not have een declared as in default for the

asence of his counsel.

etitioner now coes to us alle*in* that the Court of Appeals erred 415 in not holdin*

that the otion of defendant throu*h counsel to cancel the pre-trial was dilator in

character and 425 in reandin* the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial.

The issues to e resolved are whether the trial court correctl declared respondent as

in default for his failure to appear at the pre-trial and in allowin* petitioner to presenthis evidence e&parte, and whether the trial court correctl rendered the default

ud*ent a*ainst respondent.

e find erit in the petition.

As re*ards the first issue, the law is clear that the appearance of parties at the pre-

trial is andator. / A part who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference a e non-

suited or considered as in default. 4 n the case at ar, where private respondent and

counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, the trial, court has authorit to

declare respondent in default.

5

Althou*h respondent>s counsel filed a otion to postpone pre-trial hearin*, the *rant

or denial thereof is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should tae

into account two factors in the *rant or denial of otions for postponeent, nael3

4a5 the reason for the postponeent and 45 the erits of the case of ovant.

n the instant case, the trial court found the reason stated in the otion of counsel for

respondent to cancel the pre-trial to e without erit. Counsel>s e=planation that he

had to *o to oat as earl as 2& March 199 to fetch his wife and accopan her

to a weddin* in Dua*uete Cit on 2 April 199 where she was one of the

principal sponsors, cannot e accepted. e find it insufficient to ustif


15/58


postponeent of the pre-trial, and the Court of Appeals did not act wisel in

overrulin* the denial. e sustain the trial court and rule that it did not ause its

discretion in denin* the postponeent for lac of erit. Certainl, to warrant a

postponeent of a andator process as pre-trial would re:uire uch ore than

ere attendance in a social function. t is tie indeed we ephasie that there should

e uch ore than ere perfunctor treatent of the pre-trial procedure. ts

oservance ust e taen seriousl if it is to attain its oective, i.e., the speed and

ine=pensive disposition of cases.

Moreover, the trial court denied the otion for postponeent three 4%5 das efore

the scheduled pre-trial. f indeed, counsel for respondent could not attend the pre-

trial on the scheduled date, respondent at least should have personall appeared in

order not to e declared as in default. +ut, since nood appeared for hi, the order

of the trial court declarin* hi as in default and directin* the presentation of

petitioner>s evidence e parte was proper. 7

ith re*ard to the erits of the ud*ent of the trial court default, whichrespondent appellate court did not touch upon in resolvin* the appeal, the Court

holds that on the asis of the pleadin*s of the parties and the evidence presented e

parte, petitioner and respondents are co-owners of suect house and lot in e:ual

sharesH either one of the a deand the sale of the house and lot at an tie and

the other cannot oect to such deandH thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall e

divided e:uall accordin* to their respective interests.

rivate respondent and his fail refuse to pa onthl rentals to petitioner fro the

tie their father died in 19& and to vacate the house so that it can e sold to third

persons. etitioner alle*es that respondent>s continued sta in the propert hinders its

disposal to the preudice of petitioner. )n the part of petitioner, he clais that he

should e paid two-thirds 42K%5 of a onthl rental of 2,/$$.$$ or the su of

1,6$$.$$.

n resolvin* the dispute, the trial court ordered respondent to vacate the propert so

that it could e sold to third persons and the proceeds divided etween the e:uall,

and for respondent to pa petitioner one-half 41K25 of 2,/$$.$$ or the su of

1,2$$.$$ as onthl rental, conforal with their stipulated sharin* reflected in

their written a*reeent.

e uphold the trial court in rulin* in favor of petitioner, e=cept as to the effectivit

of the paent of onthl rentals respondent as co-owner which we here declare

to coence onl after the trial court ordered respondent to vacate in accordance

with its order of 26 (ul 199.

Article /9/ of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall e oli*ed to reain in

the co-ownership, and that each co-owner a deand at an tie partition of the

thin* owned in coon insofar as his share is concerned. Corollar to this rule, Art.

/98 of the Code states that whenever the thin* is essentiall, indivisile and the co-

owners cannot a*ree that it e, allotted to one of the who shall indenif the

others, it shall e sold and its proceeds accordin*l distriuted. This is resorted to 415

when the ri*ht to partition the propert is invoed an of the co-owners ut

ecause of the nature of the propert it cannot e sudivided or its sudivision would

preudice the interests of the co-owners, and 45 the co-owners are not in a*reeent

as to who aon* the shall e allotted or assi*ned the entire propert upon proper

reiurseent of the co-owners. n one case, 8 this Court upheld the order of the trial

court directin* the holdin* of a pulic sale of the properties owned in coon pursuant to Art. /98 of the Civil Code.

;owever, ein* a co-owner respondent has the ri*ht to use the house and lot without

pain* an copensation to petitioner, as he a use the propert owned in coon

lon* as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in a anner

not inurious to the interest of the other co-owners. 9


16/58


ordered hi to vacate, for the use and enoent of the other half of the propert

appertainin* to petitioner.

hen petitioner filed an action to copel the sale of the propert and the trial court

*ranted the petition and ordered the eectent of respondent, the co-ownership was

deeed terinated and the ri*ht to eno the possession ointl also ceased.

Thereafter, the continued sta of respondent and his fail in the house preudiced

the interest of petitioner as the propert should have een sold and the proceeds

divided e:uall etween the. To this e=tent and fro then on, respondent should e

held liale for onthl rentals until he and his fail vacate.

;

Appeals dated 16 )ctoer 1986 is !

A*uilar a onthl rental of 1,2$$.$$ with interest at the le*al rate fro the tie hereceived the decision of the trial court directin* hi to vacate until he effectivel

leaves the preises.

The trial court is further directed to tae iediate steps to ipleent this decision

conforal with Art. /98 of the Civil Code and the !ules of Court. This decision is

final and e=ecutor.

E) )!D

G.R. No. L//187 &r) /1, 198

!ORNELIO #A#LONA &:&; GEINIANO #A#LONA &'( A#OLONIA

ONTE, petitioners,

vs.

"I"EN!IO ORETO, "I!TOR ORETO, ELIGIO ORETO, AR!ELO

ORETO, #AULINA ORETO, ROSARIO ORETO, ARTA ORETO,

SE"ERINA ENOA, #A$LO ENOA, LAARO ENOA,

"I!TORIA TUIA, JOSEFINA ORETO, LEANRO ORETO &'(

LORENO ENOA, respondents.

/.P. $aguioa for petitioners.

'en0amin $. #atco for respondents.

GUERRERO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari wa of appeal fro the decision of the Court of

Appeals 1 in CA-.!. #o. %&962-!, entitled 'ivencio Moreto, et al ., laintiff-

Appellees vs. $ornelio Pamplona, et al ., Defendants-Appellants,' affirin* the

decision of the Court of Birst nstance of 7a*una, +ranch at +ian.

The facts, as stated in the decision appealed fro, show that3

Blaviano Moreto and Monica Manie*a were husand and wife. Durin* their

arria*e, the ac:uired adacent lots #os. 1/9&, /&/&, and 1/96 of the Calaa

Briar 7and


17/58


The spouses Blaviano Moreto and Monica Manie*a e*ot durin* their arria*e si=

465 children, nael, Frsulo, Marta, 7a a, Alipio, alo, and 7eandro, all

surnaed Moreto.

Frsulo Moreto died intestate on Ma 2/, 19&9 leavin* as his heirs herein plaintiffs

"ivencio, Marcelo, !osario, "ictor, aulina, Marta and


18/58


portion consistin* of 81 s:uare eters of lot #o. 1/96 which was the suect atter

of their sale transaction.

After trial, the lower court rendered ud*ent, the dispositive part thereof ein* as

follows3

;

declarin* the deed of asolute sale dated (ul %$, 19&2 pertainin*

to the eastern portion of 7ot 1/96 coverin* an area of 81 s:uare

eters null and void as re*ards the %9$.& s:uare eters of which

plaintiffs are here declared the ri*htful owners and entitled to its

possession.

The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern one-half 41K25

of 181 s:uare eters of 7ot 1/96 easurin* %9$.& s:uare eters

of which defendants are declared lawful owners and entitled to its

possession.

After proper surve se*re*atin* the eastern one-half portion with

an area of %9$.& s:uare eters of 7ot 1/96, the defendants shall e

entitled to a certificate of title coverin* said portion and Transfer

Certificate of Title #o. 98/% of the office of the !e*ister of Deeds

of 7a*una shall e cancelled accordin*l and new titles issued to

the plaintiffs and to the defendants coverin* their respective

portions.

Transfer Certificate of Title #o. &61 of the office of the !e*ister of Deeds of 7a*una coverin* 7ot #o. 1/9& and re*istered in the

nae of Cornelio aplona, arried to Apolonia )nte, is virtue

of this decision ordered cancelled. The defendants are ordered to

surrender to the office of the !e*ister of Deeds of 7a*una the

owner>s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title #o. &61 within

thirt 4%$5 das after this decision shall have ecoe final for

cancellation in accordance with this decision.

7et cop of this decision e furnished the !e*ister of Deeds for the

province of 7a*una for his inforation and *uidance.

ith costs a*ainst the defendants. 2

The defendants-appellants, not ein* satisfied with said ud*ent, appealed to the

Court of Appeals, which affired the ud*ent, hence the now coe to this Court.

The fundaental and crucial issue in the case at ar is whether under the facts and

circustances dul estalished the evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full

ownership of the propert in liti*ation, or onl one-half of the sae.

There is no :uestion that when the petitioners purchased the propert on (ul %$,

19&2 fro Blaviano Moreto for the price of 9$$.$$, his wife Monica Manie*a had

alread een dead si= ears efore, Monica havin* died on Ma 6, 19/6. ;ence, the

conu*al partnership of the spouses Blaviano Moreto and Monica Manie*a had

alread een dissolved. 4Article 1&, 415 #ew Civil CodeH Article 1/1, )ld Civil

Code5. The records show that the conu*al estate had not een inventoried,

li:uidated, settled and divided the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The

necessar proceedin*s for the li:uidation of the conu*al partnership were notinstituted the heirs either in the testate or intestate proceedin*s of the deceased

spouse pursuant to Act %16 aendin* Eection 68& of Act 19$. #either was there an

e=tra-udicial partition etween the survivin* spouse and the heirs of the deceased

spouse nor was an ordinar action for partition rou*ht for the purpose. Accordin*l,

the estate ecae the propert of a counit etween the survivin* husand,

Blaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Manie*a in the concept

of a co-ownership.

The counit propert of the arria*e, at the dissolution of this

ond the death of one of the spouses, ceases to elon* to the

le*al partnership and ecoes the propert of a counit,

operation of law, etween the survivin* spouse and the heirs of the

deceased spouse, or the e=clusive propert of the widower or the

widow, it he or she e the heir of the deceased spouse.


19/58


n 'or0a vs. "ddision, // hil. 89&, 9$6, the Eupree Court said that '4t5here is no

reason in law wh the heirs of the deceased wife a not for a partnership with the

survivin* husand for the ana*eent and control of the counit propert of the

arria*e and conceival such a partnership, or rather counit of propert,

etween the heirs and the survivin* husand i*ht e fored without a written

a*reeent.' n Prades vs. %ecson, /9 hil. 2%$, the Eupree Court held that

'4a5lthou*h, when the wife dies, the survivin* husand, as adinistrator of the

counit propert, has authorit to sell the propert with ut the concurrence of the

children of the arria*e, nevertheless this power can e waived in favor of the

children, with the result of rin*in* aout a conventional ownership in coon

etween the father and children as to such propertH and an one purchasin* with

nowled*e of the chan*ed status of the propert will ac:uire onl the undivided

interest of those eers of the fail who oin in the act of conveance.

t is also not disputed that iediatel after the e=ecution of the sale in 19&2, the

vendees constructed their house on the eastern part of 7ot 1/96 which the vendor

pointed out to the as the area sold, and two wees thereafter, !afael who is a son of the vendees, also uilt his house within 7ot 1/96. Euse:uentl, a ceented pi**er

coral was constructed the vendees at the ac of their house aout one and one-

half eters fro the eastern oundar of 7ot 1/96. +oth vendor and vendees

elieved all the tie that the area of 81 s:. eters suect of the sale was 7ot #o.

1/9& which accordin* to its title 4T.C.T. #o. 1/&$5 contains an area of 81 s:.

eters so that the deed of sale etween the parties dentified and descried the land

sold as 7ot 1/9&. +ut actuall, as verified later a surveor upon a*reeent of the

parties durin* the proceedin*s of the case elow, the area sold was within 7ot 1/96.

A*ain, there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses Cornelio aplona and

Apolonia )nte as well as that of their son !afael aplona, includin* the concrete

pi**er coral adacent thereto, stood on the land fro 19&2 up to the filin* of the

coplaint the private respondents on (ul 2&, 1961, or a period of over nine 495

ears. And durin* said period, the private respondents who are the heirs of Monica

Manie*a as well as of Blaviano Moreto who also died intestate on Au*ust 12, 19&6,

lived as nei*hors to the petitioner-vendees, et lifted no fin*er to :uestion the

occupation, possession and ownership of the land purchased the aplonas, so

that e are persuaded and convinced to rule that private respondents are in estoppel

laches to clai half of the propert, in dispute as null and void.


20/58


eters of his share to the aplona spouses. ndeed, there was still a reainder of

soe %92 s:. eters elon*in* to hi at the tie of the sale.

e reect respondent Court>s rulin* that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid

as to the other half for the ver siple reason that Blaviano Moreto, the vendor, had

the le*al ri*ht to ore than 81 s:. eters of the counal estate, a title which he

could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners. The title a e pro-

indiviso or inchoate ut the oent the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location

and even indicated the oundaries over which the fences were to e erectd without

oection, protest or coplaint the other co-owners, on the contrar the

ac:uiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, e rule that a

factual partition or terination of the co-ownership, althou*h partial, was created,

and arred not onl the vendor, Blaviano Moreto, ut also his heirs, the private

respondents herein fro assertin* as a*ainst the vendees-petitioners an ri*ht or title

in dero*ation of the deed of sale e=ecuted said vendor Blaiano Moreto.

death.

And under Art. 1%11, para*raph 1, #ew Civil Code, the contract of sale e=ecuted

the deceased Blaviano Moreto too effect etween the parties, their assi*ns and heirs,

who are the private respondents herein. Accordin*l, to the private respondents is

transitted the oli*ation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 81 s:.

eters to the petitioners 4which was the ori*inal oli*ation of their predecessor

Blaviano Moreto5 and not onl one-half thereof. rivate respondents ust copl

with said oli*ation.

The records reveal that the area of 81 s:. eters sold to and occupied petitioners

for ore than 9 ears alread as of the filin* of the coplaint in 1961 had een re-

surveed private land surveor Daniel Aranas. etitioners are entitled to a

se*re*ation of the area fro Transfer Certificate of Title #o. T-98/% coverin* 7ot

1/96 and the are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title

in their nae ased on the relocation surve.

;


21/58


G.R. No. L2514 Otober 17, 197/

OLORES LAHORA "A. E !ASTRO, ARSENIO E !ASTRO, JR.,

ILFREO E !ASTRO, IRINEO E !ASTRO &'( "IRGINIA E

!ASTRO ALEJANRO, s fees and the costs of the suit', found the followin* facts to undisputed3

)n (anuar 2/, 19&6 the rothers Toas de Castro and Arsenio de

Castro, Er. leased to plaintiff a fishpond containin* an area of 26

hectares situated in olo, +ulacan and forin* part of a i**er

parcel of land covered Transfer Certificate of Title #o. 196/&$

of the re*istr of the propert of +ulacan. The lessors are co-

owners in e:ual shares of the leased propert.

Accordin* to the contract of lease 4s rental to e paid on Beruar 1, 19&6, the

second on Beruar 1, 19& and the rental for the last three ears

on Beruar 1, 19&8. The first ear>s rental was paid on tie.

n the eantie, Toas de Castro died.

n the onth of #oveer, 19&6, plaintiff as lessee and defendant

Arsenio de Castro, Er. as one of the lessors, a*reed to set aside and

annul the contract of lease and for this purpose an a*reeent 4


22/58


Belisa Cru "da. de Castro refused to si*n


23/58


G.R. No. 1/7152 J&'0&r 29, 21

!IT* OF ANALU*ONG, petitioner,

vs.

ANTONIO N., FRAN!IS!O N., THELA N., EUSE$IO N., ROOLFO N.,

& ;0r'&me( AGUILAR, respondents.

#UNO, J .?

This is a petition for review under !ule /& of the !ules of Court of the )rders dated

Eepteer 1, 1998 and Deceer 29, 1998 of the !e*ional Trial Court, +ranch

168, asi* Cit1 disissin* the petitioner>s Aended Coplaint in ECA #o. 1/2 for

e=propriation of two 425 parcels of land in Mandaluon* Cit. 23)p(i2.n4t

The antecedent facts are as follows3

)n Au*ust /, 199, petitioner filed with the !e*ional Trial Court, +ranch 168, asi*

Cit a coplaint for e=propriation entitled '$it* of Mandalu*ong, plaintiff v. "ntonio

5., Francisco 5, %(elma 5, /usebio 5, Rodolfo 5., all surnamed "guilar,

defendants.6 etitioner sou*ht to e=propriate three 4%5 adoinin* parcels of land with

an a**re*ate area of 1,8/ s:uare eters re*istered under Transfer Certificates of

Title #os. &98$, 6%66 and 6%6 in the naes of the defendants, herein

respondents, located at 9 de Berero Etreet, +aran*a Mauwa*, Cit of

Mandaluon*H on a portion of the % lots, respondents constructed residential houses

several decades a*o which the had since leased out to tenants until the presentH on

the vacant portion of the lots, other failies constructed residential structures which

the liewise occupiedH in 198%, the lots were classified !esolution #o. 12& of

the +oard of the ;ousin* and Fran Developent Coordinatin* Council as an Areafor riorit Developent for uran land refor under roclaation #os. 196 and

228/ of then resident MarcosH as a result of this classification, the tenants and

occupants of the lots offered to purchase the land fro respondents, ut the latter

refused to sellH on #oveer , 1996, the Ean**unian* anlun*sod of petitioner,

upon petition of the ?apitisi*, an association of tenants and occupants of the suect

land, adopted !esolution #o. &16, Eeries of 1996 authoriin* Maor +enain

Aalos of the Cit of Mandaluon* to initiate action for the e=propriation of the

suect lots and construction of a ediu-rise condoiniu for :ualified occupants

of the landH on (anuar 1$, 1996, Maor Aalos sent a letter to respondents offerin*

to purchase the said propert at %,$$$.$$ per s:uare eterH respondents did not

answer the letter. etitioner thus praed for the e=propriation of the said lots and the

fi=in* of ust copensation at the fair aret value of %,$$$.$$ per s:uare eter.2

n their answer, respondents, e=cept offer to purchase their lots. The alle*ed

that the e=propriation of their land is aritrar and capricious, and is not for a pulic

purposeH the suect lots are their onl real propert and are too sall for

e=propriation, while petitioner has several properties inventoried for socialied

housin*H the fair aret value of %,$$$.$$ per s:uare eter is aritrar ecause the

onal valuation set the +ureau of nternal !evenue is ,$$$.$$ per s:uare eter.

As counterclai, respondents praed for daa*es of 21 illion.%


24/58


!espondents filed a 'Motion for reliinar ;earin*' claiin* that the defenses

alle*ed in their Answer are valid *rounds for disissal of the coplaint for lac of

urisdiction over the person of the defendants and lac of cause of action.

!espondents praed that the affirative defenses e set for preliinar hearin* and

that the coplaint e disissed./ etitioner replied.

)n #oveer &, 199, petitioner filed an Aended Coplaint and naed as an

additional defendant "ir*inia #. A*uilar and, at the sae tie, sustituted


25/58


+ureau,:(e't:= lands for socialied housin* and resettleent areas for the

iediate and future needs of the underprivile*ed and hoeless in the uran

areas, &@0:re the lands, and (:;po;e of said lands to the eneficiaries of the

pro*ra.1%

The ac:uisition of lands for socialied housin* is *overned several provisions in

the law. Eection 9 of !.A. 29 provides3

6+ec. 9. Priorities in t(e "c7uisition of Land. 8 7ands for socialied

housin* shall e ac:uired in the followin* order3

4a5 Those owned the overnent or an of its sudivisions,

instruentalities, or a*encies, includin* *overnent-owned or

controlled corporations and their susidiariesH

45 Alienale lands of the pulic doainH

4c5 Fnre*istered or aandoned and idle landsH

4d5 Those within the declared Areas for riorit Developent,

Nonal proveent ro*ra sites, and Elu proveent and

!esettleent ro*ra sites which have not et een ac:uiredH

4e5 +a*on* 7ipunan proveent of Eites and Eervices or +7EE

Eites which have not et een ac:uiredH

4f5 rivatel-owned lands.

here on-site developent is found ore practicale and advanta*eous to

the eneficiaries, the priorities entioned in this section shall not appl. The

local *overnent units shall *ive ud*etar priorit to on-site developent

of *overnent lands.'

7ands for socialied housin* are to e ac:uired in the followin* order3 415

*overnent landsH 425 alienale lands of the pulic doainH 4%5 unre*istered or

aandoned or idle landsH 4/5 lands within the declared Areas for riorit

Developent 4AD5, Nonal proveent ro*ra 4N5 sites, Elu proveent

and !esettleent 4E!5 sites which have not et een ac:uiredH 4&5 +7EE sites

which have not et een ac:uiredH and 465 privatel-owned lands.

There is no dispute that the two lots in liti*ation are privatel-owned and therefore

last in the order of priorit ac:uisition. ;owever, the law also provides that lands

within the declared AD>s which have not et een ac:uired the *overnent are

fourth in the order of priorit. Accordin* to petitioner, since the suect lots lie within

the declared AD, this fact andates that the lots e *iven priorit in ac:uisition.1/

Eection 9, however, is not a sin*le provision that can e read separate fro the other

provisions of the law. t ust e read to*ether with Eection 1$ of !.A. 29 which

also provides3

'+ection 1$. Modes of Land "c7uisition. 8 The odes of ac:uirin* lands

for purposes of this Act shall include, aon* others, counit ort*a*e,

land swappin*, land assel or consolidation, land anin*, donation to

the overnent, oint-venture a*reeent, ne*otiated purchase, ande=propriation3 Provided, (o)ever,T)&t epropr:&t:o' ;)& be re;orte( to

o' B)e' ot)er mo(e; o= &@0:;:t:o' )&6e bee' e)&0;te(? Provided,

furt(er,T)&t B)ere epropr:&t:o' :; re;orte( to, p&re; o= &'( oB'e(

b ;m& propert oB'er; ;)& be eempte( =or p0rpo;e; o= t):;

At? Provided, finall*, That aandoned propert, as herein defined, shall e

reverted and escheated to the Etate in a proceedin* analo*ous to the

procedure laid down in !ule 91 of the !ules of Court.1&

Bor the purposes of socialied housin*, *overnent-owned and foreclosed

properties shall e ac:uired the local *overnent units, or the

#ational ;ousin* Authorit priaril throu*h ne*otiated

purchase3 Provided, That :ualified eneficiaries who are actual occupants of

the land shall e *iven the ri*ht of first refusal.'

7ands for socialied housin* under !.A. 29 are to e ac:uired in several odes.

Aon* these odes are the followin*3 415 counit ort*a*eH 425 land swappin*,

4%5 land assel or consolidationH 4/5 land anin*H 4&5 donation to the

*overnentH 465 oint venture a*reeentH 45 ne*otiated purchaseH and 485

e=propriation. The ode of e=propriation is suect to two conditions3 4a5 it shall e

resorted to onl when the other odes of ac:uisition have een e=haustedH 45

parcels of land owned sall propert owners are e=ept fro such ac:uisition.


26/58


Eection 9 of !.A. 29 speas of pr:or:t:e; in the ac:uisition of lands. t enuerates

the tpe of lands to e ac:uired and the heirarch in their ac:uisition. Eection 1$

deals with the mo(e; of land ac:uisition or the process of ac:uirin* lands for

socialied housin*. These are two different thin*s. T)e me&' t)&t t)e tpe o=

&'(; t)&t m& be &@0:re( :' t)e or(er o= pr:or:t :' Set:o' 9 &re to be

&@0:re( o' :' t)e mo(e; &0t)or:Ce( 0'(er Set:o' 1. The ac:uisition of the

lands in the priorit list ust e ade suect to the odes and conditions set forth

in the ne=t provision. n other words, land that lies within the AD, such as in the

instant case, a e ac:uired onl in the odes under, and suect to the conditions

of, Eection 1$.

etitioner clais that it had faithfull oserved the different odes of land

ac:uisition for socialied housin* under !.A. 29 and adhered to the priorities in

the ac:uisition for socialied housin* under said law.16 t, however, did not state with

particularit whether it e)&0;te( the other odes of ac:uisition in Eection 9 of the

law efore it decided to e=propriate the suect lots. The law states 'e=propriation

shall e resorted to when other odes of ac:uisition have een e=hausted.'etitioner alle*ed onl one ode of ac:uisition, i.e., ne*otiated purchase.

etitioner, throu*h the Cit Maor, tried to purchase the lots fro respondents ut

the latter refused to sell.1 As to the other odes of ac:uisition, no ention has een

ade. #ot even !esolution #o. &16, Eeries of 1996 of the Ean**unian* anlun*sod

authoriin* the Maor of Mandaluon* to effect the e=propriation of the suect

propert states whether the cit *overnent tried to ac:uire the sae counit

ort*a*e, land swappin*, land assel or consolidation, land anin*, donation to

the *overnent, or oint venture a*reeent under Eection 9 of the law.

Eection 9 also e=epts fro e=propriation parcels of land owned sall propert

owners.18 etitioner ar*ues that the e=ercise of the power of einent doain is not

anore conditioned on the sie of the land sou*ht to e e=propriated. 19 + the

e=panded notion of pulic use, present urisprudence has estalished the concept that

e=propriation is not anore confined to the vast tracts of land and landed estates,

ut also covers sall parcels of land. 2$ That onl a few could actuall enefit fro

the e=propriation of the propert does not diinish its pulic use character.21 t

sipl is not possile to provide, in one instance, land and shelter for all who need

the.22

hile we adhere to the e=panded notion of pulic use, the passa*e of !.A. #o. 29,

the 'Fran Developent and ;ousin* Act of 1992' introduced a liitation on the

sie of the land sou*ht to e e=propriated for socialied housin*. The law e=pressl

e=epted 'sall propert owners' fro e=propriation of their land for uran land

refor. !.A. #o. 29 ori*inated as Eenate +ill #o. 2%/ authored Eenator (oe

7ina2% and ;ouse +ill #o. %/%1$. Eenate +ill #o. 2%/ then provided that one of those

lands not covered the uran land refor and housin* pro*ra was 'land actuall

used sall propert owners within the ust and e:uitale retention liit as

provided under this Act.'2/ 'Eall propert owners' were defined in Eenate +ill #o.

2%/ as3

'/. Eall ropert )wners G are those whose ri*hts are protected under

Eection 9, Article of the Constitution of the hilippines, who own

sall parcels of land within the fair and ust retention liit provided under

this Act and which are ade:uate to eet the reasonale needs of the sall

propert owner>s fail and their eans of livelihood.2&

The e=eption fro e=propriation of lands of sall-propert owners was never

:uestioned on the Eenate floor.26

This e=eption, althou*h with a odified definition,was actuall retained in the consolidation of Eenate +ill #o. 2%/ and ;ouse +ill #o.

%/%1$ which ecae !.A. #o. 29.2

The :uestion now is whether respondents :ualif as 'sall propert owners' as

defined in Eection % 4:5 of !.A. 29. Eection % 4:5 provides3

'+ection % 479. 'Eall propert owners' refers to those whose onl real

propert consists of residential lands not e=ceedin* three hundred s:uare

eters 4%$$ s:..5 in hi*hl uranied cities and ei*ht hundred s:uare

eters 48$$ s:..5 in other uran areas.'

'Eall-propert owners' are defined two eleents3 415 those owners of real

propert whose propert consists of residential lands with an area of not ore than

%$$ s:uare eters in hi*hl uranied cities and 8$$ s:uare eters in other uran

areasH and 425 that the do not own real propert other than the sae.

The case at ar involves two 425 residential lots in Mandaluon* Cit, a hi*hl

uranied cit. The lot under TCT #o. 6%66 is 68 s:uare eters in area and the

second under TCT #o. 6%6 is 9/9 s:uare eters, oth totallin* 1,6%6 s:uare

eters in area. TCT #o. 6%66 was issued in the naes of herein five 4&5

respondents, vi3


27/58


'B!A#CEC) #. AF7A!, widowerH T;


28/58


partition was erel a necessar incident of the co-ownershipH/9 and asent an

evidence to the contrar, this partition is presued to have een done in *ood faith.

Fpon partition, four 4/5 co-owners, nael, Brancisco, Thela, !odolfo and Antonio

A*uilar each had a share of %$$ s:uare eters under TCT #os. 1%8/9, 1%8&2,

1%8&$, 1%8&1.&$ s share was %/ s:uare eters under TCT #o.

1%8&%&1 while "ir*inia A*uilar>s was 89 s:uare eters under TCT #o. 1%8&/.&2

t is noted that "ir*inia A*uilar, althou*h *ranted 89 s:uare eters onl of the

suect lots, is, at the sae tie, the sole re*istered owner of TCT #o. &98$, one of

the three 4%5 titles initiall sou*ht to e e=propriated in the ori*inal coplaint. TCT

#o. &98$, with a land area of 211 s:uare eters, was dropped in the aended

coplaint.


29/58


#ERO OLI"ERAS, TEOORA GAS#AR, ELE!IO OLI"ERAS &'(

ANI!ETA INOR, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.

!ANIO LO#E, SE"ERO LO#E, HI#OLITO LO#E, EUGENIA

LO#E, #RIITI"O GAS#AR, !ORAON LO#E, ALEJANRO

!A!A*URIN, FAUSTINA $OTU*AN, OESTO SALAAR, AORA!ION

$OTU*AN, !LAUIO GANOTI!E &'( ENONG $OTU*AN, defendants-

appellants.

enancio '. Fernando for defendants&appellants.

FERNAN, C.J.:

This case e=eplifies the Bilipino custo of eepin* inherited propert in a

prolon*ed uridical condition of co-owner ship.

7oreno 7ope owned 7ot /68& of the Cadastral surve of "illasis, an*asinan with

an area of 69,68 s:uare eters as evidenced )ri*inal Certificate of Title #o.

1&262. 1 n Deceer, 19%1, 7oreno 7ope died, 2 leavin* said propert to his wife,

Toasa !aos and si= 465 children. Bro that tie on, the heirs of 7oreno 7ope

did not initiate an oves to le*all partition the propert.

More than twent-one ears later, or on Beruar 11, 19&%, Toasa !aos and her

eldest son, Candido 7ope, e=ecuted a deed of asolute sale of the 'eastern

undivided four thousand two hundred and fift seven-s:uare eters 4/,2&5 ore or

less, of the undivided portion of 4their5 interests, ri*hts and participation' over 7ot

/68&, in favor of the spouses Melecio )liveras and Aniceta Minor, in consideration

of the aount of one thousand pesos 41,$$$5. /

)n the sae da, Toasa and Candido e=ecuted another deed of asolute sale of the

'undivided' four thousand two hundred and fift-seven 4/,2&5 s:uare eters of the

'eastern part' of 7ot /68& in favor of the spouses edro )liveras and Teodora

aspar, also in consideration of 1,$$$. 4

deands to partition the propert so that the could ac:uire their respective titles

thereto without resortin* to court action, and that, should the fail to respond, he

would e forced to file a case in court. 8 Apparentl, the 7opees did not answer said

letter since on Deceer 1&, 1966, the )liveras rothers and their wives filed acoplaint for partition and daa*es 9 in the Court of Birst nstance of an*asinan.1

The )liverases stated in their coplaint that possession of the disputed properties

was delivered to the with the nowled*e and consent of the defendantsH that the

had een pain* the real estate ta=es thereonH that prior to the sale, said properties

were offered to the other co-owners for sale ut the refused to u theH that on

Beruar 18, 19&%, the transactions were dul annotated and entered in the

Meorandu of encurances of )CT #o. 1&262 as adverse claisH and that their

desire to se*re*ate the portions of 7ot /68& sold to the was frustrated

defendants> adaant refusal to lend the the owner>s duplicate of )CT #o. 1&262

and to e=ecute a deed of partition of the whole lot.

n claiin* oral daa*es in the aount of 2,$$$.$$ plaintiffs alle*ed that

defendants also refused to allow the to surve and se*re*ate the portions ou*ht

the. laintiffs praed that the court order the defendants to partition 7ot /68& and

to allow the to surve and se*re*ate the portions the had purchased. The also

deanded paent of 8$$.$$ as attorne>s fees and cost of the suit.

n their answer, the defendants alle*ed that no sale ever transpired as the alle*ed

vendors could not have sold specific portions of the propertH that plaintiffs>

possession and occupation of specific portions of the properties ein* ille*al, the


30/58


could not ripen into ownershipH and that the were not under an oli*ation to lend

their cop of the certificate of title or to accede to plaintiffs> re:uest for the partition

or settleent of the propert. As special and affirative defenses, the defendants

contended that the deeds of sale were null and void and hence, unenforceale a*ainst

theH that the coplaint did not state a cause of action and that the cause or causes

of action if an, had prescried.

Defendants averred in their counterclai that despite repeated deands, plaintiffs

refused and failed to vacate the preisesH that the properties occupied the

plaintiffs ielded an avera*e net produce in pala and peanuts in the aount of

1,6$$.$$ annuall, and that the coplaint was filed to harass the. The praed for

the disissal of the coplaint and the paent of 1,6$$.$$ per ear fro 19&%

until plaintiffs shall have vacated the preises and 1,$$$.$$ for attorne>s fees.

laintiffs filed an answer to defendants> counterclai, denin* all the alle*ations

therein and statin* that defendants never deanded that plaintiffs vacate the portions

of 7ot /68& the had ou*ht.

The lower court e=plored the possiilit of an aicale settleent etween the

parties without success. ;ence, it set the case for trial and thereafter, it rendered a

decision 11 declarin* valid the deeds of asolute sale 12 and orderin* the defendants to

allow the se*re*ation of the sold portions of 7ot /68& a licensed surveor in order

that the plaintiffs could otain their respective certificates of title over their portions

of said lot.

n resolvin* the case, the lower court passed upon the issue of whether the two deeds

of asolute sale were what the purported to e or erel ort*a*e docuents. t

considered as indicia of plaintiffs> asolute doinion over the portions sold to the

their actual possession thereof without an opposition fro the defendants until the

filin* of the coplaint, their paent of ta=es thereon and their havin* enefited

fro the produce of the land. The court ruled that the defendants> testionial

evidence that the deeds in :uestion were erel ort*a*e docuents cannot

overcoe the evidentiar value of the pulic instruents presented the plaintiffs.

)n the issue of whether the two deeds of asolute sale were null and void

considerin* that the land suect thereof had not et een partitioned, the court

oserved that the total area of 8,&1/ s:uare eters sold to plaintiffs Candido was

less than his share should 7ot /68& with an area of 69,68 s:uare eters e divided

aon* the si= children of 7oreno 7ope and their other. n this connection, the

lower court also found that durin* his lifetie, and efore Candido *ot arried,

7oreno 7ope had divided 7ot /68& aon* his children who then too possession

of their respective shares. -

The defendants appealed said decision to this Court contendin* that the lower court

erred in declarin* the two deeds of asolute sale as valid, in orderin* the se*re*ation

of the sold portions of 7ot /68& to enale the plaintiffs to otain their respective

certificates of title, and in not considerin* their defense of prescription.

The e=trinsic validit of the two deeds of asolute sale is not in issue in this case in

view of the findin* of the trial court that the defendants adittedl do not :uestion

their due e=ecution. 1/ hat should pre-occup the Court is the intrinsic validit of

said deeds insofar as the pertain to sales of desi*nated portions of an undivided, co-

owned propert.

n a lon* line of decisions, this Court has held that efore the partition of a land or thin* held in coon, no individual co-owner can clai title to an definite portion

thereof. All that the co-owner has is an deal or astract :uota or proportionate share

in the entire land or thin*. 14

;owever, the duration of the uridical condition of co-ownership is not liitless.

Fnder Article /9/ and 1$8% of the Civil Code, co-ownership of an estate should not

e=ceed the period of twent 42$5 ears. And, under the forer article, an a*reeent

to eep a thin* or propert undivided should e for a ten-ear period onl. here the

parties stipulate a definite period of in division which e=ceeds the a=iu allowed

law, said stipulation shall e void onl as to the period eond such a=iu. 15

Althou*h the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the in division of a propert for

ore than twent ears, it would e contrar to pulic polic to sanction co-

ownership eond the period set the law. )therwise, the 2$-ear liitation

e=pressl andated the Civil Code would e rendered eanin*less.

n the instant case, the heirs of 7oreno 7ope aintained the co-ownership for ore

than twent ears. e hold that when Candido and his other 4who died efore the

filin* of the coplaint for partition5 sold definite portions of 7ot /68&, the validl

e=ercised doinion over the ecause, operation of law, the co-ownership had

ceased. The filin* of the coplaint for partition the )liverases who, as vendees,


31/58


are le*all considered as suro*ated to the ri*hts of Candido over portions of 7ot

/68& in their possession, 1 erel served to put a stap of foralit on Candido>s

otherwise accoplished act of terinatin* the co-ownership.

The action for partition has not prescried. Althou*h the coplaint was filed thirteen

ears fro the e=ecution of the deeds of sale and hence, as contended the

defendants-appellants, prescription i*ht have arred its filin* under the *eneral

provision of Article 11// 4a5 of the Civil Code, Article /9/ specificall andates that

each

co-owner a deand at an* time the partition of the thin* owned in coon

insofar as his share is concerned. ;ence, considerin* the validit of the conveances

of portions of 7ot /68& in their favor and as suro*ees of Candido 7ope, the

)liverases> action for partition was tiel and properl filed. 17

e cannot write finis to this decision without coentin* on the copliance with

the resolution of Eepteer 1, 1986 of counsel for defendants-appellants. n said

resolution, the court re:uired the parties to ove in the preises 'considerin* thelen*th of tie that this case has reained pendin* in this Court and to deterine

whether or not there i*ht e supervenin* events which a render the case oot

and acadeic. 18 n his anifestation and otion dated Au*ust 12, 198, said counsel

infored the Court that he had contacted the defendants-appellants who he advised

'to ove in the preises which is the land in :uestion and to aintain the status :uo

with respect to their actual possession thereon' and that he had left a cop of said

resolution with the defendants-appellants' for their *uidance in the copliance of

their oli*ations 4sic5 as specified in said

resolution.' 19

)viousl, said counsel interpreted literall the Court>s directive 'to ove in the

preises.' Bor the enli*htenent of said counsel and all others of siilar perception,

a 'ove in the preises' resolution is not a license to occup or enter the preises

suect of liti*ation especiall in cases involvin* real propert. A 'ove in the

preises' resolution sipl eans what is stated therein3 the parties are oli*ed to

infor the Court of developents pertinent to the case which a e of help to the

Court in its iediate disposition.

;

the two deeds of sale and directs the partition of 7ot /68&, is ABB!M


32/58


G.R. No. L429 September 24, 1991

E#ITA!IO ELIA, #A!LANO ELIA, FIEL ELIA, "IRGILIO

ELIA, GALILEO ELIA, JR., $I$IANO $A!US, OLI#IO $A!US

&'( #URIFI!A!ION $A!US, petitioners,

vs.

HON. !OURT OF A##EALS, GALILEO ELIA , ;0b;t:t0te( b):; eD& )e:r;, '&me? FLA"IANA "A. E ELIA, LIL* . ARIAS,

HELEN NIAAS, ANTONIO ELIA, IONISIO ELIA, IRENEA

ELIA, ESTER ELIA AN FEL* ELIA, respondents.

:abriel J. $anete for petitioners.

/milio Lumontad, Jr. for private respondents.

EIALEA, J.:p

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals

reversin* the trial court>s ud*ent which declared as null and void the certificate of

title in the nae of respondents> predecessor and which ordered the partition of the

disputed lot aon* the parties as co-owners.

The antecedent facts of the case as found oth the respondent appellate court and

the trial court are as follows3

Durin* his lifetie, 7ino Delia ac:uired 7ot #o. &8 of the Talisa-Min*lanilla

Briar 7ands Min*lanilla Briar 7ands


33/58


15 "icente Delia 4one-fourth5

25 ;eirs of (uanita Delia, nael3 +iiano +acus, )lipio +acus

and urificacion +acus 4on-fourth5H

%5 ;eirs of

Ma 19, 19, respondent appellate court reversed the trial court>s decision and

upheld the clai of alileo Delia that all the other rothers and sister of 7ino

Delia, nael


34/58


owners or co-heirs, if, as such owner, he adinisters or taes care of the rest thereof

with the oli*ation of deliverin* it to his co-owners or co-heirs, is under the sae

situation as a depositor, a lessee or a trustee 4+ar*ao v. Cauot, /$ hil, 8&H

Ee*ura v. Ee*ura, #o. 7-29%2$, Eepteer 19, 1988, 16& EC!A %685. Thus, an

action to copel partition a e filed at an tie an of the co-owners a*ainst

the actual possessor. n other words, no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner

a*ainst his co-owners or co-heirs so lon* as he e=pressl or ipliedl reco*nies the

co-ownership 4Del +lanco v. nterediate Appellate Court, #o. 269/, Deceer 1,

198, 1&6 EC!A &&5.

;owever, fro the oent one of the co-owners clais that he is the asolute and

e=clusive owner of the properties and denies the others an share therein, the

:uestion involved is no lon*er one of partition ut of ownership 4De Castro v.


35/58


G.R. No. L572 J&'0&r 24, 1992

ARIA EL ROSARIO ARIATEGUI, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.

HON. !OURT OF A##EALS, JA!INTO ARIATEGUI, JULIAN

ARIATEGUI &'( #AULINA ARIATEGUI,respondents.

Montesa, "lbon "ssociates for petitioners.

Parmenio '. Patacsil, Patacsil %)ins La) -ffice for t(e (eirs of t(e late Maria del

Rosario Mariategui.

%inga, Fuentes %agle Firm for private respondents.

$IIN, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision - of the Court of Appeals

dated Deceer 2/, 198$ in CA-.!. #o. 618/1, entitled '(acinto Mariate*ui, et al.

v. Maria del !osario Mariate*ui, et al.,' reversin* the ud*ent of the then Court of

Birst nstance of !ial, +ranch " -- at asi*, Metro Manila.

The undisputed facts are as follows3

7upo Mariate*ui died without a will on (une 26, 19&% 4+rief for respondents, Rollo,

pp. 116H 85. Durin* his lifetie, 7upo Mariate*ui contracted three 4%5 arria*es.

ith his first wife,


36/58


7upo Mariate*ui and Belipa "elasco 47upo>s third wife5 *ot arried soetie in

19%$. The had three children, nael3 (acinto, orn on (ul %, 1929, (ulian, orn on

Beruar 16, 19%1 and aulina, orn on April 19, 19%8. Belipa "elasco Mariate*ui

died in 19/1 4 Rollo, Ibid 5.

At the tie of his death, 7upo Mariate*ui left certain properties which he ac:uired

when he was still unarried 4+rief for respondents, Rollo, pp. 116H /5. These

properties are descried in the coplaint as 7ots #os. 16%, 66, 1%/6 and 1&6 of the

Muntin*lupa s descendants his first and second arria*es, nael,

Maria del !osario, Frana, !uperto, Cresencia, all surnaed Mariate*ui and Antero,

!ufina, Catalino, Maria, erardo, "ir*inia and Bederico, all surnaed

4appellants5 are not le*itiate children of their said parents, there divestin* the

of their inheritance . . . ' 4 Rollo, pp. 1/-1&5.

)n Deceer 2/, 198$, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision declarin* all the

children and descendants of 7upo Mariate*ui, includin* appellants (acinto, (ulian

and aulina 4children of the third arria*e5 as entitled to e:ual shares in the estate of

7upo Mariate*uiH directin* the adudicatees in the e=traudicial partition of real

properties who eventuall ac:uired transfer certificates of title thereto, to e=ecute

deeds of reconveance in favor, and for the shares, of (acinto, (ulian and aulina

provided ri*hts of innocent third persons are not preudiced otherwise the said

adudicatees shall reiurse the said heirs the fair aret value of their sharesH and

directin* all the parties to suit to the lower court a proect of partition in the net

estate of 7upo Mariate*ui after paent of ta=es, other *overnent char*es and

outstandin* le*al oli*ations.


37/58


The defendants-appellees filed a otion for reconsideration of said decision ut it

was denied for lac of erit. ;ence, this petition which was *iven due course the

court on Deceer , 1981.

The petitioners suit to the Court the followin* issues3 4a5 whether or not

prescription arred private respondents> ri*ht to deand the partition of the estate of

7upo Mariate*ui, and 45 whether or not the private respondents, who elatedl filed

the action for reco*nition, were ale to prove their successional ri*hts over said

estate. The resolution of these issues hin*es, however, on the resolution of the

preliinar atter, i.e., the nature of the coplaint filed the private respondents.

The coplaint alle*ed, aon* other thin*s, that 'plaintiffs are the children of the

deceased spouses 7upo Mariate*ui . . . and Belipa "elasco'H that 'durin* his lifetie,

7upo Mariate*ui had repeatedl acnowled*ed and confired plaintiffs as his

children and the latter, in turn, have continuousl enoed such status since their

irth'H and 'on the asis of their relationship to the deceased 7upo Mariate*ui and in

accordance with the law on intestate succession, plaintiffs are entitled to inheritshares in the fore*oin* estate 4!ecord on Appeal, pp. & O 65. t praed, aon*

others, that plaintiffs e declared as children and heirs of 7upo Mariate*ui and

adudication in favor of plaintiffs their lawful shares in the estate of the decedent

4 Ibid , p. 1$5.

A perusal of the entire alle*ations of the coplaint, however, shows that the action is

principall one of partition. The alle*ation with respect to the status of the private

respondents was raised onl collaterall to assert their ri*hts in the estate of the

deceased. ;ence, the Court of Appeals correctl adopted the settled rule that the

nature of an action filed in court is deterined the facts alle*ed in the coplaint

constitutin* the cause of action 4!epulic vs.

action, and the relief to which plaintiff is entitled ased on the facts alle*ed hi in

his coplaint, althou*h it is not the relief deanded, is what deterines the nature of

the action 41 Moran, p. 12, 199 ed., citin* +a*uioro vs. +arrios, et al., hil.

12$5.

ith respect to the le*al asis of private respondents> deand for partition of the

estate of 7upo Mariate*ui, the Court of Appeals aptl held that the private

respondents are le*itiate children of the deceased.

7upo Mariate*ui and Belipa "elasco were alle*ed to have een lawfull arried in

or aout 19%$. This fact is ased on the declaration counicated 7upo

Mariate*ui to (acinto who testified that 'when 4his5 father was still livin*, he was

ale to ention to 4hi5 that he and 4his5 other were ale to *et arried efore a

(ustice of the eace of Ta*ui*, !ial.' The spouses deported theselves as husand

and wife, and were nown in the counit to e such. Althou*h no arria*e

certificate was introduced to this effect, no evidence was liewise offered to

controvert these facts. Moreover, the ere fact that no record of the arria*e e=ists

does not invalidate the arria*e, provided all re:uisites for its validit are present

4eople vs. +orroeo, 1%% EC!A 1$6 I198/J5.

Fnder these circustances, a arria*e a e presued to have taen place

etween 7upo and Belipa. The laws presue that a an and a woan, deportin*theselves as husand and wife, have ente

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jacquelyn-alegria
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Property Aug 17, 2015 Orig

Documents