THIRD DIVISION
|
TEODORO
STA. ANA, Petitioner, - versus - Respondents. |
G.R. No. 152652 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Two parcels of land situated at
Barrio Pineda, Pasig City, Lots 13-A and 13-B, each containing an area of 225
square meters, were registered in the Registry of Deeds for the Province of
Rizal in the name of Petronilo Sta. Ana (Petronilo), married to Anatolia dela
Rosa (Anatolia), under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 389002.
Petronilo died on
In 1984, Nicolas, one of the ten
children of the Sta Ana couple, died leaving behind two children, Annaliza and
Andrea.
On April 8, 1988, Anatolia, together
with eight of her living children and Fe Sta Ana, the wife of her eldest child-herein
petitioner Teodoro Sta. Ana (Teodoro) who was then abroad, executed a Deed of
Sale covering Lot 13-A in favor of herein respondents Lourdes Panlasigue (Lourdes)
and Julieta P. Santiago (Julieta). On
even date,
x x x x
That they are the only legitimate surviving spouses and children who survive the deceased Petronilo Sta. Ana.
That the said decedent [Petronilo Sta. Ana] died without leaving any will.
That the deceased left no debts;
x x x x
That the deceased
left a certain residential lot [
x x x x
That for and in consideration of the love and affection which the aforenamed parties hereinafter referred to as DONORS, hold for IRENEO, hereinafter referred to as DONEE, the DONORS do hereby transfers and conveys, by way of donation, into the DONEE Lot 13-B of TCT No. 389002.
That the DONORS do hereby state for the purpose of giving full effect to this donation, that they reserved unto themselves in full ownerships other properties sufficient to support them in a manner appropriate to their stations;
That the DONEE does hereby state that he accept this donation and at the same time expresses his profound gratitude for this demonstration of affection and act of liberality on the part of the DONORS who by these presents also take notice of this acceptance;[2]
The two documents were annotated on
Petronilo’s title on
On
In his complaint, Teodoro alleged
that, inter alia, his “purported signature” in the Deed of Absolute Sale
covering Lot 13-A as well as in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and
Donation covering Lot 13-B was unauthorized and a forgery. He thus prayed for the court to order:
In their Answer[5] to
the Complaint, the defendants claimed that the sale of Lot 13-A and the
donation of Lot 13-B were the collective decision of Anatolia and the rest of her
children-co-heirs including Teodoro; and
that the proceeds of the sale were used to underwrite the hospitalization
expenses of Anatolia and the expenses incurred by Ireneo who took care of
Anatolia during her lifetime.
On May 30, 1997,[6] Annaliza Sta. Ana and Andrea Sta Ana, children of Nicolas Sta.
Ana (who, as earlier stated, died in
1984), filed a Complaint-In-Intervention[7] along
with their motion for leave to file the same which was granted, alleging that
they, as co-heirs, did not participate in the execution of the Deed of Sale and
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Donation nor were they informed about
it. Hence, they prayed for judgment
ordering
1. defendants Panlasigue and
2. defendants Sps. Irineo and Candida Sta. Ana to
convey unto plaintiffs-intervenors their rightful share in the property now
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 66275 of the Register of Deeds in
Answering the Complaint-In-Intervention,[9]
the defendants proffered that “[t]here was a lot allotted to the deceased [Nicolas-]father of the intervenors which
the latter could inherit by right of representation.”[10]
It appears that during the hearing of
the cases, the defendants claimed that the properties of Petronilo had, before
the execution of the challenged documents, been distributed among all his heirs
and that Lot 13-A and Lot 13-B were the conjugal share of his wife Anatolia.
Finding the extra-judicial partition
a nullity for lack of conformity of other compulsory heirs Teodoro, Annaliza and Andrea, Branch 160 of the RTC Pasig, by
Decision of
1) Declar[ed] the extrajudicial partition as null and void;
2) Declar[ed]the Deed of Absolute Sale between some of the heirs and defendants Panlasigue and Santiago as null and void and [ordered the latter] to reconvey the property subject of Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of “Estate of Deceased Petronilo Sta. Ana” without prejudice to defendants Panlasigue and Santiago pursuing their claims against the Estate;
3)
Declar[ed]as null and void the Deed of Donation in
favor of defendants Irineo Sta. Ana and Candida Jarmin-Sta. Ana and [ordered] them
to reconvey the property likewise to the estate without prejudice to
their filing of claim for whatever they have incurred for the hospitalization
expenses and death of deceased mother Anatolia as provided by law.[12] (Underscoring supplied)
Ireneo and his wife,
Ireneo and his wife faulted the trial
court:
. . . IN DECLARING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION AS NULL AND VOID.
. . . IN DECLARING THE DEED OF DONATION IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS IRENEO STA. ANA AND CANDIDA JARMIN-STA. ANA NULL AND VOID.
. . . IN NOT ORDERING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO PAY THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.[13]
On the other hand,
I. . . . DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO VALID PARTITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
II.
. . . DECLARING THE DEED OF
III.
. . . NOT FINDING THAT THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO QUESTION THE
TITLE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS PANLASIGUE AND
IV.
. . . NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
AND RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS
The appellate court discredited the
defendants’ claim “that after the death of Petronilo Sta Ana but before 1988
[when the challenged documents were executed], his heirs consisting of his
surviving wife and their [living] nine (9) children agreed orally to
extrajudicially partition his estate and adjudicate to the mother Anatolia Lots
13-A and 13-B,”[15] in
light of the fact that Anatolia’s children participated in the execution of the
documents as owners and donors. It thus
held that the two lots were co-owned by
Applying Article 493 of the Civil
Code which provides:
Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
and he may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the
co-ownership. (Underscoring supplied),
the appellate court held that the
trial court erred in nullifying the assailed documents as in fact it noted that
Teodoro and the intervenors-children of Nicolas merely prayed for reconveyance
of their respective shares of the lots, and not for the declaration of nullity
of said documents.
The appellate court thus concluded:
The
[two lots] belonged to the heirs in the following proportion: one-half (1/2)
share to Anatolia as her share in the conjugal partnership; whereas all
nine (9) [sic] children plus
Respecting the complaint of the intervenors,
the appellate court held that they, as heirs of their father Nicolas, were not
bound by the deeds, they not having participated therein, hence, they were
entitled to their father’s “1/20 [sic] share.”
Respecting Teodoro’s claim that he
had no knowledge of the execution on his behalf by his wife of the two
documents, the appellate court discredited the same, it noting that there was
evidence that he had knowledge of the illness and treatment of his then sick
mother, the expenses for which were shouldered by his brother Ireneo and his
wife to thus necessitate the execution of the challenged documents.
In another vein, the appellate court found
plaintiff to be guilty of laches.
Thus, applying Art. 1101 of the Civil
Code which provides:
Art. 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition.
Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded to the plaintiff.
x x x x ,
the
appellate court disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is rendered ordering defendants to reconvey to intervenors-appellees their 1/20 share of the property or its equivalent in money. The case filed by plaintiff-appellee Teodoro Sta. Ana is DISMISSED. With costs against the plaintiff-appellee.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence,
the present petition for review on certiorari filed by Teodoro (hereafter
petitioner), raising the following arguments:
1. The extra-judicial partition is null and void.
2.
The deed of sale between Anatolia Sta. Ana and
Respondents Panlasigue and
3.
The right of Petitioner to question the title of
Respondents Panlasigue and
The first and second arguments of
petitioner fail. The finding of the appellate court that the
challenged deeds are not null and void is in accordance with law and evidence,
as reflected in the discussion above.
Indeed, that the living children of Petronilo joined
Respecting the last argument on laches,
petitioner maintains that he had “no knowledge of the execution on his behalf
by his wife” of the challenged documents, he being then out of the
country.
At the witness stand, however,
petitioner declared on direct examination as follows:
Q.
Mr. Sta. Ana, when you learned that lot 13-A was sold
to defendant
A. I was abroad at that time and when I arrived what I saw was the house was being constructed already.[19]
And on cross examination,
he admitted that his wife signed for him in the documents but that she was
forced to do so.[20]
In any event, petitioner contends
that even assuming arguendo that he is guilty of laches, the case had
not prescribed, he citing Mariategui v. Court of Appeals[21] which
held:
x x x Corollarily, prescription does not run against private respondents with respect to the filing of the action for partition so long as the heirs for whose benefit prescription is invoked, have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the
co-ownership. In other words, prescription of an action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co-owner.
Otherwise stated, a
co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners absent
a clear repudiation of co-ownership duly communicated to the other
co-owners. Furthermore, an action to
demand partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. x x x[22] (Emphasis and underscoring by petitioner)
Petitioner’s citation of Mariategui
is misplaced. His complaint is not
one for partition, but for reconveyance.
Jurisprudence of course dictates that
the “[t]he doctrine of laches should never be applied earlier than the
expiration of time limited for the commencement of actions,[23]
unless, as a general rule, inexcusable delay in asserting a right and
acquiescence in existing conditions are proven.”[24]
From the annotation on
prescribes in 10 years. Therefore,
petitioner’s complaint had not
prescribed when he
filed his complaint.
The facts and circumstances attendant
to the case
reflected above indicate,
however, that there was inexcusable
delay on the part of Teodoro in asserting his right and acquiescence in
existing conditions.
The same situation does not hold true
with respect to Nicolas’ heirs-complainants-in-intervention. Hence, laches cannot be attributed to them
and, therefore, they are entitled to a reconveyance of their father’s share.
The share of the father of
complainants-in-intervention in each of the two lots should be 1/11
of ½ representing the share of each of the 10 siblings who were co-owners of
said ½, along with their mother
A further modification of the
decision would also have been called for.
For respondents-vendees had already paid for
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is, in light of the foregoing discussions, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
in that respondent-spouses Ireneo Sta. Ana are
ORDERED to contribute to the 1/11
share to be reconveyed to complainants-in-intervention in each of the two lots subject
of the case representing the share of Nicolas Sta. Ana.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Exhibit “C” to the Complaint, records, pp. 10-12.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Motion for Leave to Intervene, id. at 64-65.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo at 43.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21] G.R. No. 57062,
[22]
[23] GF Equity, Inc. v . Valenzona,
G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 466, 480-481, Imperial Victory
Shipping Agency v. NLRC, G.R. No. 84672, Aug. 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 178, 184.
[24] Ibid; Z.E. Lotho,
Inc. v. Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Phils., Inc.,et
al., 113 Phil. 713, 719 (1961); Buenaventura v. David, 37 Phil. 435,
440 (1918) (underscoring supplied).