SECOND DIVISION
|
TEOFILO
BAUTISTA, represented by FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioner, - versus - ALEGRIA
BAUTISTA, ANGELICA BAUTISTA, PRISCILLA BAUTISTA, GILBERT BAUTISTA, JIM
BAUTISTA, GLENDA BAUTISTA, GUEN BAUTISTA, GELACIO BAUTISTA, GRACIA BAUTISTA,
PEDRO S. TANDOC and CESAR TAMONDONG, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 160556 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.:
During her lifetime, Teodora Rosario was the owner of a 211.80-square meter
parcel of land (the property) in Poblacion, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 12951. She died intestate on
On
Alegria and Angelica, who, under the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition, acquired ½ of the property, sold the same, by Deed of
Absolute Sale dated
Pacita and Pedro soon obtained tax declarations[3] and
TCT No. 18777[4] in their
names over 209.85 square meters of the property including the shares they purchased
from Angelica and Alegria.
Pacita, with Pedro’s conformity, later conveyed
via Deed of Absolute Sale[5] dated
On January 24, 1994, herein
petitioner Teofilo, represented by his
attorney-in-fact Francisco Muñoz, filed a Complaint[6]
against his siblings Alegria and Angelica, along with
Pedro (the common-law husband of his already deceased sister Pacita), Priscilla Bautista (wife of his already deceased
brother Gil), Pricilla’s children Gilbert, Jim, Glenda, Guen,
and Gelacio and Cesar Tamondong
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, for annulment of
documents, partition, recovery of ownership, possession and damages.
In his complaint, petitioner claimed
that his co-heirs defrauded him of his rightful share of the property and that
the deed of sale executed by Pacita in favor of Cesar
Tamondong was fictitious as it was impossible for her
to have executed the same in
In their Answer,[8] the
defendants-herein respondents sisters Alegria and Angelica,
who were joined therein by their co-defendants-respondents Priscilla, Gilbert,
Jim, Glenda, Guen, Gelacio, and Gracia, claimed that
it was Pacita who caused the execution of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
and because they trusted Pacita, they signed the
document without scrutinizing it; and that they learned about the
contents of the partition only upon Teofilo’s filing
of the Complaint.
By way of cross-claim[9]
against Pedro and Cesar Tamondong, the answering
defendants-respondents claimed that a few weeks after the partition, Pacita
approached Angelica and Alegria to borrow their share in the property on her
representation that it would be used as security for a business loan; and that
agreeing to accommodate Pacita, Angelica and Alegria signed a document which Pacita
prepared which turned out to be the deed of absolute sale in Pacita’s favor.
In their Answer with Counterclaim,[10]
Pedro and Cesar Tamondong claimed that they were
buyers in good faith.[11] In any event, they contended that prescription
had set in, and that the complaint was a mere rehash of a previous complaint for
falsification of public document which had been dismissed by the prosecutor’s
office.[12]
By Decision[13]
of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring as null and void and of no force and effect the following documents:
a)
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition dated
b)
Deed of Absolute Sale [d]ated
c) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18777;
d)
Tax Declaration
e)
Deed of Absolute Sale dated
2) Ordering the partition of the land in question among the compulsory heirs of the late Spouses Isidro Bautista and Teodora Rosario
3) Ordering defendants Cesar Tamondong and Pedro Tandoc to vacate the premises.
No pronouncement[s] as to cost.[14] (Underscoring supplied)
On appeal by Pedro and Cesar Tamondong, the Court of Appeals, by Decision[15] of
February 21, 2003, reversed and set aside the trial court’s decision and
dismissed Teofilo’s complaint on the ground of prescription.[16] His Motion for Reconsideration[17]
having been denied,[18]
Teofilo filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.[19]
The petition is impressed with merit.
The Court of Appeals, in holding that
prescription had set in, reasoned:
Unquestionably, the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition is invalid insofar as it affects the legitimate share pertaining to the defendant-appellee in the property in question. There can be no question that the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was fraudulently obtained. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of fraud could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of the said partition, however, must be brought within four years from the discovery of the fraud. Significantly, it cannot be denied, either, that by its registration in the manner provided by law, a transaction may be known actually or constructively.
In
the present case, defendant-appellee is deemed to have been constructively
notified of the extra-judicial settlement by reason of its registration and
annotation in the certificate of title over the subject lot on
Even on the extreme assumption that defendant-appellee’s complaint in Civil Case No. SC-1797 is an action for reconveyance of a portion of the property which rightfully belongs to him based upon an implied trust resulting from fraud, said remedy is already barred by prescription. An action of reconveyance of land based upon an implied or constructive trust prescribes after ten years from the registration of the deed or from the issuance of the title.
x x x x
The
complaint of defendant-appellee was filed only on
As gathered from the above-quoted
portion of its decision, the Court of Appeals applied the prescriptive periods
for annulment on the ground of fraud and for reconveyance of property under a
constructive trust.
The extra-judicial partition executed
by Teofilo’s co-heirs was invalid, however.
So Segura v. Segura[21]
instructs:
x x x The partition in the present case was invalid because it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the partitioned property. Under the rule, “no extra-judicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.” As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed after two years x x x[22] (Underscoring supplied)
The deed of extra-judicial partition
in the case at bar being invalid, the action to have it annulled does not
prescribe.[23]
Since the deed of extra-judicial
partition is invalid, it transmitted no rights to Teofilo’s co-heirs.[24] Consequently, the subsequent transfer by
Angelica and Alegria of ½ of the property to Pacita and her husband Pedro, as well as the transfer of ½
of the property to Cesar Tamondong is invalid, hence,
conferring no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat
quod non habet.[25]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the court a quo is SET
ASIDE and the Decision of the
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 had been 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 Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] RTC records, p. 10.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] CA rollo, pp. 73-81; penned by Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino, with the concurrences of Associate
Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Danilo B.
Pine.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo, pp.
10-27.
[20] CA rollo,
pp. 77-79.
[21] G.R. No. L-29320,
[22]
[23] Vide
Civil Code, Article 1410; Salomon v. IAC,
G.R. No. 70263,
[24] Vide
Heirs of Celso Amarante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76386,
[25] Vide