FIRST DIVISION
|
SPOUSES CHARLITO COJA and ANNIE
Petitioners, -versus- HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS
OF FELICIANO AQUILLO, SR., namely: QUINCIANO VICTOR, SR., LORNA A. VICTOR,
ANTONIO VICTOR, QUINCIANO A. VICTOR, JR., SUSANA A. VICTOR, CLARA AQUILLO,
CARMENCITA AQUILLO, AGAPITO AQUILLO, NOEL AQUILLO, ADONIS AQUILLO, FELICIANO
AQUILLO, JR., RONALD AQUILLO and ALDRIN AQUILLO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 151153 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO,* SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, JJ.
Promulgated: December 10, 2007 |
X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
Before
us is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 37583
dated
The facts of the case are as follows:
Luz Aquillo Victor (hereafter Luz) and
Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. (hereafter Feliciano Jr.), both deceased, were
the legitimate children of the late spouses Feliciano Aquillo, Sr. (hereafter
Feliciano Sr.) and Lorenza Mangarin Aquillo (hereafter Lorenza).[3] During their marriage, Feliciano Sr. and
Lorenza acquired a 120-square meter lot located at Poblacion, Mandaon,
After the death of Lorenza, Feliciano Sr. cohabited with Paz Lachica and lived at the aforesaid house. However, after Lorenza’s death, her heirs failed to partition their hereditary shares in their inheritance.
On
On
Sometime
in 1969, Paz Lachica was issued Tax Declaration No. 4424[9]
over the remaining 151.9 square meters of the property covered by Tax
Declaration No. 02115. The aforesaid Tax
Declaration was later cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 3443-Rev.[10] On
On December 18, 1986, Paz Lachica and herein petitioners, Spouses Charlito Coja and Annie Mesa Coja, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[16] wherein the former sold the 336-square meter parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2038 to the latter. Consequently, Tax Declaration No. 4946[17] was issued in the name of petitioners, canceling Tax Declaration No. 2038.
Sometime in 1987, Charlito Coja filed
an application for the issuance of title with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 46,
During the pendency of the case, Luz died. She was substituted by her spouse, Quinciano Victor, Sr., and her children, Lorna, Antonio, Quinciano Jr., and Susana, all surnamed Victor.
On
Upon motion by the plaintiffs, LRC No. N-365 and Civil Case No. 3904 were consolidated.[23]
In their Answer, defendants therein alleged that Paz Lachica acquired the subject property before her marriage to Feliciano Sr. and that she had been in actual and physical possession of the same for more than fifteen (15) years before she sold the property to the Spouses Coja; that they acquired the property by purchasing it from Paz Lachica; that they are buyers in good faith and for value; and that the property in question was the paraphernal property of Paz Lachica and, therefore, plaintiffs therein have no right and interest over the same.[24]
The parties failed to settle their respective differences and a joint trial ensued.
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants-applicants,
to wit:
1. Ordering the dismissal of the complaint
in Civil Case No. 3904 with costs against the plaintiffs-oppositors;
2. Declaring
the defendants-applicants spouses Charlito Coja and Annie Mesa, the absolute
owner of the land subject of their application in L.R.C. No. N-365;
3. Declaring
the title of the applicants, spouses Charlito Coja and Annie Mesa and Sancho
Mesa, over the property designated as Psu-05-005736 together with all the
improvements thereon, CONFIRMED and REGISTERED pursuant to the provisions of
P.D. 1529.
Once
this decision becomes final and executory, let the corresponding decree of
registration issue.
SO ORDERED.[26]
The RTC opined that since the land in question is registered in the name of Paz Lachica alone, it is assumed that it is not part of the conjugal partnership properties of Feliciano Sr., and Lorenza, for if it was their conjugal property, it should have been registered in their names. As such, when the Spouses Coja purchased the property from Paz Lachica, they were of the honest belief that the latter was the true and lawful owner. Likewise, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the RTC held that defendants-applicants possess good title proper for registration and confirmation.[27]
Aggrieved, plaintiffs-oppositors appealed from the decision to the CA, assigning the following errors:
[1] THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE DEFENDANTS-APPLICANTS, SPOUSES CHARLITO COJA AND ANNIE
[2] THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT THE
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OF THE COUPLE, THE LATE SPOUSES FELICIANO AQUILLO
AND LORENZA MANGARIN
[3] THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT DEFENDANTS-APPLICANTS POSSESS GOOD TITLE, PROPER FOR REGISTRATION.[28]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated
1.
The sale of the property by Paz Lachica to Spouses Charlito Coja and
Annie Mesa Coja insofar as the shares of appellants is (sic) concerned is
NULLIFIED;
2.
Appellees-applicants are ordered to deliver possession of the property
originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151 to appellants, to the extent of
93.3333 square meters;
3.
Appellee-applicants are ordered to pay appellants P300.00 per month as
reasonable rent for the use of the property, from the date of filing of the
complaint and until possession thereof is restored to appellants;
4.
The application for registration of title by Charlito and Annie Coja in
L.R.C. No. N-365 is denied; and
5.
Costs against appellees.
SO ORDERED.[30]
The CA concluded that the property formerly covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151, with an area of 120 square meters, is the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza having been acquired during their marriage. Under the law, upon the death of Lorenza, one-half of said property, or 60 square meters, was transmitted to her heirs, namely Feliciano Sr., Feliciano Jr., and Luz, at 20 square meters each, while the remaining one-half pertained to Feliciano Sr. alone as his share in the conjugal property. Upon the death of Feliciano Sr., his rights over the property, consisting of his inheritance from his wife and his share in the conjugal partnership, or a total of 80 square meters, were transmitted to his heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and his widow, Paz Lachica. Thus, Paz Lachica is entitled to only 26.6666 square meters and the heirs of Feliciano Jr. and Luz are entitled to the remaining 93.3333 square meters of the subject property. Therefore, Paz Lachica had no authority to sell their portions of the property.
Applicants-appellees therein filed a
motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution[31]
dated
Hence, this petition, assigning the following errors:
[1] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46,
AT MASBATE NOW MASBATE CITY (ANNEX “H”) AS THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE; AND
[2] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION OF TITLE OF THE PETITIONERS OVER
THEIR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND SITUATED AT POBLACION, MANDAON, MASBATE
WHICH SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND REGISTERED PURSUANT TO LAND REGISTRATION LAW IN
RELATION TO PD NO. 1529.
Petitioners argue that
respondents failed to establish their case on the basis of the evidence they
presented during the trial. Respondents
only presented Tax Declaration No. 1151 which had never been updated since 1945
up to Feliciano Sr.’s death. In
addition, his alleged successors-in-interest have not caused the revision of
the said tax declaration nor paid the taxes to the government up to the present
and hence the same cannot be considered proof of ownership. Since Feliciano Sr. is not the owner of the
property in question, the same cannot be
inherited by the respondents. Moreover,
no survey of the property had been made in the name of Feliciano Sr.[32]
Petitioners add that the subject property was the
paraphernal property of Paz Lachica since she purchased the property before she
married Feliciano Sr. Finally,
petitioners maintain that they are purchasers in good faith and for value since
the subject property was covered by a tax declaration in Paz Lachica’s name
when they bought it from her.[33]
The petition lacks merit.
The property subject matter of the contract of sale between the Spouses Coja and Paz Lachica, is a 336-square meter parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2038.[34] This includes the property bought by Paz Lachica from the heirs of Juan Rivas, some other parcels of land, and the 120-square meter lot purchased by Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza during their marriage.
Article 160 of the Civil Code provides:
Article
160. All property of the marriage is
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
All properties acquired during the marriage are thus disputably presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. As a condition for the operation of above article, in favor of the conjugal partnership, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage.[35]
The CA declared that the 120-square meter lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza because the spouses acquired it during the subsistence of their marriage and the property was in fact declared for taxation purposes during the said period. Thus, the statutory presumption set forth in Article 160 of the Civil Code became operative. Having been acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza, the subject 120-square meter portion of the property sold by Paz Lachica to the Spouses Coja is presumed to be the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.
The presumption may be rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and convincing evidence. There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses, and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.[36]
Petitioners insist that the property subject of the sale was exclusively owned by Paz Lachica having been purchased prior to her marriage with Feliciano Sr. The argument is not supported by evidence. While it may be correct to argue that the 216-square meter portion of the 336-square meter subject of the sale was exclusively owned by Paz Lachica, the same cannot be sustained as to the 120-square meter portion originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151. Paz Lachica claims ownership over the property in question on the basis only of a tax declaration issued in her name. But that is Tax Declaration No. 3514 which was belatedly issued in the name of Paz Lachica to include the 120-square meter lot originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151. Revision was done upon Paz Lachica’s request after the death of Feliciano Sr. The revision of the tax declaration or the issuance of a new one in her name, did not operate and transfer title of the subject property to her. The property remained as one that formed part of the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.
Upon the death of Lorenza, the conjugal partnership was terminated. As a result, one half of the property was automatically reserved in favor of the surviving spouse, Feliciano Sr. as his share in the conjugal partnership. The other half, which is the share of Lorenza, was transmitted to Lorenza’s heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and her husband Feliciano Sr., who is entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child.[37]
The Court agrees in toto with the CA’s conclusion:
x x x. Under
Article 996 of the Civil Code, upon the death of Lorenza Mangarin, one-half of
said property, or 60 square meters, is transmitted to her heirs, namely:
Feliciano Aquillo, Sr., Feliciano Aquillo, Jr., and Luz Aquillo, at 20 square meters
each, while the remaining one-half is transmitted to Feliciano Aquillo,
Sr. Upon the death of Feliciano Aquillo,
Sr., his rights over the property, consisting of the 20 square
meter-inheritance from his late wife and his 60 square meter-share in the
conjugal partnership, or a total of 80 square meters were transmitted to his
heirs, namely: Feliciano Aquillo, Jr., Luz Aquillo, and his widow, Paz
Lachica. The surviving spouse is
entitled to the same share as that of the legitimate children, to the portion
of one-third each or 26.6666 square meters each x x x. Thus, as a result of the death of Feliciano
Aquillo, Sr., a regime of co-ownership exists among Feliciano, Jr., Luz
Aquillo, and Paz Lachica, with respect to the undivided 80 square meters of the
property covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151.
The 120 square meters less the hereditary share of Paz
Lachica which is 26.6666 square meters, or the 93.3333 square meters of the
property covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151, belong to the appellants, being the
heirs of the late Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. and Luz Aquillo. x x x.[38]
Considering that Paz Lachica owns only 26.6666 square meters of the 120-square meter property and the remaining 93.3333-square meter portion thereof is owned by the respondents, the former could only validly sell the portion which rightfully belonged to her. However, considering that Paz Lachica, the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses Coja, was a co-owner of the subject 120-square meter property; and considering further that partition of the property is wanting, this Court is precluded from directing the Spouses Coja to return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is the pronouncement on this issue in De Guia v. Court of Appeals[39] citing Hermogena G. Engreso with Spouse Jose Engreso v. Nestoria de la Cruz and Herminio de la Cruz:[40]
It is a basic principle
in civil law that before a property owned in common is actually partitioned,
all that the co-owner has is an ideal or
abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property. A co-owner has no right to demand a concrete,
specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common because until
division is effected his right over the thing is represented only by an ideal
portion.
As such, the only effect
of an action brought by a co-owner against
a co-owner will be to obtain recognition of
the co-ownership; the defendant cannot be excluded from a specific portion of
the property because as a co-owner he has a
right to possess and the plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate
part of the property. x x x.
A co-owner may file an action for recovery of possession against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession of the entire co-owned property. However, the only effect of such action is a recognition of the co-ownership. The courts cannot proceed with the actual partitioning of the co-owned property.[41] In fine, judicial or extrajudicial partition is necessary to effect physical division of the subject 120-square meter property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 5, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 37583 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the portion ordering petitioners to deliver possession to respondents of the property originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151 to the extent of 93.3333 square meters is DELETED. In lieu thereof, the co-ownership between the parties over the subject 120-square meter property is recognized, to the extent of undivided shares of 93.3333 square meters for respondents and 26.6666 square meters for petitioners.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO
YNARES-
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified 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
* Designated
to sit as additional Member of the First Division under Special Order No. 474
dated
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Rollo, p. 21.
[5] Records, p. 94.
[6]
[7]
[8] Rollo, p. 22.
[9] Records, p. 129.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[19]
[20]
[21] Records, pp. 1-6.
[22]
[23] Rollo, p. 23.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Supra note 15.
[35] Go
v. Yamane, G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 107, 117.
[36] Go
v. Yamane, id.; Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
143286, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 439, 451.
[37] Herbon
v. Palad, G.R. No. 149542, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 544; Cruz v. Leis, G.R. No. 125233, March 9,
2000, 327 SCRA 570.
[38] Rollo, p. 24.
[39] G.R. No. 120864, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA 114, 125.
[40] G.R. No. 148727, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 217, 220.
[41] De
Guia v. Court of Appeals, supra at 127.