SECOND DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, - vesus
- HEIRS OF FRANCISCA DIGNOS-SORONO,
namely: TEODORO SORONO, LUCIO SORONO, JR., ARSENIO T. SORONO, RODULFO S.
OLIVAR, ALFONSA T. SORONO, CONSTANCIO S. LUMONGSOD, EULALIA S. LIMPANGOG, and
FLORENCIA S. BAGUIO; HEIRS OF JUAN L.
AMISTOSO,[1]
namely: MARIO L. AMISTOSO, LYN-LYN AMISTOSO, ALLAN L. AMISTOSO, RAQUEL S.
AMISTOSO, EUFRONIO S. AMISTOSO, JR., and ROGELIO S. AMISTOSO; HEIRS OF
BRIGILDA D. AMISTOSO, namely: VICTOR A. YAGONG, HEDELIZA A. YAGONG, and
CIRIACA A. YAGONG; HEIRS OF PASTOR DIGNOS; HEIRS OF ISABEL DIGNOS, namely:
DR. NAPOLEON A. AMORES, VICENTE A. BASMAYOR, DOMINGO A. BASMAYOR, and LYDIA
A. BASMAYOR; HEIRS OF DONATA DIGNOS,
namely: TRINIDAD D. FUENTES, NICASIA D. FUENTES, and IRINEO D. FUENTES; HEIRS OF SEGUNDA DIGNOS, namely: HONORATA D.
CORTES and BENIGNO D. CORTES; HEIRS OF
GREGORIA DIGNOS, namely: RITA D. FUENTES and JOSE D. FUENTES; HEIRS OF DOMINGO FUENTES, namely: CIRILA P.
DIGNOS and BASILIO P. DIGNOS; and HEIR
OF ISABELO DIGNOS, namely: TERESITA R. DIGNOS,[2]
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 171571 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: March
24, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Assailed
via petition for review on certiorari is the
Lot Nos. 2296 and 2316 of the Cadastral
Survey of Opon, Lapu-lapu City were adjudicated on
December 7, 1929 by the then Court of First Instance of Cebu in favor of the
following in four equal shares:
a) Francisca Dignos, married to Blas Sorono – ¼ share in the two
lots;
b) Tito Dignos, married to Candida Torrebillas – ¼ share in the two
lots;
c) Isabel Dignos, married to Fabiano Amores;
Donata
Dignos, married to Estanislao Fuentes;
Segunda
Dignos, married to Demetrio Cortes;
Gregoria Dignos, married to Severo Fuentes;
Domingo Dignos, married to Venturada
Potot; and
Isabelo Dignos, married to
Petronilla Gamallo – ¼ share in the two lots; and
d) Silveria Amistuoso,
married to Melecio Tumulak;
Mario Amistuoso, married to Rufina
Tampus;
Juan Amistuoso, married to Narcisa
Cosef;
Brigilda Amistuoso, married to Casimiro
Yagong; and
Pastor Amistuoso, widower – ¼ share
in the two lots.[5]
It appears that the two lots were not
partitioned by the adjudicatees.
It appears further that the heirs of
Tito Dignos, who, as reflected above, was awarded ¼
share in the two lots, sold for P2,565.59 the entire two lots to the
then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) via a public instrument entitled “Extrajudicial
Settlement and Sale” executed on October 11, 1957, without the knowledge of
respondents whose predecessors-in-interest were the adjudicatees
of the rest of the ¾ portion of the two lots.[6]
In 1996, CAA’s successor-in-interest,
the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), erected a security
fence traversing Lot No. 2316 and relocated a number of families, who had built
their dwellings within the airport perimeter, to a portion of said lot to
enhance airport security in line with the standards set by the International Civil
Aviation Organization and the Federal Aviation Authority.
MCIAA later caused the issuance in
its name of Tax Declaration No. 00548 covering Lot No. 2296 and Tax Declaration
No. 00568 covering Lot No. 2316.
Respondents
soon asked the agents of MCIAA to cease giving third persons permission to
occupy the lots but the same was ignored.
Respondents
thereupon filed on January 8, 1996 a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Legal
Redemption with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against MCIAA
before the RTC of Lapu-lapu City,[7] alleging that the existence of the tax declarations
“would cast a cloud on their valid and existing titles” to the lots. They alleged that “corresponding original certificates
of title in favor of the decreed owners were . . . issued but the same could no
longer be found and located, and in all probability, were lost during the
Second World War.”[8] (This claim was not specifically denied by
petitioner in its Answer with Counterclaim.)[9]
Respondents further alleged that neither
they nor their predecessors-in-interests sold, alienated or disposed of their
shares in the lots of which they have been in continuous peaceful possession.
Respondents furthermore alleged that
neither petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest had given them any written
notice of its acquisition of the ¼ share of Tito Dignos.
Respondents thus prayed as follows:
1) Upon the filing of this complaint, that a restraining order be issued enjoining the defendant and any of its officers, agents, employees, and any third person acting on their behest, to desist from occupying their portions of Lots 2296 and 2316, Opon Cadastre, and upon due notice and hearing, to issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction for the same purpose;
2) To declare the tax declarations of the defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interests covering Lots 2296 and 2316, Opon Cadastre, to be null and void:
3) To grant unto the plaintiffs the right of preemption in the sale of the one-fourth share of Tito Dignos in the above-mentioned parcels of land under the provisions of Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code;
4)
To order the defendant to reimburse plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00
acceptance fee, the sums of P1,000.00 per appearance fee, the sum of P10,000.00
for costs of litigation;
5) To order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 for moral damages.
Plaintiffs further pray for such orders as may be just and equitable under the premises.[10] (Underscoring supplied)
Republic of the Philippines, represented
by the MCIAA (hereafter petitioner), in its Answer with Counterclaim,[11] maintained
that from the time the lots were sold to its predecessor-in-interest CAA, it
has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession thereof; through
acquisitive prescription, it had acquired valid title to the lots since it was
a purchaser in good faith and for value; and assuming arguendo that it did not have just title, it had, by possession for over 30
years, acquired ownership thereof by extraordinary prescription.
At all
events, petitioner contended that respondents’ action was barred by estoppel
and laches.
The trial court found for
respondents. It held that respondents
and their predecessors-in-interest were in peaceful and continuous possession of
their shares in the lots, and were disturbed of such possession only in 1996
when petitioner put up the security fence that traversed Lot No. 2316 and
relocated families that had built their houses within the airport perimeter to
a portion of said lot.
On petitioner’s claim that it had
acquired ownership by extraordinary prescription, the trial court brushed it
aside on the ground that registered lands cannot be the subject of acquisitive
prescription.
Neither, held the trial court, had respondents’
action prescribed, as actions for quieting of title cannot prescribe if the plaintiffs
are in possession of the property in question, as in the case of herein
respondents.
On petitioner’s defense of laches, the
trial court also brushed the same aside in light of its finding that respondents,
who have long been in possession of the lots, came to know of the sale only in
1996. The trial court added that respondents
could not be charged with constructive notice of the 1957 Extrajudicial
Settlement and
Concluding, the trial court held that
the questioned sale was valid only with respect to Tito Dignos’
¼ share of the lots, and that the sale thereof was subject to the right of
legal redemption by respondents following Article 1088 of the Civil Code,
reading:
Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
In light of its finding that the
heirs of Tito Dignos did not give notice of the sale
to respondents, the trial court held that the period for legal redemption had
not yet lapsed; and the redemption price should be ¼ of the purchase price paid
by the CAA for the two lots.
The trial court thus disposed:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Court rules in favor of plaintiffs and hence renders judgment:
a) Declaring Tax Declarations Nos. 00915 and 00935, as well as all other tax declarations covering Lot 2296 and Lot 2316 under the names of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, the Bureau of Air Transportation and the defendant Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, as null and void and directing the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City to cancel them;
b)
Declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement and
c) Ordering the defendant to resell to plaintiffs for a total price of Six Hundred forty Pesos (P640.00) the one-fourth (1/4) shares in Lot 2296 and Lot 2316 it had purchased from the heirs of the late Tito Dignos in 1957;
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. [15]
As priorly
stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Hence, the present petition for
review on certiorari which proffers the following
GROUNDS
FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION WHEN RESPONDENTS NO LONGER HAVE ANY RIGHT TO RECOVER LOTS 2296 AND 2316 DUE TO THE PRIOR SALE THEREOF TO THE REPUBLIC AND UPON THE EQUITABLE GROUNDS OF ESTOPPEL AND LACHES.[16]
The petition fails.
Article 493 of the Civil Code
provides:
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore 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 of 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.
Apropos is the
following pertinent portion of this Court’s decision in Bailon-Casilao v. CA:
As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale [Punsalan v. Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 (1923)]. This is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common. [Ramirez v. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528 (1909)]. Consequently, by virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid with respect to their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in the sale to private respondent Celestino Afable, the said Afable thereby became a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court since the sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment thereof [Mainit v. Bandoy, 14 Phil. 730 (1910)].
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest CAA
thus acquired only the rights pertaining to the sellers-heirs of Tito Dignos, which
is only ¼ undivided share of the two lots.
Petitioner’s
insistence that it acquired the property through acquisitive prescription, if
not ordinary, then extraordinary, does not lie.
The trial court’s discrediting thereof is well taken. It bears emphasis at this juncture that in
the Extrajudicial Settlement and
x x x x
4. That since the Original Transfer Certificate of Title of the above-mentioned property/ies has/have been lost and/or destroyed, or since the said lot/s is/are covered by Cadastral Case No. 19, and a decree issued on March 19, 1930, bearing Decree No./s 474824 & 474825, and the VENDEE hereby binds itself to reconstitute said title/s at its own expense and that the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs, successors and assigns bind themselves to help in the reconstitution of title so that the said lot/s may be registered in the name of the VENDEE in accordance with law[.][18]
x x x x
The trial court’s discrediting of
petitioner’s invocation of laches and prescription of action is well-taken too.
As
for petitioner’s argument that the redemption price should be ¼ of the prevailing
market value, not of the actual purchase price, since, so it claims,
“(1) they received just compensation for the property at the time it was
purchased by the Government; and, (2) the property, due to improvements
introduced by petitioner in its vicinity, is now worth several hundreds of
millions of pesos,”[19] the
law is not on its side. Thus, Article
1088 of the Civil Code provides:
Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court may take judicial notice of
the increase in value of the lots. As mentioned earlier, however, the heirs of
Tito Dignos did not notify respondents about the sale. At any rate, since the Extrajudicial
Settlement and
That the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs, assigns and successors, undertake and agree to warrant and defend the possession and ownership of the property/ies herein sold against any and all just claims of all persons whomsoever and should the VENDEE be disturbed in its possession, to prosecute and defend the same in the Courts of Justice[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
petitioner is not without any remedy. This decision is, therefore, without
prejudice to petitioner’s right to seek redress against the vendors-heirs of
Tito Dignos and their successors-in-interest.
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of
the foregoing disquisition, DENIED.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had 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] Also spelled Amistuoso in some parts of the records.
[2] The Court of Appeals was originally impleaded but was omitted pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[3] Penned by Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and concurred in by Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Justice Sesinando E. Villon, all of the Court of Appeals; CA-G.R. CV. No. 64614, rollo, pp. 53-64.
[4] Civil Case No. 4373-L, For: Quieting of Title, Legal Redemption with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction, id. at 114-122.
[5] Records, p. 183.
[6] Rollo, pp. 95-99.
[7] Records, p. 2.
[8] Vide Defendant[-petitioner]’s Answer with Counterclaim, id., pp. 55-61.
[9] Ibid.
[10]
[11]
[12] The trial court inadvertently referred to the law as Republic Act No. 3344.
[13] The trial court inadvertently referred to the law as Republic Act No. 496.
[14] Rollo, pp. 118-121.
[15]
[16]
[17] G.R. No. 78178,
[18] Records, pp. 127-128.
[19] Rollo, p. 47.
[20] Records, p. 127.