Heirs of Gregorio Lopez vs. DBP certificate of title.

Annotation was inscribed on

June 27, 1994.
 Marietta failed to pay her loan to DBP. DBP
Gregoria Lopez instituted foreclosure proceedings on the land. It
was awarded the sale of the property as the
Owned a 2,734 sq.m. property in Bustos,
highest bidder. Marietta failed to redeem the
Bulacan
property. TITLE to the property was
Died in March 19, 1922
consolidated in favor of DBP
Survived by her 3 sons: Teodoro, Francisco,
and Carlos
The 3 sons died. But Teodoro was survived by
Gregorio, Enrique, Simplicio, and Severino RTC Ruling:

It ordered the ff:

o nullification of the Affidavit of Self-
Petitoners demanded from Marietta the nullification adjudication
of: o nullification of the Sale of the ¾ potion
1) Enrique’s affidavit of self-adjudication in favor of Marietta
2) Deed of Absolute Sale o Reconveyance of the ¾ share in favor of
petitioners
They sought to redeem Enrique’s ¼ share o Nullification of the Real Estate
Marietta, who was already in possession of the Mortgage executed in favor of DBP
property, refused.
Affidavit of Self-adjudication and Deed of
 Petitioners discovered that on Nov. 29, 1990, Absolute Sale did not validly transfer to
Enrique executed an AFFIDAVIT of SELF- Marietta the title to the property
ADJUDICATION declaring himself to be ¾ of the property could not be transferred since
Gregoria Lopez’s only surviving heir, thereby this portion belongs to his co-heirs
adjudicating upon himself the land in Bulacan.
 He sold the property to Marietta Yabut  Marietta is not an innocent purchaser for
value because when the deed of absolute sale
 In 1993, Marietta obtained a loan from DBP and was executed, the property was only covered
mortgaged the property to DBP as security by a tax declaration in the name of the
 July 1993, an original cert. of title was issued in HEIRS of Gregoria
Marietta’s name  Marietta should have looked further into the
 Feb 1995, Marietta and DBP executed a veracity of Enrique’s claim over the subject
supplemental document placing the subject property considering the he has not
property within the coverage of the mortgage. presented any other proof of his
The mortgage was annotated to the title. ownership when the deed of sale was
executed other than his mere allegation of
ownership
 Petitioners filed a complaint and amended
complaint with the RTC for the: Issuance of the Orig. cert. of title would not
 Annulment of Document protect Marietta
 Recovery of Possession Title is not vested through a certificate
 Reconveyance of the Property Her ownership would only cover that of
Enrique’s share
 Petitioners prayed for the reconveryance of
their ¾ share in the property and their exercise  DBP was not a mortgagee in good faith
of their right of redemption of Enrique’s ¼ because at the time of the execution of the
share. mortgage contract, a certificate of title is YET
 Petitioners caused the annotation of a NOTICE TO BE ISSUED in favor of Marietta.
of LIS PENDENS at the back of the original
  Marietta’s title at that time was still based on a
tax declaration. Tax declaration is not a Regardless of their agreement, Enrique could only
conclusive proof of ownership convey to Marietta his undivided one-fourth share
 DBP should have exerted due diligence in of the property, and Marietta could only acquire that
ascertaining Marietta’s title to the property share. This is because Marietta obtained her rights
 As a financial institution of which greater care from Enrique who, in the first place, had no title or
and prudence is required, DBP should not interest over the rest of the property that he could
have relied on the face of a certificate of title convey.
to the property
Affidavit of Self-adjudication is invalid for it was
Ruling the CA:
FALSE.
CA reversed decision of RTC
 At the time of its execution, Enrique’s siblings
DBP is a mortgagee in good faith were still alive and entitled to the ¾
 DBP was never privy to the fraudulent undivided share of the property
execution of the Affidavit  It did not have the effect of vesting upon
Enrique ownership or rights to the
CA denied motion for reconsideration
property

COURT’S RULING issuance of the original certificate of title in

Gregorio, Simplicio, Severino, and Enrique became favor of Marietta does NOT CURE Enrique’s
co-owners of the property, with each of them lack of title or authority to convey his co-owners’
entitled to an undivided portion of only a quarter portions of the property.
of the property. Upon their deaths, their  it does not vest in a person ownership or right
children became the co-owners of the property, over a property
who were entitled to their respective shares.  it is merely an evidence of ownership or right

The heirs cannot alienate the shares that do not Marietta could have acquired a valid title over the
belong to them. Article 493 of the Civil Code whole property if she were an INNOCENT
provides: PURCHASER FOR VALUE

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full Innocent purchaser for value purchases a
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits property without any notice of defect or
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller.
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another He or she is without notice that another person
person in its enjoyment, except when personal holds claim to the property being purchased.
rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation  no certificate of title to rely on when she
or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, purchased the property from Enrique.
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted  At the time of the sale, the property was
to him in the division upon the termination of the co- still UNREGISTERED. What was available
ownership. was only a tax declaration issued under the
Enrique’s right to the property was limited to his name of “Heirs of Lopez.”
one-fourth share, he had no right to sell the
undivided portions that belonged to his siblings or  The defense of having purchased the
their respective heirs. property in good faith may be availed of only
 Any sale by one heir of the rest of the where REGISTERED LAND is involved and
property will not affect the rights of the other the buyer had relied in good faith on the
heirs who did not consent to the sale. clear title of the registered owner.” It does
not apply when the land is not yet registered
Such sale is void with respect to the shares of the with the Registry of Deeds.
other heirs
Melecio Domingo vs Sps Molina that they already own half of the land. The
spouses Molina have been in possession of the
June 1951 – Anastacio and Flora bought a subject property before the title was registered
property in Camiling, Tarlac consisting of a ½ under their names and have religiously paid the
undivided portion over an 18,164 sq m parcel of property's real estate taxes.
land
The spouses Molina also asserted that Melecio
Anastacio borrowed money from the Sps. knew of the disputed sale since he accompanied
Molina and 10 yrs after the death of his wife Anastacio several times to borrow money. The last
(1978), he sold his interest to Sps. Molina to loan was even used to pay for Melecio's wedding.
answer for his debts Finally, the spouses Molina asserted that Melecio
built his nipa hut on the subject property only in
1995 – Sale of Anastacio’s interest was 1999, without their knowledge and consent.
registered and transferred the entire ½
undivided portion of the land to Sps. Molia Sps. Molina presented Jaime Garlitos as their sole
witness, who testified that Elena Molina permitted
Melecio – one of the children of Anastacio him to build a house on the subject property in
learned of the transfer and filed a complaint 1993.
for Annulment of Title and Recovery of
Ownerhip against Sps. Molina (1999)  Together with other tenants, they planted
fruit-bearing trees and gave portions of their
Melecio also claims that Genaro Molina must harvest to Elena without any complaint
have falsified the document transferring from Melecio
Anastacio and Flora's one-half undivided  Melecio never lived in the subject property
interest over the land. Melecio asserts that he and that only George Domingo, the caretaker
occupied the subject property from the time of of the Sps Molina has a hut on the property.
Anastacio's death up to the time he filed the
Complaint Sps. Molina died during the pendency of the case.
They are substituted by their adopted son,
Melecio present the ff testimonies: Cornelio.
o Records Officer of the Register of
Deeds of Tarlac
o Melecio’s nephew, George Domingo
RTC Ruling

Records Officer testified that RTC dismissed the case

o he could not locate the instrument that
 Melecio failed to establish his claim that
documents the transfer of the subject property
Anastacio did not sell the property to Sps.
ownership from Anastacio to the sps. Molina
Molina
o alleged sale was annotated at the time when
 Anastacio could dispose of the conjugal
Genaro Molina’s brother was at the Register
property without Flora’s consent since the
of Deeds for Camiling, Tarlac
sale was necessary to answer for conjugal
liabilities
Melecio testified that he has been living on the
subject property since 1986
 That there were other occupants on the
subject property – Jaime Garlitos, Linda CA Ruling
Sicangco, Serafio Sicangco and Manuel CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
Ramos
 Melcio failed to prove by preponderant
The spouses Molina asserted that Anastacio evidence that there was FRAUD in the
surrendered the title to the subject property to conveyance of the property to the Sps.
answer for his debts and told the spouses Molina Molina
  Flora’s death is immaterial because Anastacio  If no judicial settlement proceeding is
only sold his rights excluding Flora’s interest, instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate
over the lot to the sps. Molina. the conjugal partnership property either
judicially or extra-judicially within one year
 No prohibition against the sale by the widower from the death of the deceased spouse. If
of real property formerly belonging to the upon the lapse of the six month period no
conjugal partnership of gains liquidation is made, any disposition or
encumbrance involving the conjugal
 Melecio failed to file the action within one year partnership property of the terminated
after entry of the decree of registration marriage shall be void. 

 While Article 130 of the Family Code provides

Melecio
that any disposition involving the conjugal
o Melecio claims that the ff made the transfer Null & property without prior liquidation of the
Void partnership shall be void, this rule does not
fraud attended the conveyance of the apply since the provisions of the Family Code
subject property shall be "without prejudice to vested rights
absence of any document evidencing the already acquired in accordance with the Civil
alleged sale Code or other laws."

o Melecio claims that the action has not yet  In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds
prescribed of Laguna,24 we held that the properties of a
dissolved conjugal partnership fall under
the regime of co-ownership among the
surviving spouse and the heirs of the
Sps. Molina
deceased spouse until final liquidation and
o Melecio’s counsel admitted that Anastacio had partition.
given the lot title in payment of the debt
amounting to P30,000. It is constructive delivery  The surviving spouse, however, has an
of the lot itself. actual and vested one-half undivided share of
the properties, which does not consist of
determinate and segregated properties until
Court’s Ruling: liquidation and partition of the conjugal
partnership
Whether the Sale of the conjugal property without
Flora’s consent is valid and legal.
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall the FULL
 Even if Anastacio and Flora married before
OWNERSHIP of his part and of the fruits and
the effectivity of the Family code (Aug. 3,
benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore,
1988), they are still governed by the rules on
ALIENATE, ASSIGN or MORTGAGE it and even
Conjugal partnership of Gains on Property
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except
relations between husband and wife of the
when personal rights are involved. But the effect of
Family Code
alienation or the mortgage with respect to the co-
owners, shall be limited to the portion which may
 The conjugal partnership of Anastacio and
be allotted to him in the division upon the
Flora was dissolved when Flora died in 1968.
termination of the co-ownership.
 Article 130. Upon the termination of the  Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to
marriage by death, the conjugal partnership any specific portion of the conjugal properties
property shall be liquidated in the same without an ACTUAL PARTITION being first
proceeding for the settlement of the estate done either by agreement or by judicial
of the deceased. decree.
The spouses Molina became co-owners of the Teresa Ignacio vs. Ramon Reyes, Florencio Reyes,
subject property to the extent of Anastacio's Jr., Rosario Du and Carmelita Pastor
interest.
Teresa became the administratrix of Florencio,
At the time of the sale, Anastacio's undivided
Sr. Estate on Aug 1994
interest in the conjugal properties consisted of:
(1) one-half of the entire conjugal properties; and
Dec 5, 1994 – lease contract over 398 sq m
(2) his share as Flora's heir on the conjugal
land in Magsaysay Ave., BC in favor of
properties.
Gonzalo Ong, Virginia Lim and Nino Yu,
On the OCT annotation of the sale only the rights,
Francisco Lim and Simona Go
interest and participation of Anastacio is sold
 Intestate court approved the lease contract on
as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell and July 15, 1996
dispose of his undivided interest, but not the
interest of his co-owners Sept 1996 – lease contract over land located at
 Anastactio's sale to the spouses Molina Session Road, BC to Famous Realty Corp
without the consent of the other co-owners (FRC) for a period of July 1, 1996 – June 30,
was not totally void 2003 with 130k monthly.
 The spouses Molina would be a trustee for
the benefit of the co-heirs of Anastacio in January 1997 – leased property located at
respect of any portion that might belong to the Loakan Road, BC in favor of ATC wonderland,
co-heirs after liquidation and partition. Inc. and subsequently to Gloria de Guzman and
the appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases Sonshine Pre-school from Sept. 1, 1996 – Aug
where their consent was not secured in a sale 31, 2006
of the entire property as well as in a sale merely
of the undivided shares of some of the co-owners Sept. 25, 2001 – Respondents filed 3
is an action for PARTITION under Rule 69 of the complaints before the RTC of BC:
Revised Rules of Court o Partition
o Annulment of Lease contract
o Acctg and damages with prayer for the
NO FRAUD issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction

Melecio's argument that no document was Against Teresa and the lessees of the subject
executed for the sale is negated by the CA finding properties
that there was a notarized deed of conveyance  They alleged in their complaint that they own
executed between Anastacio and the spouses 1/10 of each of the Session Road, Loakan,
Molina, as annotated on the OCT of the disputed Magsaysay and Military cut-off properties
property.  They claimed that Teresa misrepresented that
the estate was the sole owner of the
Melecio's belief that Anastacio could not have properties and leased the same to the other
sold the property without his knowledge cannot parties without their conformity
be considered as proof of fraud to invalidate the  They asserted that Florencio, Sr. estate is
spouses Molina's registered title over the subject different from Heirs of Florencio Sr. and Heirs
property. of Salud

as co-owners, they have not received their share in

the monthly rentals of the properties
aforementioned due to Teresa's failure to duly
account for the same.
They are asking for the ff:
o Partition of the properties
 o accounting of all the rentals, income or property itself is in the persons named in the
profits derived and deliver the same to the title.
plaintiffs
o annulment of the lease contracts they are considered the owners of the properties
o order the lessees to vacate the premises until their title is nullified or modified in an
appropriate ordinary action. The co-ownership of
the said properties by virtue of the certificates
Based on the report of the team of auditors of title is a common issue in the complaints for
headed by Clemente, Teresa had a total cash partition filed before the Baguio RTC. Thus, the
accountability amounting to P15,238,066.51 intestate court committed grave abuse of
dated Aug 27, 2003 discretion when it asserted jurisdiction over the
subject properties since its jurisdiction relates
January 2004 – respondents filed a motion only to matters having to do with the settlement
before the INTESTATE COURT, praying for the of the estate of deceased persons. Any decision
issuance of an order allowing the distribution that the intestate court would render on the title of
of the heirs’ aliquot shares in the co-owned the properties would at best be merely
properties’ net income and the partition of the provisional in character, and would yield to a final
said properties by the RTC. Intestate court determination in a separate action.
denied the motion.
ACTION FOR PARTITION under Rule 69 of the
 It cannot allow the RTC to partition the Rules of Court is typically brought by a person
property as it already has jurisdiction over the claiming to be the owner of a specified property
matter against a defendant or defendants whom the
plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners,39 and
is premised on the existence or non-existence of
CA Ruling: co-ownership between the parties
CA granted the motion to allow the PARTITION
and DISTRIBUTION of shares over properties Action for Judicial Partition and/or accounting
Co-owned by the Estate and the Heirs located in 1st stage
Baguio City.
 Concerned with the determination of
whether or not a CO-OWNERSHIP in fact
Court’s Ruling EXISTS and a PARTITION is proper

Jurisprudence teaches that jurisdiction of the  That it is not legally proscribed and may be
trial court as an intestate court is special and made by voluntary agreement of all the
limited as it relates only to matters having to parties interested in the property
do with the probate of the will and/or settlement
of the estate of deceased persons, but does not  This phase may end in a declaration that
extend to the determination of questions of plaintiff is not entitled to the desired
ownership that arise during the proceedings. partition either because co-ownership
This is true whether or not the property is does not exist or a partition is legally
alleged to belong to the estate prohibited.

If a property covered by Torrens Title is  It may also end with an adjudgment that a
involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of CO-OWNERSHIP does in truth exist, and
such title should be given due weight, and in PARTITION is proper in the premises and
the absence of string compelling evidence to that an ACCOUNTING of rents and profits
the contrary, the holder should be considered received by the defendant from the real
as the owner of the property in controversy estate in question is in order.
until his title is NULLIFIED or MODIFIED in an  Parties may, if they are able to agree,
appropriate ordinary action, particularly when MAKE PARTITION among themselves
as in the case at bar, possession of the
 by proper instruments of conveyance, and
the court shall confirm the partition so
agreed upon by all parties.
 Baguio RTC shirked from its duty when it
deferred the trial to await a request order from
the intestate court regarding the possible
distribution
 it has not yet made a definite ruling on the
existence of co-ownership
 no declaration of entitlement to the desired
partition either because a co-ownership exists
or a partition is not legally prohibited.

 As this Court is not a trier of facts, it is for the

trial court to proceed and determine once
and for all if there is co-ownership and to
partition the subject properties if there is no
legal prohibition.

 best for the Baguio RTC to settle whether the

respondents are claiming ownership over the
properties by virtue of their title adverse to
that of their late father and his estate and not
by any right of inheritance