532 Phil. 181
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
x x x xThe two documents were annotated on Petronilo's title on May 6, 1988.
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 [Lot 13-B] situated at Pasig Metro Manila and more particularly described and bounded as follows:
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]
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]
- defendants Panlasigue and Santiago to convey unto plaintiffs-intervenors theirrightful share in the property now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 66276 of the Register of Deeds in Pasig City, and
- 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 Pasig City.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
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) |
. . . IN DECLARING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION AS NULL AND VOID.On the other hand, Lourdes and Julieta ascribed to the trial court the following errors:
. . . 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]
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 Anatolia and her children.
- . . . DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO VALID PARTITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
- . . . DECLARING THE DEED OF SALE BETWEEN ANATOLIA STA. ANA AND DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS PANLASIGUE AND SANTIAGO NULL AND VOID.
- . . . NOT FINDING THAT THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO QUESTION THE TITLE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS PANLASIGUE AND SANTIAGO OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
- . . . NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS SANTIAGO AND PANLASIGUE AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE UNDER THE FORMER'S COUNTERCLAIM.[14]
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 [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 Anatolia shared in the other one-half (1/2) belonging to Petronilo in shares of 1/10 each (Art. 996, Civil Code). Otherwise stated, all the heirs were entitled to one-twentieth (1/20) share of the property except Anatolia who was entitled to eleven-twentieth (11/20) share thereof. With regard to the intervenors, the 1/20 share of their deceased father shall be divided between them since they succeed by right of representation (Art. 974, Civil Code). And having affixed their signatures thereto, all the heirs are conclusively presumed to have admitted the regularity and validity of the deeds of sale and donation insofar as their respective portions were concerned. Needless to state, both the deed of sale and deed of partition with donation are valid.[16] (Underscoring supplied)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."
Art. 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition.the appellate court disposed as follows:
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 ,
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:
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 Anatolia in the execution of the documents clearly shows that they were co-owners of the lots. As such, they were at liberty to alienate their respective shares of the lots.
- The extra-judicial partition is null and void.
- The deed of sale between Anatolia Sta. Ana and Respondents Panlasigue and Santiago is null and void.
- The right of Petitioner to question the title of Respondents Panlasigue and Santiago over the subject property has neither prescribed nor been barred by laches.[18]
Q. | Mr. Sta. Ana, when you learned that lot 13-A was sold to defendant Lourdes Panlasique and Julieta Santiago, what did you do? |
A. | I was abroad at that time and when I arrived what I saw was the house was being constructed already.[19] |
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.Petitioner's citation of Mariategui is misplaced. His complaint is not one for partition, but for reconveyance.
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)