Cruz v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Julio Cruz and Zenaida Montes owned a parcel of land (Lot 10, TCT No. 10680). On December 16, 1965, they sold a portion of 331 sq. m. on the northern part to Cresenciano de la Cruz, with an agreement to prepare a subdivision plan. On February 28, 1966, they sold the remaining 331 sq. m. portion on the southern part to Alfonso Miranda. Procedural History: Cresenciano de la Cruz filed a complaint seeking to be declared entitled to purchase, by way of pre-emption and legal redemption, the portion sold to Alfonso Miranda. The parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the pleadings. The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City) dismissed the complaint and granted the counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Cresenciano de la Cruz appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors concerning the trial court's holding that he was not a co-owner, not entitled to pre-emption or legal redemption, and the award of damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant spouses are co-owners of the parcel of land. Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the right of pre-emption or legal redemption. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages to the defendants-appellees. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the plaintiff-appellant to pay attorney's fees.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed, except insofar as it awarded damages to the appellees, which is reversed. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of co-ownership: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-appellant is not a co-owner of the registered parcel of land. Co-ownership requires that parties have a spiritual part of a thing which is not physically divided, or that each is an owner of the whole, exercising dominion over it while simultaneously owning an abstract portion. In this case, the portions of the plaintiff and the defendant spouses were concretely determined and identifiable: the northern half for the plaintiff and the southern half for the spouses. The fact that their respective portions were not technically described or were still embraced in one certificate of title did not make them less determinable or distinguishable, nor did it diminish the exclusivity of their dominion over their respective portions. Therefore, no right of redemption among co-owners existed. On the right of pre-emption or legal redemption as adjoining owners: The Court ruled that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to the right of pre-emption or redemption as an adjoining owner. This right, under Article 1622 of the Civil Code, requires that the adjoining portion be so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, and that it was bought merely for speculation. The plaintiff-appellant failed to allege and prove these conditions, as the case was submitted on the pleadings without presentation of evidence on these specific requirements. The cited case of Soriente vs. CA was noted as supporting the need for such proof. On the award of damages: The Supreme Court found the plaintiff-appellant's argument regarding the award of damages to be well-taken. While failure to specifically deny material allegations in a counterclaim is deemed an admission, Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court provides an exception for allegations concerning the amount of damages. Such amounts must be duly proven. Since the defendants-appellees did not offer evidence to prove their damages but merely asked for judgment on the pleadings, they were considered to have waived or renounced their claim for damages, citing Rili, et al. vs. Chunaco, et al.. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees. The plaintiff-appellant contested this on the ground that fees do not accrue merely because of an adverse decision. However, he did not claim that the trial court abused its discretion. The award of attorney's fees is discretionary under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, especially when the action is clearly unfounded, as supported by the cited cases of Heirs of Justiva, et al. vs. Gustilo, et al. and Lopez, et al. vs. Gonzaga, et al..
Main Doctrine
A vendee of a portion of a registered parcel of land, where the portion is concretely determined and identifiable, is not a co-owner of the entire parcel for the purpose of redemption among co-owners. Furthermore, the right of pre-emption or redemption as an adjoining owner requires specific allegations and proof regarding the utility and situation of the property, which were not met in this case. Allegations regarding the amount of damages, even if not specifically denied, must still be proven.