Abad v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case centers on a dispute over a parcel of land, Lot B, VS-04-000182, in Diliman, Quezon City. The property was initially intended to be purchased through a pooled fund by four individuals: Herminigildo Aquino, Juanito Dichoso, Damian Garcia, and petitioner Felix Abad. Although Herminigildo Aquino was named the sole assignee in the deed of assignment from the original sellers, he executed an affidavit acknowledging the equal contributions and co-ownership rights of Dichoso, Garcia, and Abad. Following the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 175968 in the name of the Aquino spouses, Felix Abad sought to have his share formally recognized through a deed of sale, which Aquino refused. Abad then annotated his adverse claim on the title and subsequently filed a case to compel the execution of the deed of sale and the issuance of a title for his portion. Procedural History: Petitioner Felix Abad filed Civil Case No. Q-27582 to compel the Aquino spouses to execute a deed of sale for his share of the co-owned property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Abad, ordering the execution of a deed of sale and the issuance of a transfer certificate of title for his 55-square-meter portion. Later, the Abad spouses filed Civil Case No. Q-35941 against private respondents, the Dayap spouses, for injunction. The Dayap spouses had begun constructing a fence within the area allocated to the Abads, claiming ownership based on a deed of sale from Herminigildo Aquino. The RTC, after a survey by the Bureau of Lands confirmed the encroachment, ruled in favor of the Abad spouses, enjoining the Dayap spouses from disturbing their possession. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. Q-35941, criticizing the RTC's adjudication in Civil Case No. Q-27582 and stating that the Dayap spouses were not bound by that prior judgment. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari challenges the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioners argue that the CA erred by ruling on the merits of Civil Case No. Q-27582, which was not on appeal before it, and by ignoring the doctrine of the law of the case. They contend that the CA improperly criticized the RTC's decision in the earlier case and that the CA's pronouncements were uncalled for, as the decision in Civil Case No. Q-27582 had long become final and executory. The petitioners assert that the CA should have focused solely on the injunction issue in Civil Case No. Q-35941. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, found that the CA committed a glaring error by ruling on a case not on appeal and by questioning a final and executory judgment. The Court reinstated the RTC's decision, holding that a co-owner cannot validly sell a specific, divided part of a co-owned property and that mere possession does not defeat a registered Torrens title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rendering a decision based on the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-27582, which was not on appeal before it. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the doctrine of the law of the case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding for the private respondents and against the petitioners regarding the ownership and right to the property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-35941, remanding the case for immediate execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction and the propriety of ruling on Civil Case No. Q-27582: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed a glaring error by ruling on a case that was not on appeal before it. The appellate court exceeded its authority by criticizing the proceedings and the assignment of the subject lot in Civil Case No. Q-27582, which was a separate case with a final and executory judgment. The duty of the Court of Appeals was to rule on the injunction granted in Civil Case No. Q-35941, not to re-examine the merits of the decision in Civil Case No. Q-27582. A final and executory decision can no longer be altered or modified, even by the court that rendered it, and certainly not by an appellate court in a different case. On the doctrine of the law of the case: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals ignored the doctrine of the law of the case. While the private respondents argued that Civil Case No. Q-27582 was merely cited by the CA because it was mentioned in the lower court's decision in Civil Case No. Q-35941, the CA's decision clearly indicated its intention to declare the ruling in Civil Case No. Q-27582 as wrong. The Supreme Court clarified that the lower court in Civil Case No. Q-35941 had to consider Civil Case No. Q-27582 to determine who had a better right to the property, as the petitioners had a Torrens title, while the private respondents' claim was based on a deed of sale from a co-owner. On the ownership and right to the property: The Supreme Court ruled that the sale by Herminigildo Aquino to the Dayap spouses in 1972 was invalid concerning a definite portion of the land. At that time, the property was co-owned by Aquino and three other persons, including Felix Abad. A co-owner has no right to sell a divided part of the real estate owned in common. Therefore, the Dayap spouses could not claim title to a definite portion of the land owned in common. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the rule that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title. The petitioners possessed an affidavit proving their co-ownership, an annotated adverse claim, and a final judgment in their favor, with the transfer certificate of title now in their name, which is entitled to respect until a better right is shown.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner cannot validly sell a definite portion of a property owned in common. Mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title.