Engreso v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Nestoria de la Cruz alleged that she purchased one-half (1/2) of an unregistered property, Lot No. 10561, from her sister, petitioner Hermogena Engreso, through a Deed of Sale dated January 20, 1979, for P3,000.00. Their deceased father, Romeo Gajelloma, had constructed a residential/commercial building on their adjoining properties, with a portion standing on Nestoria's acquired share and the other on Hermogena's land. After Romeo's death, Hermogena allegedly deprived Nestoria of her rights over the purchased property and the building, and further mortgaged the entire Lot No. 10561 with improvements to the Rural Bank of Zamboanguita without Nestoria's consent. Procedural History: Nestoria filed an action for declaration of ownership, possession, and damages. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered Nestoria to amend her complaint regarding efforts towards compromise. Nestoria amended her complaint, stating that attempts at amicable resolution were rebuffed. The trial court declared Nestoria as the owner of Lot No. 10561-A and one-half (1/2) of the building, ordering Hermogena to deliver possession and one-half (1/2) of the rentals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the amendment of the complaint was permissible and upholding the trial court's findings of fact. The Petition: Petitioners spouses Hermogena and Jose Engreso sought review, arguing that the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint and in validating the allegedly falsified deed of sale. The Supreme Court was asked to review the factual findings of the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale dated January 20, 1979, is authentic and genuine, and whether petitioner spouses are bound to deliver the property object of the sale to private respondent. Whether private respondent is entitled to a specific, determinate one-half (1/2) of the residential/commercial building standing on the disputed lot. Whether the mortgage executed by petitioner Hermogena Engreso affects the share of private respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the sole MODIFICATION that petitioner Hermogena Engreso and private respondent Nestoria de la Cruz are declared co-owners of the residential/commercial building standing on Lots Nos. 10561 and 10561-A, and they may exercise jointly the right of dominion over the structure until partition is effected. This is without prejudice to the rights of other heirs of Romeo Gajelloma, if any, to demand their share in the building.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authenticity and genuineness of the Deed of Sale and the obligation to deliver the property: The Court reiterated the principle that it is not a trier of facts and that findings of lower courts are generally binding unless grounded on speculation. The Deed of Sale, being a public document, enjoys a presumption of regularity and truthfulness, requiring high proof to overcome. The testimony of petitioner Hermogena Engreso, being biased, could not overcome the evidentiary force of the notarized Deed of Sale. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the sale was valid. Under the law on sales, the vendor is bound to transfer ownership and deliver the thing sold. Although the sale was made through a public document, which is equivalent to delivery, petitioner Hermogena's vehement denial and objection to private respondent's enjoyment of the property meant that the fiction of delivery must yield to reality. Thus, petitioner's obligation to deliver the sold portion of Lot No. 10561, designated as Lot No. 10561-A, to private respondent remains. On the ownership of the building: The Court took exception to the order of the lower courts declaring private respondent as owner of one-half (1/2) of the building. It clarified that while Nestoria is the sole owner of a specified portion of the land, she only co-owns the structure. The principle in civil law is that before partition, a co-owner has only an ideal or abstract quota in the entire property, not a right to a specific, determinate part. The defendant co-owner cannot be excluded from a specific portion because they have a right to possess. Therefore, the courts erred in ordering the delivery of one-half (1/2) of the building. Furthermore, the building was constructed by their father, Romeo Gajelloma. In the absence of proof of partition of Romeo's estate, all his surviving heirs have a right to the building from the moment of his death. The admission of their brother, Leon Gajelloma, that the building was given to the sisters should not prejudice other heirs who have not relinquished their rights. On the mortgage executed by petitioner Hermogena: The Court ruled that petitioner Hermogena's encumbrance of Lot No. 10561 and its improvements in favor of the Rural Bank of Zamboanguita affects only her share in the property. It does not prejudice or affect the shares of private respondent Nestoria de la Cruz or any other heirs who were not parties to the mortgage agreement. This aligns with the principle that a co-owner can only mortgage or encumber their own ideal share in the property held in common.
Main Doctrine
While a deed of sale, being a public document, is equivalent to delivery, a co-owner cannot demand a specific, determinate part of the property owned in common until partition is effected. The mortgage of a property by one co-owner affects only their share, not the shares of other co-owners.