Ko v. Aramburo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns seven parcels of land in Tabaco City, Albay, originally registered under Spouses Eusebio and Epifania Casaul. The dispute arose from a Deed of Cession dated April 10, 1970, wherein Spouses Eusebio and Epifania ceded the properties to Spouses Felix and Corazon Ko, and Spouses Simeon and Virginia Aramburo. Subsequently, on April 13, 1970, Spouses Felix and Corazon, and Spouses Simeon and Virginia executed another Deed of Cession, granting a one-third pro-indiviso portion of these properties to the heirs of Augusto Aramburo. The core of the dispute lies in the claim that Corazon Ko, through allegedly falsified documents, transferred the entire properties exclusively to her name, depriving Virginia Aramburo and the heirs of Augusto Aramburo of their rightful shares and the produce from the land. Procedural History: Virginia Dy Aramburo and the heirs of Augusto Aramburo filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Declaration of Nullity, Reconveyance, and Damages against Corazon Ko. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Branch 15, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them co-owners of two-thirds of the properties and ordering the cancellation of titles and reimbursement for produce. Corazon Ko appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. After Corazon Ko's death, her heirs substituted her. The petitioners, the heirs of Corazon Ko, then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. This led to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners, heirs of Corazon Ko, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. They seek to overturn the lower courts' rulings that declared Virginia Aramburo and the heirs of Augusto Aramburo as co-owners of two-thirds of the subject properties. The petitioners argue against the validity of the April 13, 1970 Deed of Cession in favor of Augusto's heirs, claiming it was recalled and not implemented. They also contest the finding that Simeon Aramburo's purported sale of his share to Corazon Ko on December 14, 1974, was invalid due to the forgery of Virginia Aramburo's signature and the lack of her consent, which is required for the alienation of conjugal property under the Old Civil Code. The primary arguments revolve around the ownership of the properties and the validity of the transactions affecting them.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the Regional Trial Court's decision declaring the parties as co-owners of the subject properties. Whether the subject titles may be nullified and transferred to the parties as to their respective portions, considering the validity of the sale and prescription.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It affirmed the lower courts' findings that the parties are co-owners of the subject properties in equal one-third shares. However, it modified the dispositive portion by ordering the cancellation of titles only insofar as the heirs of Augusto Aramburo's share is concerned. Virginia Dy Aramburo and her heirs were declared entitled to demand the value of their one-third share, not the recovery of the property itself, due to the prescriptive period under the Old Civil Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the co-ownership of Augusto's heirs and Simeon and Virginia's share: The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the April 13, 1970 Deed of Cession, ceding one-third of the subject properties to Augusto's heirs, was valid and implemented. Corazon's assertion was not given credence. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding. Therefore, Augusto's heirs are entitled to their one-third pro-indiviso share. The Court affirmed the lower courts' conclusion that one-third of the subject properties belongs to the conjugal partnership of Simeon and Virginia, based on Article 160 of the Old Civil Code. The petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. Thus, Simeon and Virginia are co-owners of one-third of the subject properties. On the validity of the December 14, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale and the imprescriptibility of the action to nullify the sale: The Court ruled that Simeon's sale of Augusto's heirs' share was void because Simeon did not own that portion (nemo dat quod non habet). Regarding the conjugal share, the sale without Virginia's consent was merely voidable under Article 166 of the Old Civil Code. The RTC and CA found Virginia's signature to be a forgery. While the sale of Augusto's heirs' share is void and thus imprescriptible, the sale of the conjugal share without Virginia's consent is merely voidable under the Old Civil Code. Article 173 of the Old Civil Code provides a ten-year prescriptive period. Since the action was filed long after the sale, Virginia's recourse was limited to demanding the value of her share, not the recovery of the property itself. The CA erred in applying Article 1410 of the New Civil Code to Virginia's claim, as the Old Civil Code governs the transaction. Therefore, Virginia's right to recover the property itself had prescribed.
Main Doctrine
Under the Old Civil Code, the husband's alienation of conjugal real property without the wife's consent is merely voidable, not void. The wife's action to annul such sale prescribes within ten years from the transaction. However, the sale of property not owned by the seller is void, and the action to nullify it is imprescriptible.