Rol v. Racho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Loreto Urdas was the registered owner of Lot No. 1559. Upon his death without issue, his siblings Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Isabel became his intestate heirs. Isabel discovered that Lot No. 1559 was subdivided, and new titles were issued to petitioners Spouses Benny and Normita Rol, purportedly through deeds of sale dated September 1, 2006, and June 19, 2012, allegedly executed by Loreto. Isabel filed a complaint for reivindicacion and damages. Procedural History: Petitioners claimed they purchased one-half of Lot No. 1559 in 1993 through an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale (EJSS) executed by Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Allan (Fausto's son), wherein Lot No. 1559-A was adjudicated to Fausto, Chita, and Maria, who then sold it to petitioners, and Lot No. 1559-B was adjudicated to Allan. Petitioners later purchased Lot No. 1559-B from Allan and Leoncia in 2010. The RTC declared the EJSS, subsequent deeds of sale, and reconveyance void, ordering petitioners to reconvey a portion to Isabel, finding them purchasers in good faith. The CA affirmed with modification, declaring the sale by Fausto, Chita, and Maria valid only for their undivided interests in Lot No. 1559-A, voiding the transfer of Lot No. 1559-B, and ruling petitioners as buyers in bad faith. The Petition: Petitioners assail the CA's ruling that the conveyance of Lot No. 1559 to them is null and void, except for the portion in Lot No. 1559-A pertaining to Fausto, Chita, and Maria.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the conveyance of Lot No. 1559 to petitioners is null and void, except as to the portion in Lot No. 1559-A pertaining to Fausto, Chita, and Maria which is deemed valid; specifically, whether the deeds of sale were valid, and the effect of the extrajudicial settlement. Whether petitioners are innocent purchasers for value. Whether Isabel is guilty of laches.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modifications. The subdivision of Lot No. 1559 to Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B is declared null and void. Ownership over Lot No. 1559 is reconveyed back to the intestate estate of Loreto Urdas. The following are declared to have inchoate interests over the same: petitioners Benny and Normita Rol, to 3/8 of Lot No. 1559; respondent Isabel Urdas Racho, to 1/4 of Lot No. 1559; Fausto Urdas, Sr., to 1/8 of Lot No. 1559; Chita Urdas, to 1/8 of Lot No. 1559; and Maria Urdas Baclig, to 1/8 of Lot No. 1559.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the conveyance of Lot No. 1559: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the deeds of sale purportedly executed by Loreto were null and void for being forgeries, as Loreto died in 1963 and could not have executed documents in 2006 and 2012. Forged deeds of sale are void and convey no title. The EJSS dated September 13, 1993, was also declared null and void because it was executed without the knowledge and consent of Isabel, a co-heir. A deed of extrajudicial partition executed to the total exclusion of a legal heir is fraudulent, vicious, and a total nullity. Consequently, the subdivision of Lot No. 1559 and the attempted conveyance of definite portions to petitioners and Allan, stemming from the void EJSS, are also null and void. The Court reiterated the principle that a co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of a co-owned property without the consent of all co-owners; they can only sell their undivided interest. Since the EJSS was void, Fausto, Chita, and Maria could not sell a definite portion of Lot No. 1559 to petitioners. However, the Court recognized their intent to sell one-half of their inchoate interest, which petitioners validly acquired, resulting in petitioners having a 3/8 interest. The gratuitous conveyance of a definite portion to Allan was also void for non-compliance with donation requirements, making subsequent sales by Allan to petitioners void under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet. Thus, Lot No. 1559 reverts to Loreto's intestate estate, with specific inchoate interests recognized for the parties. On petitioners being innocent purchasers for value: The Court ruled that petitioners could not claim to be innocent purchasers for value. Jurisprudence defines an innocent purchaser for value as one who buys property without notice of another's right or interest and pays a full price. The CA correctly pointed out that petitioners should have been put on guard when they learned the property was registered in another person's name, with whom they were not dealing. Their failure to question the sellers' authority negated their claim of being innocent purchasers for value. On Isabel being guilty of laches: The Court found petitioners' contention that Isabel was guilty of laches unavailing. Laches is the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time. Petitioners' self-serving allegation that Isabel knew of the sale for over twenty years was not substantiated by evidence. Absent clear and convincing proof, Isabel's claim was not barred by laches.
Main Doctrine
A sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property without the consent of all co-owners is void; a co-owner can only sell their undivided interest. Forged deeds of sale are null and void and convey no title. An Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale executed without the knowledge and consent of a legal heir is a total nullity.