Heirs of Marquez v. Heirs of Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, as heirs of Epifania Hernandez, filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Herminio Marquez (Herminio) and later impleaded Alma Marie Marquez (Marquez), Herminio's heir. Respondents and Epifania had been occupying a 200-square meter portion of a larger property since 1955. In 1985, Herminio sold this portion to Epifania for P400.00 per square meter, with the agreement that if payment was not completed within the year, the sale would be treated as a lease. Herminio issued a provisional receipt for an initial payment of P2,000.00. Epifania made further installment payments through deposits in a joint account and Metrobank checks. Respondents claim Epifania fully paid the purchase price before her death in 1995. An Extrajudicial Settlement of Epifania's Heirs stated the proceeds of the joint account were full payment, which Herminio conformed to. Herminio later waived his rights to the larger property in favor of Marquez. Respondents received demand letters to vacate. Herminio refused to execute a deed of absolute sale. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, affirming the validity of the sale between Herminio and Epifania, and directing Marquez to cause the partition of the property and issue separate titles. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but deleted the directives for partition and issuance of separate titles, holding that partition is a special proceeding beyond the scope of an ordinary civil action. The CA considered the action as one for quieting of title, which is not barred by laches due to respondents' continuous possession. The Petition: Marquez filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's ruling that a contract of sale existed, that the action was for quieting of title, and that it was not barred by laches. Marquez contended that the sale was void for lack of her consent as a co-owner and that the payments made were rentals, not purchase price.
Issue(s)
Whether a valid contract of sale existed between Herminio Marquez and Epifania Hernandez. Whether the action filed by respondents is one for quieting of title. Whether the action filed by respondents is barred by laches or prescription. Whether the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property without the consent of all co-owners is void. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to order the partition of the property.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications, upholding the validity of the contract of sale between Herminio Marquez and Epifania Hernandez, directing the parties to cause the partition of the property, and ordering the Register of Deeds to issue separate titles. The Court also directed Marquez to pay attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence of a valid contract of sale: The Court found that a perfected contract of sale existed between Herminio and Epifania, evidenced by a provisional receipt for an initial payment, subsequent partial payments via checks, and an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Epifania's Heirs conformed to by Herminio, which stated that the proceeds of their joint savings account constituted full payment. The Court reiterated that ownership is transferred upon delivery, and Herminio's act of allowing Epifania and her heirs to occupy the property constituted delivery, thus consummating the sale. The Court emphasized that non-payment of the full purchase price does not ipso facto nullify the contract of sale. On the nature of the action as quieting of title: The Court held that the allegations in the amended complaint, coupled with the relief sought, indicated that the action was not solely for specific performance but also for quieting of title. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights executed by Herminio in favor of Marquez cast a cloud on respondents' equitable title, necessitating an action to remove such cloud. The Court clarified that an action to quiet title requires the plaintiff to have legal or equitable title and that the claim casting a cloud must be invalid or inoperative. On laches and prescription: The Court ruled that respondents were not guilty of laches or prescription because their continuous actual possession of the subject property rendered their right to bring an action for quieting of title imprescriptible. The Court noted that respondents only became aware of Marquez's adverse claim upon receiving demand letters in 1999 and 2000, and they filed their complaint shortly thereafter, indicating that laches had not set in. On the sale of a definite portion of co-owned property: The Court distinguished the present case from Cabrera v. Ysaac, holding that the sale of a definite portion of the co-owned property by Herminio to Epifania was valid. Unlike in Cabrera, evidence showed Marquez was aware of and tolerated the sale and occupation, and the co-ownership between Herminio and Marquez was established by a waiver of rights executed after the sale to Epifania. The Court applied the principle in Pamplona v. Moreto, stating that when a co-owner points out the boundaries of a portion sold without objection from other co-owners, it creates a factual partial partition, barring subsequent claims. On the RTC's jurisdiction to order partition: While acknowledging that partition is typically a special proceeding, the Court found that the RTC did not err in ordering the partition and issuance of separate titles. This was because a prior partial partition had already occurred when Herminio identified the specific portion sold to Epifania. The Court deemed it against the interest of justice to require separate proceedings, given that the essential facts were already before it and the RTC's order merely upheld the existing partial partition and the contract of sale.
Main Doctrine
A contract of sale, even if the purchase price has not been fully paid, is considered consummated upon the transfer of ownership, which occurs upon the delivery of the property. The sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property is valid if there is a tacit or express partial partition, or if the co-owner selling the portion has pointed out its boundaries without objection from other co-owners. An action to quiet title, when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property, is imprescriptible.