Herezo v. Maquiling
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ernesto Maquiling (Ernesto) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession of a Parcel of Land, specifically Lot No. 322-C, with an area of 200 square meters (subject property), located in Barangay Aganan, Pavia, Iloilo. This subject property is part of a larger lot, Lot No. 322, originally owned by sisters Teopista, Gerarda, and Marciana, all surnamed Herezo. Ernesto claimed ownership through a Deed of Sale dated November 17, 2004, from Benigno Herezo (Benigno), who in turn acquired the subject property from Teopista on December 28, 1991. The controversy arose when petitioners spouses Domiciano and Anselma Herezo (Spouses Herezo) prevented Ernesto from occupying the subject property. For their part, Spouses Herezo alleged that Teopista, as the only surviving owner, sold the entire Lot No. 322 to Domiciano on January 19, 2000, evidenced by a notarized Declaration of Heirship with Deed of Absolute Sale, after which Domiciano took possession, built improvements, and paid real estate taxes. Procedural History: After an unsuccessful barangay conciliation, Ernesto filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession on September 2, 2005. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 26, rendered a Decision on December 28, 2015, in favor of Ernesto, declaring him the rightful owner and possessor of the 200 square meter portion of Lot 322. The RTC ruled that the sale from Teopista to Benigno, being a public instrument, trumped the resale to Domiciano, and ordered Spouses Herezo to deliver possession, acknowledge the validity of the sales, and pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Spouses Herezo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated April 28, 2023, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, finding Benigno as the first possessor in good faith in the double sale and upholding Teopista's right to sell her undivided interest, which was eventually adjudicated to her. The CA denied Spouses Herezo's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 24, 2024. The Petition: Spouses Herezo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. They contended, citing Spouses Rol v. Racho, that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property requires the consent of all co-owners, thus arguing that Teopista could not have validly sold the subject property to Benigno, who then could not have transferred it to Ernesto. Furthermore, Spouses Herezo grounded their claim of possession on a Kasugtanan dated May 9, 1993, and averred that the CA erred in declaring that Domiciano had not yet paid his obligation as stipulated therein.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's finding that Ernesto has a better right to the subject property over Spouses Herezo. Whether the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property by one co-owner without the consent of others is void. Whether the issue of Domiciano's payment pursuant to the Kasugtanan is a factual issue beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2023, and the Resolution dated June 24, 2024, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 06436 are AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that Ernesto has a better right to the subject property over Spouses Herezo. The CA correctly found Benigno as the first possessor in good faith in the context of a double sale, which is a crucial factor in determining superior right. Furthermore, the CA upheld the validity of Teopista's right to sell part of her undivided interest in the co-owned Lot No. 322. This right was further solidified by the fact that the entirety of Lot No. 322 was eventually adjudicated upon Teopista, as she survived her co-owners who remained unmarried and without children, rendering the issue of her right to sell moot and academic. Therefore, the chain of ownership from Teopista to Benigno, and then to Ernesto, was deemed valid and superior. On Issue 2: The Court disagreed with Spouses Herezo's argument that the sale of the subject property by Teopista to Benigno was void due to the absence of consent from the other co-owners. The Court clarified the principle established in Spouses Rol v. Racho, explaining that while an extrajudicial partition excluding a co-heir is indeed void, co-owners are permitted to dispose of their pro-indiviso share in the co-owned property, provided the portion sold does not exceed their eventual share upon partition. In this case, the 200 square meter portion conveyed to Benigno did not exceed Teopista's ideal share in the 631 square meter Lot No. 322. Moreover, the Court, citing Heirs of Marquez v. Heirs of Hernandez which in turn cited Pamplona v. Moreto, emphasized that the acquiescence and tolerance of the other co-owners to Benigno's occupation and improvements on the subject property since April 1992 effectively created a factual partition, barring any subsequent claims against the vendee. Thus, the sale was deemed valid and effective. On Issue 3: The Court held that the issue of whether Domiciano paid the shares of his siblings pursuant to the Kasugtanan is a factual issue. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court's review is generally limited to questions of law, not questions of fact. The Court underscored that factual findings of the Regional Trial Court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals on appeal, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court found no merit in delving into this factual contention raised by Spouses Herezo, as it falls outside the scope of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Main Doctrine
The primary legal doctrine established and applied in this case is that a co-owner possesses the right to alienate their pro-indiviso share in a co-owned property, provided that the portion sold does not exceed the share that may be allotted to them upon a future partition. Even if a definite portion is conveyed, such a sale is valid if it falls within the vendor's ideal share and is met with the acquiescence or tolerance of the other co-owners, effectively creating a factual partition. The vendee, in such a transaction, steps into the shoes of the vendor, acquiring the same rights and a proportionate abstract share in the property held in common, thereby upholding the principle of disposition of undivided interests in co-ownership.