13. alejandrino vs. ca (2)

8/13/2019 13. Alejandrino vs. CA (2)

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 114151 September 17, 1998

MAURICIA ALEJANRINO, petitioner,vs.T!E !ONORA"LE COURT O# APPEALS, !ON. "ENIGNO G. GA$IOLA, RTC%9, CE"U CIT&, '()LICERIO P. NI*UE, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

uestioned in this petition for revie! on certiorariis the Decision 1of the "ourt of #ppeals !hich ruled that the

trial court, in an action for $uietin% of title, did not act in e&cess of 'urisdiction !hen it issued an order for these%re%ation of propert(, after the finalit( of its decision.

The facts sho! that the late spouses )acinto #le'andrino and *nrica +abunos left their si& children naedMarcelino, -re%orio, "iriaco, Mauricia, +aurencia and #bundio a /01s$uare1eter lot in Mabalin%, "ebu"it( identified as +ot No. 203 and covered b( Transfer "ertificate of Title No. /0453. 6pon the deise of the

#le'andrino spouses, the propert( should have been divided aon% their children !ith each child havin% ashare of 74.58 s$uare eters. Ho!ever, the estate of the #le'andrino spouses !as not settled in accordance!ith the procedure outlined in the Rules of "ourt.

Petitioner Mauricia 9one of the children: alle%edl( purchased /./2 s$uare eters of -re%orio;s share, 74.58s$uare eters of "iriaco;s share and /./2 s$uare eters of #bundio;s share thereb( %ivin% her a total area of

02.throu%h +aurencia,> /./2 s$uare etersfro #bundio also >throu%h +aurencia> and 74.58 s$uare eters fro Marcelino or a total area of +aurencia>and 74.58 s$uare eters fro Marcelino or a total area of //.42 s$uare eters of the #le'andrino propert(. +

Ho!ever, +aurencia 9the alle%ed seller of ost of the //.42 s$uare eters of the propert(: later $uestionedthe sale in an action for $uietin% of title and daa%es a%ainst private respondent Ni$ue. It !as doc?eted as"ivil "ase No. "*@12873 in the Re%ional Trial "ourt of "ebu "it(, @ranch 0 presided b( )ud%e @eni%no -.-aviola. In due course, the lo!er court rendered a decision on Noveber 2, /008 disposin% of the case asfollo!s=

AH*R*BOR*, the "ourt hereb( renders 'ud%ent in favor of defendant and a%ainst plaintiff,disissin% the coplaint filed b( plaintiff a%ainst defendant, and on the "ounterclai and pra(eof defendant in its #ns!er, the "ourt hereb( declares defendant as the o!ner in fee siple ofthe share of plaintiff +aurencia #le'andrino and the shares of Marcelino, -re%orio and #bundio,all surnaed #le'andrino, of the parcel of land ?no!n as +ot No. 203 and covered b( Transfer"ertificate of Title No. /0453 !hich < shares totals an area of /


2/9

. Pa( the defendant the aount of P/5,888.88 as liti%ation and necessar(e&pensesC the su of P/8,888.88 as reiburseent for attorne(;s feesC the suof P/8,888.88 as oral daa%es and P/8,888.88 as e&eplar( daa%esC

7. Plus costs.

SO ORD*R*D.

+aurencia appealed the decision to the "ourt of #ppeals under "#1-.R. "V No. 77


3/9

share no! belon%s to defendant ovant b( !a( of sale. The decision of this"ourt has lon% becoe final.

. The total area of the land is /0 s$. eters 9par. of coplaint:, thus, theshare of Mauricia #le'andrino is onl( 27 s$uare eters.

7. #s earl( as )une /8, /037, Mauricia #le'andrino and +aurencia #le'andrinohad entered into an >*&tra'udicial Settleent of *state> !hereb( the( a%reed todivide the land sub'ect of this case !ith +aurencia #le'andrino o!nin% /vacate the preises sub'ect of thecoplaint and surrender the propert( to defendant to the e&tent of the < sharesaforeentioned.> The < shares of +aurencia #le'andrino of / It ratiocinated thus=

. . . . In orderin% the se%re%ation of the /


4/9

actuall( sold b( +aurencia #le'andrino 9sister of herein petitioner Mauricia: to private respondentNi$ue. The respondent )ud%e did not err in rel(in% upon *&hibit ;/4;, the Deed of *&tra'udicialSettleent, dated )une /8, /037, entioned in pa%e 7 of the Decision. Pertinent portion of*&hibit ;4; reads=

NOA, TH*R*BOR*, the above1naed parties1heirs hereb( stipulates 9sic:, declare and a%reeas follo!s=

/. That the parties have a%reed to divide theparcel of land with Laurencia Alejandrino owning146 square meters in the frontageand Mauricia #le'andrino 27 s$uare eters in the bac?portionsC

. That the parties utuall( and reciprocall( assure each other and their successor of interest9sic: that a ri%ht of !a( of t!o eters is %ranted to each part( to the other peranentl(.9ephasis supplied, #nne& ;/;, "oent, p. 45, Rollo:.

dul( si%ned b( herein petitioner and !itnessed b( private respondent Ni$ue. It readil( revealsthat !hen +aurencia subse$uentl( sold her shares to herein private respondent, per the Deed of

#bsolute Sale dated October 0, /034 9*&hs. ;@; and ;/8;:, the parties ust have referred to the/


5/9

In his coent on the petition, private respondent alle%es that althou%h petitioner !as not a part( liti%ant in"ivil "ase No. "*@12873, she is estopped fro $uestionin% the decision in that case and filin% the instantpetition because she had >?no!led%e of the e&istence of said case> !here res judicatahad set in. He adds thatthe instant petition !as filed in violation of "ircular No. 310/ on foru shoppin% >in that the Petitioner in theinstant petition !hose counsel is also the counsel of plaintiff1appellant +aurencia #le'andrino in "#1-.R. "VNo. . . ., had filed a civil action E "ivil "ase No. "*@1//427 . . . for >R*D*MPTION F R*"OV*RG OBPROP*RTI*S AITH D#M#-*S>, !hich is presentl( pendin% before @ranch 2 of the Re%ional Trial "ourt of"ebu "it(.> He asserts that the lo!er court did not e&ceed its 'urisdiction andor coit %rave abuse ofdiscretion in %rantin% his otion for se%re%ation of the /unethical conduct and practice> in appearin% as counsel for petitioner in "ivil "ase No. "*@1//427after he had appeared for coplainant +aurencia in "#1-.R. "V No. 77


6/9

. . . since a co1o!ner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire propert( b( oneco1o!ner !ithout the consent of the other co1o!ners is not null and void. Ho!ever, onl( theri%hts of the co1o!ner1seller are transferred, thereb( a?in% the bu(er a co1o!ner of thepropert(.

The proper action in cases li?e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recover( ofpossession of the thin% o!ned in coon fro the third person !ho substituted the co1o!neror co1o!ners !ho alienated their shares, but the DIVISION of the coon propert( of the co1o!ners !ho possessed and adinistered it. +

The le%alit( of +aurencia;s alienation of portions of the estate of the #le'andrino spouses !as settled in "ivil"ase No. "*@12873. The decision in that case had becoe final and e&ecutor( !ith +aurencia;s !ithdra!al ofher appeal. Ahen private respondent filed a otion for the se%re%ation of the portions of the propert( that !eread'ud%ed in his favor, private respondent !as in effect callin% for the partition of the propert(. Ho!ever, underthe la!, partition of the estate of a decedent a( onl( be effected b( 9/: the heirs theselves e&tra'udiciall(,9: b( the court in an ordinar( action for partition, or in the course of adinistration proceedin%s, 97: b( thetestator hiself, and 9


7/9

their brothers and therefore it !as onl( the t!o of the that needed to settle the estate. The fact that thedocuent !as not notaried is no hindrance to its effectivit( as re%ards the t!o of the. The partition ofinherited propert( need not be ebodied in a public docuent. In this re%ard, Tolentino subscribes to thatopinion !hen he states as follo!s=

. . . . Ae believe, ho!ever, that the public instruent is not essential to the validit( of thepartition. This is not one of those contracts in !hich for is of the essence. The publicinstruent is necessar( onl( for the re%istration of the contract, but not for its validit(. Thevalidit( of an oral contract aon% the heirs, terinatin% the co1o!nership, has been reco%niedb( the Supree "ourt in a decision . . . 9!here: that tribunal said= >#n a%reeent aon% theheirs that a certain lot should be sold and its proceeds paid to one of the is a valid oralcontract, and the sae has the force of la! bet!een the parties fro and after the ori%inalassent thereto, and no one of the a( !ithdra! or oppose its e&ecution !ithout the consent ofall>.

In a still later case, the Supree "ourt held that >partition aon% heirs or renunciation of aninheritance b( soe of the is not e&actl( a conve(ance for the reason that it does not involvetransfer of propert( fro one to the other, but rather a confiration or ratification of title or ri%htto propert( b( the heir renouncin% in favor of another heir acceptin% and receivin% theinheritance.> Hence, the court concluded, >it is copetent for the heirs of an estate to enter intoan oral a%reeent for distribution of the estate aon% theselves.> 15

The deed of e&tra'udicial settleent e&ecuted b( Mauricia and +aurencia evidence their intention to partitionthe propert(. It delineates !hat portion of the propert( belon%s to each other. That it !as not notaried isiaterial in vie! of Mauricia;s adission that she did e&ecute the deed of e&tra'udicial settleent. Neither isthe fact that the trial court onl( entioned the e&istence of such docuent in its decision in "ivil "ase No."*@1283. That docuent !as forall( offered in evidence and the court is deeed to have dul(considered 1-it in decidin% the case. the case. The court has in its favor the presuption of re%ularit( of theperforance of its tas? that has not been rebutted b( petitioner Mauricia. Neither a( the fact that the otherheirs of the #le'andrino spouses, naed Marcelino, -re%orio, "iriaco and #bundio did not participate in thee&tra'udicial settleent of estate affect its validit(. In her aended coplaint in "ivil "ase No. "*@1//427,petitioner Mauricia herself aditted havin% ac$uired b( purchase the ri%hts over the shares of her brothers.

On the part of +aurencia, the court found that she had transitted her ri%hts over portions she had ac$uiredfro her brothers to private respondent Ni$ue. The sale !as ade after the e&ecution of the deed ofe&tra'udicial settleent of the estate that private respondent hiself !itnessed. The e&tra'udicial settleent ofestate havin% constituted a partition of the propert(, +aurencia validl( transferred o!nership over the specificfront portion of the propert( !ith an area of /


8/9

It appears oreover, that private respondent;s ar%uent on foru shoppin% is anchored on the fact thatcounsel for both plaintiffs in those t!o cases is one and the sae, thereb( ipl(in% that the sae counselerel( !anted to prevail in the second case after havin% failed to do so in the first. The records sho!,ho!ever, that +aurencia e&ecuted an affidavit 19consentin% to the appearance of her counsel in an( case thatpetitioner Mauricia i%ht file a%ainst private respondent. She affired in that affidavit that she could beincluded even as a defendant in an( case that petitioner Mauricia !ould file because she >full( a%ree9d:> !ith!hatever cause of action Mauricia !ould have a%ainst private respondent. Such a stateent can hardl(constitute a proper basis for a findin% of foru shoppin%, uch less evidence of isconduct on the part ofcounsel. #s noted earlier, the t!o cases have different causes of action and the t!o plaintiffs !ho !ould have

conflictin% clais under the facts of the case actuall( presented a united stand a%ainst private respondent. Ifthere is an( char%e that could be leveled a%ainst counsel, it is his lac? of thorou%hness in pursuin% the actionfor $uietin% of title. #s counsel for plaintiff therein, he could have ipleaded petitioner Mauricia ?no!in% full(!ell her interest in the propert( involved in order to avoid ultiplicit( of suits. Ho!ever, such an oission is nota sufficient %round for adinistrative sanction.

AH*R*BOR*, the instant petition for revie! on certiorariis hereb( D*NI*D for lac? of erit. "osts a%ainstpetitioner.

SO ORD*R*D.

#ar!asa% &.'.% (apunan and )urisima% ''.% concur.

#oot(ote/

/ Penned b( #ssociate )ustice Ma. #licia #ustria1Martine and concurred in b( #ssociate)ustices Santia%o M. apunan and #lfredo +. @enipa(o.

Rollo, pp. 5


9/9

/5 TO+*NTINO, supra, at p. 505 citing@elen v. @elen,

13. alejandrino vs. ca (2)

Documents