13. alejandrino vs. ca

8/13/2019 13. Alejandrino vs. CA

1/11

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"UCIT&, '() LICERIO P. NI*UE, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

uestioned in this petition for revie! on certiorariis the Decision 1of the "ourt of #ppeals !hichruled that the trial court, in an action for $uietin% of title, did not act in e&cess of 'urisdiction !henit issued an order for the se%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 naed Marcelino, -re%orio, "iriaco, Mauricia, +aurencia and #bundio a /01s$uare1eter lot in Mabalin%, "ebu "it( identified as +ot No. 203 and covered b( Transfer"ertificate of Title No. /0453. 6pon the deise of the #le'andrino spouses, the propert( shouldhave been divided aon% their children !ith each child havin% a share of 74.58 s$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$uare eters of -re%orio;sshare, 74.58 s$uare eters of "iriaco;s share and /./2 s$uare eters of #bundio;s sharethereb( %ivin% her a total area of 02.throu%h +aurencia,> /./2 s$uare eters fro

#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 ofthe #le'andrino propert(. +

Ho!ever, +aurencia 9the alle%ed seller of ost of the //.42 s$uare eters of the propert(:later $uestioned the sale in an action for $uietin% of title and daa%es a%ainst privaterespondent Ni$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 courtrendered a decision on Noveber 2, /008 disposin% of the case as follo!s=

AH*R*BOR*, the "ourt hereb( renders 'ud%ent in favor of defendant anda%ainst plaintiff, disissin% the coplaint filed b( plaintiff a%ainst defendant, andon the "ounterclai and pra(er of defendant in its #ns!er, the "ourt hereb(


2/11

declares defendant as the o!ner in fee siple of the 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 /


3/11


4/11

5. The contention b( oppositor that the >se%re%ation ofdefendant;s share of / The < shares of +aurencia#le'andrino of / It ratiocinated thus=

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


5/11

. That the parties utuall( and reciprocall( assure each other and theirsuccessor of interest 9sic: that a ri%ht of !a( of t!o eters is %ranted to eachpart( 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( reveals that !hen +aurencia subse$uentl( sold her shares to hereinprivate respondent, per the Deed of #bsolute Sale dated October 0, /0349*&hs. ;@; and ;/8;:, the parties ust have referred to the /


6/11

In his coent on the petition, private respondent alle%es that althou%h petitioner !as not apart( liti%ant in "ivil "ase No. "*@12873, she is estopped fro $uestionin% the decision in thatcase and filin% the instant petition because she had >?no!led%e of the e&istence of said case>!here res judicatahad set in. He adds that the instant petition !as filed in violation of "ircularNo. 310/ on foru shoppin% >in that the Petitioner in the instant petition !hose counsel is alsothe counsel of plaintiff1appellant +aurencia #le'andrino in "#1-.R. "V No. . . ., had filed a civil

action E "ivil "ase No. "*@1//427 . . . for >R*D*MPTION F R*"OV*RG OB PROP*RTI*SAITH 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 %raveabuse of discretion in %rantin% his otion for se%re%ation of the /unethical conduct and practice> in appearin% ascounsel for petitioner in "ivil "ase No. "*@1//427 after he had appeared for coplainant+aurencia in "#1-.R. "V No. 77


7/11

In the instant case, +aurencia !as !ithin her hereditar( ri%hts in sellin% herpro indi!iso share in+ot No. 203. Ho!ever, because the propert( had not (et been partitioned in accordance !iththe Rules of "ourt, no particular portion of the propert( could be identified as (et and delineatedas the ob'ect of the sale. Thus, interpretin% #rticle shall be liited to the portion !hich a( be allotted to 9theseller: in the division upon the terination of the co1o!nership, the "ourt said=

. . . 9p:ursuant to this la!, a co1o!ner has the ri%ht to alienate hispro"indi!isoshare in the co1o!ned propert( even !ithout the consent of the other co1o!ners. Nevertheless, as a ere parto!ner, he cannot alienate the shares of the other co1o!ners. The prohibition is preised on theeleentar( rule that >no one can %ive !hat he does not have> 9#emo dat quod non haet:.Thus, !e held in @ailon1"asilao vs. "ourt of #ppeals 9-.R. No. 23/23, #pril /5, /033, /48S"R# 273, 2


8/11

the office of the re%ister of deeds, and should the( disa%ree, the( a( do so inan ordinar( action for partition. . . . .

The fact of the e&tra'udicial settleent or adinistration shall be published in ane!spaper of %eneral circulation in the anner provided in the ne&t succeedin%sectionC but no e&tra'udicial settleent shall be bindin% upon an( person !ho has

not participated therein or had no notice thereof.

Notariation of the deed of e&tra'udicial settleent has the effect of a?in% it a publicdocuent 14that can bind third parties. Ho!ever, this foral re$uireent appears to besuperseded b( the substantive provision of the "ivil "ode that states=

#rt. /83. *ver( act !hich is intended to put an end to indivision aon% co1heirsand le%atees or devisees is deeed to be a partition, althou%h it should purportto be a sale, an e&chan%e, a coproise, or an( other transaction.

@( this provision, it appears that !hen a co1o!ner sells his inchoate ri%ht in the co1o!nership,he e&presses his intention to >put an end to indivision aon% 9his: co1heirs.> Partition aon% co1o!ners a( thus be evidenced b( the overt act of a co1o!ner of renouncin% his ri%ht over thepropert( re%ardless of the for it ta?es. In effect, +aurencia e&pressed her intention to terinatethe co1o!ner b( sellin% her share to private respondent.

Moreover, the e&ecution of the deed of e&tra'udicial settleent of the estate reflected theintention of both +aurencia and petitioner Mauricia to ph(sicall( divide the propert(. @oth ofthe had ac$uired the shares of their brothers and therefore it !as onl( the t!o of the thatneeded to settle the estate. The fact that the docuent !as not notaried is no hindrance to itseffectivit( as re%ards the t!o of the. The partition of inherited propert( need not be ebodiedin a public docuent. In this re%ard, Tolentino subscribes to that opinion !hen he states asfollo!s=

. . . . Ae believe, ho!ever, that the public instruent is not essential to thevalidit( of the partition. This is not one of those contracts in !hich for is of theessence. The public instruent is necessar( onl( for the re%istration of thecontract, but not for its validit(. The validit( of an oral contract aon% the heirs,terinatin% the co1o!nership, has been reco%nied b( the Supree "ourt in adecision . . . 9!here: that tribunal said= >#n a%reeent aon% the heirs that acertain 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 afterthe ori%inal assent thereto, and no one of the a( !ithdra! or oppose itse&ecution !ithout the consent of all>.

In a still later case, the Supree "ourt held that >partition aon% heirs orrenunciation of an inheritance b( soe of the is not e&actl( a conve(ance forthe reason that it does not involve transfer of propert( fro one to the other, butrather a confiration or ratification of title or ri%ht to propert( b( the heirrenouncin% in favor of another heir acceptin% and receivin% the inheritance.>Hence, the court concluded, >it is copetent for the heirs of an estate to enterinto an oral a%reeent for distribution of the estate aon% theselves.> 15


9/11

The deed of e&tra'udicial settleent e&ecuted b( Mauricia and +aurencia evidence theirintention to partition the propert(. It delineates !hat portion of the propert( belon%s to eachother. That it !as not notaried is iaterial in vie! of Mauricia;s adission that she dide&ecute the deed of e&tra'udicial settleent. Neither is the fact that the trial court onl(entioned the e&istence of such docuent in its decision in "ivil "ase No. "*@1283. Thatdocuent !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 factthat the other heirs of the #le'andrino spouses, naed Marcelino, -re%orio, "iriaco and

#bundio did not participate in the e&tra'udicial settleent of estate affect its validit(. In heraended 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 shehad ac$uired fro her brothers to private respondent Ni$ue. The sale !as ade after thee&ecution of the deed of e&tra'udicial settleent of the estate that private respondent hiself!itnessed. The e&tra'udicial settleent of estate havin% constituted a partition of the propert(,+aurencia validl( transferred o!nership over the specific front portion of the propert( !ith an

area of /


10/11

!ho !ould have conflictin% clais under the facts of the case actuall( presented a united standa%ainst private respondent. If there is an( char%e that could be leveled a%ainst counsel, it is hislac? of thorou%hness in pursuin% the action for $uietin% of title. #s counsel for plaintiff therein, hecould have ipleaded petitioner Mauricia ?no!in% full( !ell her interest in the propert( involvedin order to avoid ultiplicit( of suits. Ho!ever, such an oission is not a sufficient %round foradinistrative sanction.

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

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


11/11

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

13. alejandrino vs. ca

Documents