Case Digest (G.R. No. 8321)
Facts:
Alejandra Mina et al. v. Ruperta Pascual et al., G.R. No. 8321, October 14, 1913, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.Francisco and Andrés Fontanilla were brothers. On March 12, 1874, Francisco Fontanilla acquired by public auction a central lot in Laoag (frontage 120 meters, depth 15 meters). With Francisco’s consent, Andrés Fontanilla erected, about thirty years before the events here, a stone warehouse on part of that lot measuring 14 by 11 meters. Francisco later died; the plaintiffs, Alejandra Mina et al., were recognized as his heirs. Andrés also died; the defendants (the children of Ruperta Pascual) were recognized as successors to Andrés’s interest in the warehouse, with complex shares described in the record; the parties were effectively co-owners of the warehouse while the plaintiffs retained undisputed ownership of the portion of the lot underlying the building and of the remainder of the lot.
On May 6, 1909, Ruperta Pascual, as guardian of her minor children, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for authority to sell “the six-sevenths of the one-half of the warehouse, of 14 by 11 meters, together with its lot.” The plaintiffs opposed, insisting the lot belonged exclusively to them, and moved that the court decide ownership of the lot before ruling on the guardian’s petition. Instead, the trial court ordered a public sale of the warehouse “and of the lot on which it is built” at a specified minimum price. The warehouse with the lot was sold to one Cu Joco. Later the Court of First Instance resolved ownership in favor of the guardian’s side; the plaintiffs appealed; in the earlier appeal this Court reversed and held the plaintiffs to be owners of the lot (see Pascual v. Mina, 20 Phil. Rep. 202).
After that prior judgment became final, a writ of execution issued and the plaintiffs were initially placed in possession of the lot, but the trial court later annulled that possession on the ground that Cu Joco had not been a party to the suit in which the writ was served. The plaintiffs then brought the present action to have the sale of the lot declared null and void and, after amending their complaint, for recovery of possession against Cu Joco. The tri...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the sale, effected by the guardian of the minors, of the lot on which the warehouse stood valid or null and void?
- Could the purchaser at the judicial sale, Cu Joco, acquire ownership of the lot or any greater interest than that actually possessed by the minors’ guardian?
- Having declared the sale null, are the plaintiffs entitled to immediate delivery of possession of the lot, or are their remedies governed by the rules on accessions and inde...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)