Title
Augusto vs. Dy
Case
G.R. No. 218731
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2019
A dispute over Lot No. 4277 involving conflicting claims of ownership, fraudulent settlements, and invalid sales, leading to a Supreme Court-ordered partition among rightful owners.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246942)

The Subject Property and Transaction History

• Sixto and Marcosa held Lot 4277 as conjugal property. Upon Marcosa’s death (1931), one-half persisted to Sixto, one-quarter to Roberta as sole child.
• 1965: Sixto sold his three-quarters undivided share (3,995.25 sq m) to Severino Silawan. Severino in turn sold half of that share (2,663.5 sq m) to Isnani Maut and Lily Silawan (May 7, 1965) and purportedly sold the remaining half to Mariano Silawan (September 15, 1965).
• 1966–1989: Further transfers from Isnani and Lily to Filomeno and Lourdes Igot; from Filomeno and Lourdes to Antonio Dy (2,363.5 sq m) and to Nicomedes Augusto (300 sq m).
• Mariano’s subsequent sales of his interest to various vendees including Nicolas Aying (1,332.5 sq m), later to Gomercindo Jimenez; attempted sales to Marcelino Paquibot and Rodulfo Augusto, then to Mario Dy.

Procedural History and Default

• Antonio Dy filed for nullity of deeds, title cancellation, recovery of shares (July 16, 2002). Mario Dy intervened.
• Petitioners failed to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference; the RTC declared them in default and allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte.
• RTC rendered decision (Nov. 9, 2012) voiding petitioners’ extrajudicial settlement, deeds of sale, partition deed, and cancelling their TCTs; ordered re-partition among Dy spouses, Jimenez, Augusto.
• CA (Nov. 20, 2014) affirmed in toto, holding Roberta’s unilateral extrajudicial settlement lacked basis and was fraudulent. Motion for reconsideration denied (June 2, 2015).

Compliance with Pre-Trial Rules

• Under 1997 Rules of Court, failure to appear at pre-trial by a defendant permits plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.
• Petitioners offered no valid excuse; mere loss of counsel’s calendar is insufficient.
• The Supreme Court upheld their default and the RTC’s reliance solely on respondents’ evidence.

Evidence Considered

• Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. RO-3456) and its annotations tracing successive dispositions.
• Deeds of absolute sale involving key transfers.
• No evidence from petitioners due to default status.

Property Regime and Co-Ownership

• Lot 4277 was conjugal property of Sixto and Marcosa. Upon Marcosa’s death, co-ownership arose between Sixto (three-quarters share) and Roberta (one-quarter as sole heir).
• A co-owner may only convey his undivided share; any sale beyond that is void as to the interest not owned (nemo dat quod non habet).

Validity of Transfers and Third-Party Rights

• Sale by Sixto to Severino valid to three-quarters undivided share (3,995.25 sq m).
• Severino’s sale to Isnani and Lily (2,663.5 sq m) valid within his acquired three-quarters share. His further sale to Mariano is limited to the remaining 1,331.75 sq m.
• Isnani and Lily’s 1966 sale to Filomeno and Lourdes valid for 2,663.5 sq m; their 1989 sales to Antonio (2,363.5 sq m) and to Nicomedes (300 sq m) valid.
• Sale by Mariano to Nicolas Aying (1,331.75 sq m) valid; Nicolas’s subsequent sale to Gomercindo valid.
• Mariano’s attempted sales to Marcelino and Rodulfo void, as no remaining share existed. Consequently, their derivative transfers to Marcelino and Mario Dy are void.

Extrajudicial Settlement by Roberta

• Roberta’s 2001 extrajudicial settlement claiming sole inheritance of the entire property is void as she was







...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.