G.R. No. 61584 - Paulmitan vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 61584)

Factual Background

When Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died in 1953 she left two parcels in Negros Occidental: Lot No. 757 (1,946 sq. m.) covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-8376, and Lot No. 1091 (69,080 sq. m.) covered by OCT No. RO-11653. Agatona was survived by two sons, Pascual and Donato. Pascual died later in 1953, leaving seven children who are the private respondents, while Donato survived and is a petitioner. The estate remained unpartitioned for years after Agatona’s death.

Transactions Affecting Lot No. 757

On August 11, 1963 petitioner Donato S. Paulmitan executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship purporting to extrajudicially adjudicate Lot No. 757 to himself as sole heir. The affidavit was registered, and on August 20, 1963 OCT No. RO-8376 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 35979 issued in Donato’s name. Petitioners later pleaded prescription as an affirmative defense with respect to Lot No. 757; the trial court dismissed the complaint as to that lot by order dated April 22, 1976, an order that became final.

Transactions Affecting Lot No. 1091

Lot No. 1091 was forfeited for nonpayment of taxes and was sold at public auction to the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental in 1952, with a Certificate of Sale to the Provincial Board. On May 28, 1974, Donato executed a Deed of Sale conveying Lot No. 1091 to his daughter Juliana P. Fanesa. On May 29, 1974 Juliana redeemed the property from the provincial government for P2,959.09.

Trial Court Proceedings

The private respondents, children of Pascual, sued petitioners on January 18, 1975 for partition and damages. The trial court, after dismissing the complaint as to Lot No. 757 on prescription grounds, proceeded on Lot No. 1091 and rendered judgment on May 20, 1977 in favor of respondents. The court held that respondents were entitled to one-half undivided interest in Lot No. 1091, that the sale by Donato to Juliana did not prejudice respondents’ rights, and that Juliana’s redemption did not vest exclusive ownership in her but entitled her to reimbursement. The court ordered partition, directed issuance of new titles pro rata, awarded Juliana reimbursement of P1,479.55 with interest, ordered accounting and payment of fruits at P5,000 per year from 1966 until partition, and assessed attorney’s fees and costs.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R, affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court adopted the trial court’s findings that respondents acquired Pascual’s undivided share by succession, that Donato’s sale conveyed only his pro-indiviso share, and that Juliana’s redemption gave her only a right to reimbursement and a lien on the property rather than exclusive title to the whole parcel. Petitioners thereafter sought review by certiorari.

Issues Presented

The principal issues were whether petitioners acquired exclusive ownership of the whole Lot No. 1091 by (a) the deed of sale from Donato to Juliana, and (b) Juliana’s redemption from the Provincial Government; and whether the trial court erred in fixing fruits at P5,000 per year from 1966 until partition rather than accepting petitioners’ contention that the land was leased at P2,000 per year.

Succession and Co-ownership Analysis

The Court examined succession rules and co-ownership. Because Pascual did not predecease Agatona, the right of representation did not operate; under Article 777, Civil Code, the rights to succession vested at decedent’s death and both sons, Donato and Pascual, acquired ownership of their respective shares at Agatona’s death in 1953. With no partition, the estate was owned in common by the two heirs under Article 1078, Civil Code. When Pascual later died intestate, his ownership passed to his children, making them co-owners with Donato of the undivided estate.

Effect of Sale by a Co-owner

The Court applied Article 493, Civil Code and controlling precedents, including Bailon‑Casilao v. Court of Appeals, and reiterated that a co-owner may alienate only his undivided share and that a sale of the whole property by one co-owner without consent affects only the seller’s proportionate share. Consequently, Donato’s sale to Juliana transferred only Donato’s pro-indiviso share and made Juliana a co-owner with respondents rather than the exclusive owner of the entire Lot No. 1091.

Effect of Redemption by a Co-owner

The Court considered the effect of Juliana’s redemption from the provincial purchaser and cited Adille v. Court of Appeals and related codal provisions. It held that redemption by a co-owner of the property in its entirety does not terminate co-ownership or vest exclusive ownership in the redeemer. A redeeming co-owner may compel contribution for preservation expenses under Article 488, Civil Code, and is

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 61584)

Parties and Procedural Posture

DONATO S. PAULMITAN, JULIANA P. FANESA and RODOLFO FANESA were the petitioners in the Supreme Court proceeding seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
COURT OF APPEALS was the respondent in the petition for review on certiorari as it had affirmed the trial court's decision.
The private respondents were the seven children of Pascual Paulmitan, namely Alicio, Elena, Abelino, Anita, Baking, Adelina and Anito Paulmitan, who instituted the partition action in the Court of First Instance.
The action below was Civil Case No. 11770 filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, 12th Judicial District, Branch IV, Bacolod City, and was decided in favor of the private respondents as to Lot No. 1091.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R, affirmed the trial court's decision and the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Key Factual Allegations

Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died in 1953 owning two parcels, Lot No. 757 (1,946 sq.m., OCT No. RO-8376) and Lot No. 1091 (69,080 sq.m., OCT No. RO-11653).
Agatona left two legitimate sons, Pascual Paulmitan and Donato Paulmitan, and Pascual died later in 1953 leaving seven children who are the private respondents.
On August 11, 1963, Donato executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship extrajudicially adjudicating Lot No. 757 in his favor, which resulted in cancellation of OCT No. RO-8376 and issuance of TCT No. 35979 in his name on August 20, 1963.
Lot No. 1091 was forfeited for non-payment of taxes in 1952 and sold at public auction to the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental, which held a Certificate of Sale.
On May 28, 1974, Donato executed a Deed of Sale conveying Lot No. 1091 to his daughter Juliana P. Fanesa, and on May 29, 1974 Juliana redeemed the property from the Provincial Government for PHP 2,959.09.
The private respondents filed a complaint for partition and damages on January 18, 1975 claiming their hereditary share in Lot No. 1091.

Procedural History

The trial court issued an order dated April 22, 1976 dismissing the complaint as to Lot No. 757 on prescription grounds, and that order became final.
The trial court rendered a decision dated May 20, 1977 holding that the private respondents were entitled to one-half undivided interest in Lot No. 1091 and ordering partition and related monetary adjustments in their favor.
The trial court ordered cancellation of OCT No. RO-11653 and issuance of new titles in the names of the parties in one-half undivided shares, directed accounting and awarded monetary reliefs including reimbursement and annual fruits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a judgment dated July 14, 1982 in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issues Presented

Whether the sale by Donato of Lot No. 1091 to Juliana vested in the purchaser exclusive ownership of the entire lot.
Whether Juliana's redemption of Lot No. 1091 from the Provincial Government vested in her exclusive ownership of the entire lot.
Whether the award of PHP 5,000.00 per year from 1966 to partition as the private respondents' share in the fruits was erroneous as a matter of law.
Whether the dismissal of the complaint as to Lot No. 757 on prescription was properly final and binding.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners contended that Donato's registered extrajudicial adjudication and issuance of TCT vested title by registration and barred the partition claim by prescription as to Lot No. 757.
Petitioners further contended that the deed of sale and the subsequent redemption by Juliana vested exclusive ownership and thus defeated respondents' claim to one-half of Lot No. 1091.
Respondents contended that as heirs of Pascual they succeeded to his hereditary share upon his death and thus remained co-owners with Donato, that the sale by Donato transferred only his undivided share, and tha