Case Summary (G.R. No. 198201)
Facts
Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died intestate in 1953 survived by two sons, Donato and Pascual. Pascual died later the same year, survived by his seven children (respondents). Until 1963 the estate remained unpartitioned and titles remained in Agatona’s name. Donato filed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship in 1963 extrajudicially adjudicating Lot No. 757 to himself; the Register of Deeds cancelled the original title and issued a TCT in his name. Lot No. 1091 had been forfeited for nonpayment of taxes in 1952 and sold to the Provincial Government; Donato executed a Deed of Sale transferring his interest in Lot 1091 to his daughter Juliana (28 May 1974), and Juliana redeemed the property from the Provincial Government (29 May 1974) for P2,959.09. Respondents filed suit in 1975 seeking partition and damages.
Procedural history
The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Lot 757 on petitioners’ affirmative defense of prescription (order dated 22 Apr 1976) — that order became final. Trial proceeded on Lot 1091; the trial court (20 May 1977) declared respondents entitled to one-half (1/2) pro indiviso of Lot 1091, held the sale by Donato valid only as to his undivided share, ruled Juliana’s redemption did not vest exclusive title but entitled her to reimbursement, ordered partition, awarded respondents accounting for fruits (P5,000/year from 1966 until partition), required respondents to reimburse Juliana P1,479.55 (half the redemption price) with legal interest, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision; the Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Legal issues presented
- Whether respondents’ rights to Lot 757 were destroyed by Donato’s extrajudicial affidavit and subsequent TCT by prescription (note: that order was final and is not before the Supreme Court here). 2. Whether the sale by co-owner Donato vested full ownership of Lot 1091 in Juliana. 3. Whether Juliana’s redemption of Lot 1091 from the Provincial Government vested exclusive ownership in her. 4. Whether the trial court correctly awarded respondents an accounting for fruits at P5,000/year from 1966.
Succession and co-ownership principles applied
The Court applied settled succession and co-ownership rules. Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, rights to succession pass at the decedent’s death. Article 962 (nearest degree excludes more distant) means that because Donato and Pascual were alive at Agatona’s death, their children had no direct right by representation at that time. Article 1078 provides that, before partition, the decedent’s estate is owned in common by the heirs — hence Donato and Pascual were co-owners of the estate until partition. When Pascual later died, his undivided share passed to his children, making them co-owners with Donato.
Effect of a sale by one co-owner
Relying on Article 493 of the Civil Code and controlling jurisprudence cited by the courts (e.g., Punsalan v. Boon Liat, Ramirez v. Bautista, Bailon-Casilao), the Court explained that a co-owner may alienate his undivided interest but such alienation affects only the share attributable to him upon partition. A sale by one co-owner of the whole property without the consent of the other co-owners is not null, but it transmits only the seller’s pro indiviso share; the purchaser becomes a co-owner to the extent of that transferable share. Applying that rule, Donato’s sale to Juliana transferred only Donato’s undivided portion and did not extinguish respondents’ one-half pro indiviso share; Juliana thus became co-owner of Donato’s share, not owner of the entire Lot 1091.
Effect of redemption by a co-owner
The Court addressed Juliana’s contention that her redemption of the forfeited property vested exclusive ownership in her. It applied the principles in Adille and pertinent Civil Code provisions on redemption and co-ownership (old Arts. 1514–1515 / present Arts. 1612–1613, and Art. 488 on contribution to preservation expenses). The Court held that a co-owner’s redemption of the whole property does not terminate the existing co-ownership or vest exclusive title in the redeeming co-owner. Redemption by one co-owner obliges the other co-owners to contribute to the expense; the redeeming co-owner acquires a right to reimbursement and holds a lien on the property until paid. Consequently, Juliana’s redemptio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198201)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision dated July 14, 1982 in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R (Alicio Paulmitan, et al. v. Donato Sagario Paulmitan, et al.), which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), Negros Occidental, 12th Judicial District, Branch IV, Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. 11770.
- Trial court rendered decisions on two parcels (Lot No. 757 and Lot No. 1091). The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Lot No. 757 by order dated April 22, 1976 on the basis of prescription (that order became final). The trial court, by decision dated May 20, 1977, ruled for respondents as to Lot No. 1091, ordering partition and monetary accounting and reimbursement; this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 14, 1982.
- Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, through Justice Romero, J., denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. Concurrence by Justices Gutierrez, Jr. (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Melo, JJ.
Parties and Relationships
- Decedent: Agatona Sagario Paulmitan (died circa 1952–1953; source contains both years and a footnote clarifying lack of precise dates but consensus that Agatona died before her son Pascual).
- Spouses and children: Agatona was married to Ciriaco Paulmitan (deceased). They had two legitimate sons: Pascual Paulmitan (died 1953, shortly after Agatona) and Donato Paulmitan (petitioner).
- Petitioners: Donato S. Paulmitan (son of Agatona), Juliana P. Fanesa (Donato’s daughter), and Rodolfo Fanesa (Juliana’s husband).
- Respondents: Children of Pascual Paulmitan, namely Alicio, Elena, Abelino, Adelina, Anita, Baking and Anito Paulmitan (collectively private respondents).
- Relationship summary: Donato and Pascual were co-heirs; after Pascual’s death his children (respondents) succeeded to his co-ownership interests and thus became co-owners with their uncle Donato. Juliana is a co-heir’s descendant and became a party by virtue of transactions with her father.
Properties Involved (Identifying Facts and Titles)
- Lot No. 757
- Area: 1,946 square meters.
- Originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-8376 in the name of Agatona Sagario Paulmitan.
- August 11, 1963: Donato executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship extrajudicially adjudicating Lot No. 757 to himself claiming to be the only surviving heir of Agatona.
- August 20, 1963: Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental cancelled OCT No. RO-8376 and issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 35979 in Donato’s name.
- Trial court dismissed complaint as to Lot No. 757 on prescription grounds (order dated April 22, 1976); that order became final and is not the subject of the Supreme Court petition.
- Lot No. 1091
- Area: 69,080 square meters.
- Covered by OCT No. RO-11653.
- Forfeiture history: Sometime in 1952 the lot was forfeited for non-payment of taxes and sold at public auction; the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental was recorded as the buyer and a Certificate of Sale was executed by the Provincial Treasurer in favor of the Provincial Board of Negros Occidental.
- May 28, 1974: Donato executed a Deed of Sale conveying the property to his daughter Juliana P. Fanesa (Exhibit F referenced in trial court decision).
- May 29, 1974: Juliana redeemed the property from the Provincial Government for P2,959.09 (redemption payment).
Claims, Defenses, and Relief Sought
- Respondents (Pascual’s children) filed on January 18, 1975 a Complaint in the Court of First Instance to partition the properties and for damages, asserting their inheritance rights as co-owners.
- Petitioners raised affirmative defenses:
- Prescription with respect to Lot No. 757: asserted that the complaint was filed more than eleven years after issuance of Donato’s transfer certificate (TCT No. 35979) following his extrajudicial adjudication.
- Juliana’s asserted title to Lot No. 1091 by deed of sale from Donato and by redemption from the Provincial Government; contended she obtained exclusive ownership.
- Trial court rulings:
- Lot No. 757: complaint dismissed on prescription (order April 22, 1976) — final.
- Lot No. 1091: trial court held for respondents, ruling that respondents were entitled to one-half undivided share; sale by Donato to Juliana only affected Donato’s share; redemption by Juliana did not give exclusive ownership but gave right to reimbursement for amount paid. Ordered partition, issuance of new titles showing one-half each, accounting for fruits and reimbursement, and payment of attorney’s fees and costs.
Trial Court Dispositive Relief (as rendered May 20, 1977)
- The trial court granted relief as follows (dispositive language quoted and summarized as contained in source):
- Validity of the May 28, 1974 deed of sale insofar as one-half undivided portion of Lot 1091 — vesting ownership of that half in defendant Juliana and her husband Rodolfo; remaining half belongs to plaintiffs (respondents), pro indiviso.
- Ordered Lot 1091 to be partitioned; parties to effect actual partition by instrument within sixty (60) days of finality; if no agreement, court may appoint commissioners of partition.
- Pending physical partition, Register of Deeds to cancel OCT No. RO-11653 and issue new certificate(s) in the names of plaintiffs and defendants one-half portion each, pro indiviso.
- Plaintiffs to pay Juliana P. Fanesa P1,479.55 with legal interest from May 28, 1974 until paid (reimbursement for redemption).
- Defendants Donato and Juliana to account and pay plaintiffs jointly and severally the value of produce representing plaintiffs’ share at P5,000.00 per year from 1966 until actual partition; to pay P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees and suit costs.
Court of Appeals Disposition
- The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R, affirmed the trial court decision dated May 20, 1977 regarding Lot No. 1091 and the related m