Case Summary (G.R. No. 108228)
Procedural history
Petitioners filed an action for repartition, resurvey and reconveyance claiming ownership and long possession of a definite portion of Lot 162 that was included in TCT No. 14566 issued to Regalado. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the purported sale by a co‑owner of a physically segregated part of an undivided lot was void and that petitioners’ possession could not defeat an indefeasible Torrens title. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law.
Material facts established and uncontested
The record shows that Salome Bornales sold a described portion of her 4/16 undivided share to Soledad Daynolo in 1940; Soledad took immediate possession and built a house. Soledad and her husband mortgaged that portion to Jose Regalado, Sr. in 1947. In 1948 three co‑owners (including Salome) purported to sell 24,993 sq. m. to Regalado. In 1951 Soledad’s heirs redeemed the mortgage and sold the redeemed portion to the Del Campos. Thereafter Regalado reconstituted title and ultimately caused subdivision and registration of Lot 162‑C‑6 in his name; petitioners possessed the disputed portion continuously from 1951 and paid taxes thereon. Respondents did not effectively contest petitioners’ evidence at trial.
Legal issues presented
- Whether a co‑owner may validly sell a physically segregated portion of an undivided property by metes and bounds and whether such sale is necessarily void.
- Whether respondents (and Regalado) are estopped from denying petitioners’ title and right to reconveyance of the disputed portion given the mortgage, discharge and subsequent transactions.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to repartition, resurvey and reconveyance notwithstanding issuance of a Torrens title to Regalado.
Court’s analysis on sale by a co‑owner of a definite portion
The Court rejected the trial court’s categorical view that a co‑owner may not validly sell a physically segregated portion prior to partition. Relying on Article 493 and precedent (notably Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong), the Court applied the principle that contracts should be given binding force as far as legally possible (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest). A co‑owner has full ownership of his pro‑indiviso share and may alienate part or all of that share; where the object of the sale does not exceed the vendor’s aliquot share, the sale is legally recognizable. Thus, a vendee of a defined portion acquires the vendor’s rights in the form of an ideal share and effectively becomes a co‑owner to the extent of the consideration paid.
Effect of sequential transactions and the principle "nemo dat quod non habet"
Applying nemo dat quod non habet, the Court concluded that Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo could not have conveyed to Regalado more than their remaining collective shares after Salome’s prior sale to Soledad. Consequently, Regalado’s purported 1948 acquisition made him a co‑owner only to the extent of the shares actually conveyed by those vendors; he did not acquire Soledad’s already‑sold portion. When Soledad’s heirs redeemed the mortgage and sold to petitioners in 1951, petitioners became substituted co‑owners in Soledad’s rights. The Court emphasized that these proprietary rights exist independently of later separate registration by another party.
Possession, partial partition and the doctrine potior est conditio possidentis
The Court found that petitioners had uninterrupted possession of the disputed portion from 1951 onward (disturbance-free possession totaling decades). Citing Vda. de Cabrera and related authorities, it held that long undisturbed possession of a definite portion by transferees of an undivided share effectively amounts to a partial partition, placing the possessor in a superior position (potior est conditio possidentis). This possession, together with the chain of transfers, entitled petitioners to the definite portion they occupied.
Fraud, estoppel by deed, and the Torrens system
While acknowledging the general rule that possession alone cannot defeat an indefeasible Torrens title, the Court identified fraud and bad faith attending Regalado’s registration as decisive. The existence of the 1947 mortgage in favor of Regalado over the very portion in dispute, his acceptance of mortgage security, his execution of a discharge of mortgage in 1951, and his conduct during registration established notice and recognition of the prior claim and possession. These facts demonstrated that Regalado acted with knowledge of the competing proprietary interest and thus attendance of fraud in the registration proceedings. Con
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 108228)
Case Caption, Citation and Court
- G.R. No. 108228; decision rendered February 01, 2001; reported at 403 Phil. 706, Second Division.
- Petition for review on certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 15 in Civil Case No. V-5369.
- Decision authored by Justice Quisumbing; Justices Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., concurred.
Parties
- Petitioners: Spouses Manuel and Salvacion Del Campo.
- Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Jose Regalado, Sr. (including Josefina Buenvenida, Rosemarie and Antonio).
- Predecessors-in-interest and other relevant parties appearing in the transactional history: Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Quirico and Julita Bornales (original co-owners of Lot 162); Soledad Daynolo (vendee of portion of Salome’s share); Simplicio Distajo and other Distajo heirs; Jose Regalado, Sr.
Factual Background — Original Ownership and Allotments
- Lot 162 of the Cadastral Survey of Pontevedra, Capiz, was originally titled under OCT No. 18047 and had a total area of 27,179 square meters.
- The lot was divided in aliquot (ideal) shares among eight co-owners as follows:
- Salome Bornales: 4/16
- Consorcia Bornales: 4/16
- Alfredo Bornales: 2/16
- Maria Bornales: 2/16
- Jose Bornales: 1/16
- Quirico Bornales: 1/16
- Rosalia Bornales: 1/16
- Julita Bornales: 1/16
Factual Background — Transactions and Possession (Chronology)
- July 14, 1940: Salome sold part of her 4/16 share to Soledad Daynolo for P200.00 by a Deed of Absolute Sale. The portion sold was described by metes and bounds and accompanied by a sketch, described as: "63-1/2 meters from point '9' to '10', 35 meters from point '10' to point '11', 30 meters from point '11' to a certain point parallel to a line drawn from points '9' to '10'; and then from this 'Certain Point' to point '9'."
- Immediately after the 1940 sale, Soledad took physical possession of the described area and erected a house thereon.
- May 1, 1947: Soledad (and husband Simplicio Distajo) mortgaged the subject portion of Lot 162 to Jose Regalado, Sr. as security for a P400.00 debt (Deed of Mortgage).
- April 14, 1948: Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo purportedly sold 24,993 square meters of Lot 162 to Jose Regalado, Sr.
- May 4, 1951: Simplicio Distajo (as heir of Soledad, who had died) redeemed the mortgaged portion by paying the mortgage debt; Regalado executed a Deed of Discharge of Mortgage in favor of Soledad’s heirs: Simplicio Distajo, Rafael Distajo and Teresita Distajo-Regalado.
- May 4, 1951 (same date): The Distajo heirs sold the redeemed portion to petitioners Manuel and Salvacion Del Campo for P1,500.00; petitioners took possession, declared the land for taxation, and paid taxes thereafter.
- Post-1948: Jose Regalado, Sr. reconstituted OCT No. 18047 into OCT No. RO-4541 and later subdivided the property into smaller lots and caused registration of titles in his name.
- February 24, 1977: Lot No. 162-C-6 (area 11,732 square meters) was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14566 in the name of Jose Regalado, Sr.
- 1987: Petitioners filed a complaint for "repartition, resurvey and reconveyance" claiming ownership of 1,544 square meters inside Lot 162-C-6, alleging continuous occupation since 1951.
- April 1, 1987: Summons served on Regalado's widow Josefina Buenvenida and children Rosemarie and Antonio; Josefina and Rosemarie later declared in default; Antonio filed an answer but presented no evidence at trial.
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (Roxas City, Branch 15), Civil Case No. V-5369:
- Petitioners presented documentary evidence: 1940 Deed of Absolute Sale (Salome to Soledad), 1947 Deed of Mortgage, 1951 Deed of Discharge of Mortgage, and the 1951 Deed of Absolute Sale (Distajos to Del Campos).
- Antonio, though answering, failed to present evidence; case deemed submitted.
- November 20, 1990: Trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for repartition, resurvey and reconveyance.
- Trial court reasoning included: although Salome could alienate her pro-indiviso share, she could not validly sell an undivided part by metes and bounds prior to partition; mere possession and tax declaration by petitioners could not defeat the registered Torrens title of Regalado.
- Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed the trial court's dismissal; decision affirmed with no pronouncement as to costs.
- Supreme Court:
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law.
- Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and set aside the trial court judgment.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the sale by a co-owner (Salome) of a physical portion of an undivided property held in common to a vendee (Soledad) is valid and whether such sale could confer rights to petitioners through subsequent transfers.
- Whether respondents (heirs of Regalado) are estopped from denying petitioners' right and title over the disputed area in view of the mortgage and discharge documents and subsequent conduct.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to repartition, resurvey and reconveyance of the property based on the facts and evidence.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale for Dismissal
- Concluded the 1940 sale to Soledad was void insofar as it purported to sell a specific, physically segregated portion of an undivided property prior to partition among co-owners.
- Held that Salome could only alienate her pro-indiviso share but could not validly sell an undivided part by metes and bounds.
- Determined that petitioners' possession and tax declarations could not defeat the rights of the Regalados who held a Torrens title; hence dismissal of the complaint.
Supreme Court Legal Analysis — Co-ownership and Sale of a Definite Portion
- Recognized as erroneous the absolute rule that sale of a definite portion of co-owned land by metes and bounds is per se null; such sale is not necessarily void.
- Cited Article 493 of the Civil Code: each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate, assign or mortgage it; the effect of alienation or m