Case Summary (G.R. No. 194897)
Factual Background
Cerilo and Soledad had five legitimate children: Antonio, Vicente, Elizabeth, Napoleon, and Jaime. Antonio died during the Japanese occupation and predeceased his parents. Cerilo died in 1962 and left a 1,420-square meter residential lot in what is now Brgy. San Marcos, Camaligan, Camarines Sur (the Sto. Domingo property). Vicente died in 1975 and left respondents as his survivors, including his wife Virginia and children Rizaardo, Potenciana, Berenice, Visferdo, and Corazon. Soledad died on April 11, 1984, leaving multiple properties, including: (a) four residential lots in Concepcion Pequena, Naga City (lots 1113-A to 1113-D) covered by OCT No. 100 in the name of Antero Sto. Tomas (the Concepcion Pequena property); (b) an 810-square meter lot in Marupit, Camaligan under Tax Declaration No. ARP No. 002-619 (the Marupit property); and (c) a 111-square meter lot at Barlin St., Sta. Cruz, Naga City under TCT No. 1400 (the Barlin property). Respondents alleged that the Concepcion Pequena property was inherited by Soledad from her parents but was merely registered in Antero’s name to facilitate transfer to Soledad.
Respondents claimed that Jaime and Napoleon excluded them from partition through alleged fraud. They asserted that Jaime and Napoleon made it appear that the four lots under OCT No. 100 were sold to them by Soledad in 1977, even though Soledad could not have signed the deed of sale because she was already blind at that time. Respondents further alleged that Jaime and Napoleon engaged in deceit to exclude respondents in partition involving the estates of Cerilo and Soledad.
In May 1996, respondents filed the complaint for partition and damages against Napoleon and Jaime before the RTC, Branch 23 of Naga City, docketed as Civil Case No. ’96-3554. Jaime and Napoleon denied the allegations and asserted ownership over the disputed properties. They claimed that, as part of earlier partitions among siblings, the Sto. Domingo, Marupit, and Barlin properties were allotted to them during various years. They maintained that the Concepcion Pequena property was sold to them by Soledad in 1977 and that the complaint was malicious due to the lengthy delay in contesting ownership.
During the pendency of the case, the RTC received notice that Jaime died on June 23, 2001, and the heirs of Jaime were substituted as petitioners. Napoleon later died on January 25, 2006, leaving no issue, with his nearest kin being the children of his brothers, Vicente and Jaime.
Trial Court Proceedings
In its February 27, 2007 RTC Decision, the RTC ruled in different ways as to each property. As to the Marupit property, it held that Jaime had adverse possession by virtue of an extra-judicial settlement executed on December 28, 1962 and that tax declaration ARP No. 2450 was issued in Jaime’s name on July 18, 1963. The RTC concluded that the delay of more than 32 years before respondents filed the complaint in 1996 was sufficient for acquisitive prescription, and it held that the complaint was also barred by laches.
As to the Barlin property, the RTC noted that an extra-judicial partition with sale was dated June 25, 1963 and recorded in the Registry of Deeds on July 6, 1964, leading to cancellation of TCT No. 1400 and issuance of new titles to Jaime and Napoleon. The RTC ruled that their open, adverse, and continuous possession for more than 31 years resulted in ownership by prescription, and it again emphasized that respondents’ inaction converted their claim into a stale demand.
With respect to the Sto. Domingo property, however, the RTC ruled that the elements for extraordinary prescription were not met. It reasoned that although Jaime and Napoleon submitted an extra-judicial settlement of estate dated November 15, 1966 executed after Cerilo’s death, the relevant tax declarations were transferred only in 1980 and 1984, so laches and prescription had not yet set in.
On the Concepcion Pequena property, the RTC found that a deed of sale dated May 5, 1977 showed that Antero sold the lot covered by OCT No. 100 for PHP 1,500.00 to Soledad, and shortly thereafter Soledad executed another sale on May 21, 1977 selling the same property to Jaime and Napoleon for the same amount. The RTC observed that both deeds were entered in the registry on June 25, 1979, with title issuance to Soledad and immediate cancellation on that same day, followed by issuance of titles to Jaime and Napoleon. Given the allegation that Soledad was already blind on the supposed date of execution, the RTC ruled that the sale in favor of Jaime and Napoleon was void. Yet the RTC also recognized that Jaime and Napoleon had already sold portions of the Concepcion Pequena property to third persons and sold portions of the Sto. Domingo property as well, leaving 537 square meters and 645 square meters, respectively, for partition.
Accordingly, because Jaime and Napoleon died while the case was pending, the RTC partitioned among the remaining heirs. For the Concepcion Pequena property, the RTC ordered that the property be divided between the heirs of Vicente and the heirs of Jaime Valiente, but it deducted the portions already sold by Jaime and Napoleon to third persons. It computed the plaintiffs’ remaining share and ordered reimbursement corresponding to portions already sold by the defendants, with damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC likewise did computations for the Sto. Domingo property, treating the remaining 645 square meters as subject to similar reimbursement and damages. The RTC awarded exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, plus appearance fees and incidental expenses.
Appellate Review in the CA
On appeal, petitioners argued that respondents failed to show co-ownership and insisted that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint for partition and damages. They contended that the Concepcion Pequena property was not inherited by Soledad because it had been sold by Antero to Soledad before Soledad died, and that the notarized deed of sale to Jaime and Napoleon was valid. Petitioners also argued that the Sto. Domingo property had been adjudicated to Jaime and Napoleon in a deed of extra-judicial settlement dated November 15, 1966 signed by all heirs including Vicente and Virginia, and that Jaime and Napoleon’s possession for more than ten years had ripened into ownership.
Respondents countered that the RTC properly awarded the remaining shares and properly granted exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s conclusion that the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties must be partitioned among heirs of Cerilo and Soledad. However, the CA modified the manner of partition by treating the situation as requiring division into three parts—Vicente, Jaime, and Napoleon—since Napoleon was still alive at the time the defendants made transfers to third persons. The CA fixed plaintiffs’ share as reduced in the Concepcion Pequena property and ordered delivery of plaintiffs’ share in the Sto. Domingo property. It affirmed in other respects.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.
Petitioners’ Issues and Respondents’ Defenses
The Supreme Court framed the core issue as whether the RTC and the CA were correct in declaring that the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties were co-owned by the surviving heirs of Cerilo and Soledad, and in ordering their partition between petitioners and respondents.
Petitioners maintained that respondents were not co-owners and that partition was improper because the Concepcion Pequena property had been sold by Soledad to Jaime and Napoleon during her lifetime, while the deed was notarized and thus valid. They also insisted that the Sto. Domingo property had already been adjudicated to Jaime and Napoleon in the extra-judicial settlement signed by Vicente and Virginia, and that their possession had ripened into ownership, either through extraordinary or, at least, ordinary prescription.
Respondents, on the other hand, invoked the limitations of Rule 45 and argued that the petition raised factual issues already passed upon by the RTC and CA, and that the Court should not re-evaluate evidence.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court granted the petition, holding that a Rule 45 petition covers questions of law only, and that factual findings of the CA are generally binding. Still, the Court recognized that its review was warranted under recognized exceptions, including that the CA’s conclusions were grounded in errors that required correction.
Nature of Partition and the Need to Prove Co-Ownership
The Court reiterated that the estate passes to heirs at the moment of death, and that Art. 1078 of the Civil Code places the estate in co-ownership among heirs prior to partition. It also explained that heirs may demand partition at any time and that a complaint for judicial partition extinguishes co-ownership by securing division so that each co-owner receives exclusive ownership corresponding to the share. It emphasized that the first stage in partition requires determining ownership, and thus the claimant must prove entitlement to a rightful interest as co-owner by preponderance of evidence.
Given that the parties no longer disputed the status of respondents as legitimate heirs/grandchildren of Cerilo and Soledad and that the RTC and CA rulings concerning the Marupit and Barlin properties were no longer contested, the Court limited its determination to whether respondents had a right to demand partition with respect to the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties and, if so, whether the portions allotted were correct.
Respondents Failed to Prove Co-Ownership Over the Sto. Domingo Property
On the Sto. Domingo property, the Court found a failure of evidentiary support for respondents’ claim to co-ownership. It identified that the RTC and CA dealt with respondents’ alleged lack of formal proof of the execution or authenticity of the extra-judicial sett
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 194897)
- The case involved a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the substituted heirs of Jaime S.T. Valiente against Virginia A. Valiente and other surviving siblings/heirs (respondents) arising from a Complaint for partition and damages.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision ordering partition of the disputed lots and awarding damages and attorney’s fees, subject to computation changes.
- The Supreme Court reversed the CA and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that respondents failed to prove their right to demand partition and that the long delay barred equitable relief.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners were the substituted heirs of Jaime, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Cyril A. Valiente, after Jaime’s death during trial.
- Respondents were Virginia A. Valiente, Rizaardo A. Valiente, Potenciana A. Valiente, Berenice A. Valiente, Visferdo A. Valiente, and Corazon A. Valiente, who were the wife and children of deceased Vicente.
- The respondents filed their Complaint for partition and damages on May 23, 1996 before the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City, as Civil Case No. ’96-3554.
- The RTC rendered judgment on February 27, 2007, finding certain properties acquired by acquisitive prescription in favor of Jaime and Napoleon, while ordering partition for others.
- The CA on November 26, 2009 affirmed the RTC’s partition ruling but modified the partition computations by treating Napoleon as alive at the time of transfers to third persons.
- The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 12, 2010.
- Petitioners then filed the present petition under Rule 45, insisting that respondents were not co-owners and that the complaint should have been dismissed.
Key Factual Allegations
- Cerilo and Soledad Sto. Tomas Valiente had five legitimate children: Antonio, Vicente, Elizabeth, Napoleon, and Jaime.
- Antonio died during the Japanese occupation and predeceased his parents; Vicente died in 1975, leaving Virginia and children including respondents.
- Soledad died in 1984 and left multiple real properties, including:
- the Concepcion Pequena property (four residential lots, lots 1113-A to 1113-D, totaling 2,272 sq.m., covered by OCT No. 100 in Antero Sto. Tomas’s name);
- the Marupit property (an 810 sq.m. lot);
- and the Barlin property (a 111 sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 1400).
- Respondents alleged that Jaime and Napoleon fraudulently excluded them from partition by making it appear that Soledad sold the Concepcion Pequena property to them in 1977, while Soledad was allegedly already blind.
- Respondents also alleged that Jaime and Napoleon used fraud and misrepresentation to exclude respondents in the partition of properties belonging to the estates of Cerilo and Soledad.
- Petitioners asserted that the disputed properties were already partitioned among heirs via extrajudicial settlements and that later transfers showed ownership in Jaime and Napoleon.
- During trial, Jaime died on June 23, 2001, prompting substitution of his heirs and appointment of Cyril A. Valiente as attorney-in-fact.
- Napoleon died on January 25, 2006, and the case continued with recomputation and partition adjustments on appeal.
Trial Court Rulings
- The RTC held that the Marupit property had been adjudicated to Jaime through a deed of extra-judicial settlement executed on December 28, 1962, and that tax declarations in Jaime’s name showed adverse possession commencing in 1963.
- The RTC ruled that more than 32 years elapsed before respondents filed suit in 1996, thus vesting ownership through acquisitive prescription and barring respondents’ claim by laches.
- For the Barlin property, the RTC noted an extra-judicial partition with sale dated June 25, 1963, recordation in July 6, 1964, and the issuance of new titles to Jaime and Napoleon, concluding that over 31 years of open, adverse, and continuous possession resulted in ownership by prescription.
- As to the Sto. Domingo property, the RTC found that the required possession for extraordinary prescription was not met, reasoning that tax declarations were transferred only in 1980 and 1984, and thus laches and prescription had not yet set in.
- Regarding the Concepcion Pequena property, the RTC considered the sales between Antero and Soledad dated May 5, 1977 and the subsequent deed of sale dated May 21, 1977 where Soledad allegedly sold to Jaime and Napoleon for the same amount.
- The RTC ruled that the sale by Soledad in favor of Jaime and Napoleon was void, based on allegations that Soledad was already blind at the time of execution.
- Despite holding the Concepcion Pequena sale void due to forgery/invalidity concerns, the RTC partitioned portions of the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties by accounting for areas sold to third persons by Jaime and Napoleon.
- The RTC ordered:
- partition/award of shares based on remaining unsold areas, and
- reimbursement to respondents corresponding to portions already sold,
- plus exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, appearance fees, and incidental expenses, justified by the RTC’s finding of defendants’ bad faith.
Appellate Court Adjustments
- On appeal, petitioners challenged partition by arguing that respondents were not co-owners and that the deed of sale to Jaime and Napoleon was valid.
- Petitioners also argued that the Sto. Domingo property had been adjudicated to Jaime and Napoleon in the extra-judicial settlement dated November 15, 1966, signed by Vicente and Virginia, thus triggering prescription based on long possession.
- The CA agreed that the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties must be partitioned among the heirs of Cerilo and Soledad, but modified the division method.
- The CA held that because Napoleon was still alive at the time of conveyance to third persons, the property should be divided into three parts among Vicente, Jaime, and Napoleon.
- The CA revised computations:
- It reduced respondents’ share in Concepcion Pequena to 757.1 sq.m., leaving 537 sq.m. adjudged to belong to respondents’ adversaries (and requiring reimbursement of PHP 56,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of sale until fully paid).
- It fixed respondents’ share in Sto. Domingo at 599 sq.m., ordering delivery.
- The CA affirmed the award of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and incidental expenses, finding supporting evidence.
Issue on Appeal
- The principal issue was whether the RTC and CA were correct in declaring that the Concepcion Pequena and Sto. Domingo properties were co-owned by the surviving heirs of Cerilo and Soledad, and in ordering partition between petitioners and respondents.
- The Supreme Court also necessarily considered whether respondents pr