Title
Vda. de Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla
Case
G.R. No. 151334
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2013
Heirs of Leandro Figuracion dispute ownership of three parcels; court rules on co-ownership, partition, and validity of deeds, affirming Emilia's share in Lot 707.
dispute
ownership
partition
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151334)

Applicable Law and Procedural Framework

Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990). Relevant statutory and procedural authorities: Rules of Court (Rule 45 for certiorari, Rule 69 for partition by commissioners), the Old Civil Code (as governing succession and conjugal partnership for events before 1950), and pertinent Civil Code provisions cited in the record (e.g., Articles 493, 494, 834, 1456, and relevant succession articles). Relevant jurisprudential principles concerning the Torrens system, co-ownership, prescription, laches, and implied trusts were applied.

Factual Background

Leandro Figuracion died intestate in May 1958; his surviving spouse was Carolina. Their children included Emilia and several co-heirs. Leandro executed a Deed of Quitclaim on August 23, 1955 in favor of his six children concerning Lot Nos. 2299 and 705, though specific shares were not delineated. Lot No. 707 was originally owned by Eulalio Adviento and covered by OCT No. 15867. Agripina Adviento (daughter of Eulalio by his first wife Marcela) executed a Deed of Quitclaim on November 28, 1961 transferring the eastern half of Lot No. 707 to her niece Emilia. On December 11, 1962, Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication purporting to adjudicate the entire Lot No. 707 to herself and, on the same date, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot No. 707 in favor of Hilaria and Felipa; TCT No. 42244 was thereafter issued in the names of Hilaria and Felipa. Emilia resided in the United States from 1971 until 1981, built a house on the eastern half of Lot No. 707 after returning, and in 1994 filed a complaint for partition, annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages following threats to demolish her house.

Issues Presented

The issues simplified during pre-trial were: (1) whether Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 were the exclusive properties of Leandro (and therefore subject to partition among his heirs), and (2) whether Emilia was the owner of the eastern half of Lot No. 707. On further appeal and prior Supreme Court action in a related docket, the dispute before the Court pertained only to Lot No. 707.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 49, Urdaneta) dismissed Emilia’s complaint for partition, reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages, but declared null and void Carolina’s Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, the Deed of Sale, and TCT No. 42244 insofar as they affected Lot No. 707. The RTC held that partition of Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 was premature pending estate settlement of Leandro’s estate. As to Lot No. 707, the RTC concluded that Carolina transferred only her one-half share to Felipa and Hilaria and that any disposition of Agripina’s share was void; nevertheless, the court declined to finally adjudicate the eastern half to Emilia pending settlement of Eulalio’s estate.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC insofar as it refused to order partition of Lot No. 707. The CA held that Carolina’s sale of the entire lot in 1962 affected only her pro indiviso share and did not prejudice Agripina’s share that had been conveyed earlier to Emilia by Deed of Quitclaim. Consequently, the proper remedy was partition of Lot No. 707 to segregate the share belonging to the seller and give it to the buyer. The CA declared Lot No. 707 to be owned pro indiviso as follows: Emilia – 1/2; Felipa – 1/4; Hilaria – 1/4, and directed partition under Rule 69 if the parties could not agree.

Scope of Review and Procedural Bar on New Defenses

The petitioners attempted on appeal to challenge the nature, execution, and enforceability of Agripina’s Deed of Quitclaim—arguing it was an unaccepted donation and pointing to alleged defects (non-registration, absence in court archives, absence from National Archives, and purported lack of notarial commission of the notary). The Supreme Court declined to consider these contentions because they were not raised below at trial and thus contravened the well-settled rule (Rule 44, Sec. 15 of the Rules of Court) that issues not raised in the lower courts ordinarily cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court observed that the new theory would have required reception of additional evidence and a trier-of-fact determination, matters beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition.

Ownership, Co-ownership and Effect of Alienation by One Co-owner

The Court affirmed the CA’s determination that Lot No. 707 was co-owned by Agripina and Carolina as heirs of Eulalio. A co-owner cannot, by self-adjudication or by unilateral act, divest the share of another co-owner (nemo dat quod non habet). Accordingly, when Carolina sold the entire lot, she conveyed only her pro indiviso share; the buyers (Hilaria and Felipa) acquired only whatever portion corresponded to Carolina’s share and became co-owners with Emilia (as Agripina’s successor-in-interest) in respect of the remaining undivided portions. The issuance of a Torrens title in the buyers’ names did not conclusively extinguish the rights of the unnamed co-owner; the Torrens system records and confirms title but does not create a title in favor of one who has no rightful claim. Thus, Emilia’s prior acquisition of Agripina’s eastern half by Deed of Quitclaim supported her right to co-ownership and to compel partition.

Prescription, Laches, and Acts Repudiating Co-ownership

The petitioners argued that issuance of TCT No. 42244 and the lapse of time had resulted in acquisitive prescription or laches in their favor. The Court applied established criteria for repudiation and acquisitive prescription among co-owners: repudiation must be clear and known to other co-owners, evidenced conclusively, and accompanied by exclusive, notorious possession for the prescriptive period. The Court found those elements lacking. The acts of Hilaria and Felipa—such as registering the title and paying certain taxes—were insufficient to show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession hostile to Emilia’s rights, particularly as Hilaria paid taxes on behalf of Emilia for certain years and Emilia built on the eastern portion without opposition until 1994. The Court also emphasized that when registration occurs in trust-like circumstances whereby a co-owner is excluded from the title, an implied trust may arise by operation of law; a trustee-registrant cannot rely on Torrens registration to repudiate the trust. Laches was similarly inapplicable because Emilia filed suit promptly after an express repudiation (the attempted demolition) occurred in 1994.

Succession Analysis Under the Old Civil Code and Apportionment

Because the relevant deaths and marriages predated the New Civil Code, succession and conjugal property aspects were governed by the Old Civil Code. The Court analyzed the distribution of Lot No. 707 upon Eulalio’s death and subsequent death of Faustina, concluding that Agripina was entitled to 5/8 of Lot No. 707 and Carolina to 3/8, with Faustina’s usufructary rights merging upon her death. However, Agripina’s Deed of Quitclaim conveyed only the eastern one-half (1/2) of the lot to Emilia rather than Agripina’s entire 5/8 entitlement; the remainder of Agripina’s 5/8 not conveyed by the deed (i.e., 1/8) would devolve to Agripina’s nearest collateral (Carolina) under succession rules. Taking those inheritance proportions and the effect of the deeds into account, the Court recalculated the proper partition among the

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms