Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

052 Phil 879:



[G.R. No. 28532. March 4, 1929.]

JESUS ROA Y ROA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Francisco, Recto & Lualhati, for Appellants.

Araneta & Zaragoza, Isidro Vamenta and Francisco Capistrano, for Appellees.


1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; SALE BY GUARDIAN OF MINORS’ SHARE "PRO INDIVISO;" VALIDITY OF. — The share of certain minors in some property pro indiviso having been sold by their guardian with judicial approval, said minors did, nevertheless, upon coming of age, apply for the partition of said property, and the adjudication of their share to them. It cannot be maintained that the aforementioned sale was void by reason of the fact that in the petition presented by the guardian to obtain judicial authorization, it was stated that the area of the property was less than what it really was, inasmuch as such inaccuracy in the petition was cured when the sale was approved upon petition of the guardian.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF LAW. — There is no justification for the assertion that the judge who approved the sale has not read the document for which his approval was sought. The presumption is that the official duty was duly complied with, and there is no evidence to the contrary in this case.



Don Pio Roa and his wife, Doña Soledad Corrales died leaving ten children, named Amparo, Concepcion, Dolores, Trinidad, Esperanza, Alfredo, Jose, Vicente, Remedios and Soledad. They also left some property, among which were two parcels of land located in the barrio of Bugu, municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Misamis, described in the complaint.

Soledad Roa, one of the ten children, was married to Manuel Roa, whom she bore two sons, named Jesus Roa and Jose Roa. Soledad Roa died, and as the two children Jesus and Jose were minors, their own father, Manuel Roa was appointed guardian. On January 6, 1927 Jesus and Jose Roa, who are now of age, filed an action for the partition of the two parcels of land described in the complaint between themselves, as representing their deceased mother Soledad, and the defendants, who are the other heirs of the spouses Pio Roa and Soledad Corrales.

The evidence shows that after the death of the spouses Pio Roa and Soledad Corrales, and prior to the year 1915, their heirs applied for the registration of these two parcels. And inasmuch as some sixty oppositions were filed to such application, the heirs resolved to reduce the interest in this application to the smallest number possible, and to this end agreed to transfer all their shares to Esperanza.

With respect to Soledad’s share, she having already died, Esperanza proposed to purchase it of Manuel Roa, the guardian of the then minors Jesus and Jose Roa, who represented their mother, Soledad Roa. Manuel Roa accepted the proposition, and to effectuate it, petitioned the court for the proper authority, on December 4, 1918. In his petition, he stated that the minors had a parcel of about 15 hectares of land in the municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Misamis, and as he was then living in Cebu, it was very difficult for him to take care of this land, and he deemed it more useful and beneficial for the minors to sell it, investing the proceeds of the sale in some paying enterprise. On the 10th of said month, the court of Cebu empowered Manuel Roa, as guardian of the minors Jesus and Jose, to sell the land described by him in his petition, leaving it to his discretion to choose between a private sale and a public auction. On February 1, 1919, Manuel Roa presented to the court for approval the contract of sale which he had been empowered to make in favor of Esperanza Roa de Ongpin, making over to her one-tenth of the two parcels described in the document. Upon the same date the court approved that sale.

In passing upon this action for partition instituted by Jesus Roa and Jose Roa, the court granted the partition, and from this decision the defendants appealed.

Esperanza Roa de Ongpin having acquired the shares of her other coheirs in the two parcels the partition of which is here sought, she is the only interested party in this case as defendant.

In view of the facts we have related, the action for partition instituted by the plaintiffs depends entirely on whether the sale of their share, in representation of their mother Soledad, made by their guardian Manuel Roa to Esperanza Roa is valid or not. The court below held it void and therefore granted the partition.

If that sale is valid and effective, and has transmitted to Esperanza the plaintiffs’ share in the parcel of land in question, it goes without saying that the latter cannot maintain the present action. In our opinion, after an examination of the evidence, there is absolutely no ground to justify the lower court’s judgment holding that sale void. It was made by a guardian with the authorization and later approval of the court. It is true that in the petition presented by Manuel Roa to obtain judicial authorization, it was stated that the area of the land to be sold was 15 hectares and that, in reality, the land afterwards sold by the guardian contained about 50 hectares. But this inaccuracy in the petition respecting the area of the land was later corrected by the approval of the sale, upon petition of the guardian himself. Besides, the petition for the authorization to sell was presented and granted, not so much because of the extent of the land, but because the guardian could not take care of it, for he lived in another province, which reason was present when the sale was approved.

We find no sufficient reason to justify the opinion of the court below that in soliciting the courts approval of the sale, the guardian had not read the document and had not noted that the land sold contained approximately fifty hectares. When his sons Jesus and Jose took the first steps in this action, the former guardian Manuel Roa wrote a letter to Esperanza expressing his regret at the incident, and stating that he had warned his sons not to forget the sale he had made of their share in these lands. And to justify himself in her eyes, he also said in that letter that be the result of these steps his sons were taking what it may, it would not worry him because the sale made was approved by the court, and for this reason his conscience was clear.

There is still less justification for the court’s assertion that the judge who approved the sale had not read the document. The presumption is that the official duty was duly complied with, and there is no evidence to the contrary in this case.

Furthermore, neither do we find that the price paid in this sale was inadequate, considering that it was more or less the same price for which the other interested parties sold their shares to Esperanza.

For the foregoing, the sale of the plaintiffs’ share in the two parcels of land in question to Esperanza Roa de Ongpin is held valid and effective, and with the reversal of the judgment appealed from, it is held that the action for partition does not lie, without especial pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919


    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940


    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28


    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51


    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72


    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172