SECOND DIVISION
BENJAMIN CORONEL
AND EMILIA MEKING
VDA. DE CORONEL,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
121069
February 7, 2003 -versus-
FLORENTINO
CONSTANTINO,
AUREA
BUENSUCESO,AND THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS,
Respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This refers to the
petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals,
dated March 27, 1995, in CA-G.R. CV No. 44023[1]
which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan,
Branch
8, dated April 12, 1993 in Civil Case No. 105-M-91,[2]and
the resolution of said appellate court, dated July 4, 1995, denying the
motion for reconsideration of its decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual background
of the case is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subject property
consists of two parcels of land situated in Sta. Monica, Hagonoy,
Bulacan,
designated as Cadastral Lots Nos. 5737 and 5738. The property is
originally
owned by Honoria Aguinaldo. One-half (1/2) of it was inherited by
Emilia
Meking Vda. de Coronel together with her sons Benjamin, Catalino and
Ceferino,
all surnamed Coronel. The other half was inherited by Florentino
Constantino
and Aurea Buensuceso.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 20, 1991,
Constantino and Buensuceso filed a complaint for declaration of
ownership,
quieting of title and damages with prayer for writ of mandatory and/or
prohibitory injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan (Branch
8) against Benjamin, Emilia and John Does, docketed as Civil Case No.
105-M-91.
Plaintiffs allege that: on April 23, 1981, Jess C. Santos and Priscilla
Bernardo purchased the property belonging to Emilia and her sons by
virtue
of a deed of sale signed by Emilia; on June 21, 1990, Santos and
Bernardo
in turn sold the same to Constantino and Buensuceso by virtue of a
compromise
agreement in Civil Case No. 8289-M; they are the owners of the subject
property and defendants have illegally started to introduce
construction
on the premises in question; and pray that defendants respect,
acknowledge
and confirm the right of ownership of the plaintiffs to the share,
interest
and participation of the one-third (1/3) portion of the above described
property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After defendants filed
their Answer, pre-trial ensued wherein the parties stipulated that: (1)
the property in question was previously owned by Honoria Aguinaldo,
one-half
(1/2) of which was inherited by the defendants while the other half was
inherited by the plaintiffs from the same predecessor; (2) it was
admitted
by counsel for the defendants that there was a sale between Jess Santos
and the plaintiffs covering the subject property; and (3) that there
was
no evidence presented in Civil Case No. 8289-M by either of the parties
and that the decision therein was based on a compromise agreement.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial on the merits,
the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the
decretal
portion of which reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby made in favor of plaintiffs, the Court hereby declares
plaintiffs
as the sole and absolute owners of the properties covered by Tax
Declarations
Nos. 28960 and 28961 of Hagonoy, Bulacan, and orders the defendants to
respect, acknowledge and confirm the right of ownership of plaintiffs
over
the whole property described above, to remove whatever improvements
introduced
by them thereon, and to pay the plaintiffs, solidarily and severally
P10,000.00
as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On appeal brought by
defendants, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower
court
and denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
Hence, herein petition
brought by defendants, raising the following issues:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT
OF SALE EXECUTED BY A PARENT-CO-OWNER, IN HER OWN BEHALF, IS
UNENFORCEABLE
WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARES OF HER CO-HEIRS-CHILDREN;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE MINOR
CHILDREN CAN RATIFY UNAUTHORIZED ACTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CO-HEIRS
ARE INDISPENSABLE DEFENDANTS IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP
AND QUIETING OF TITLE;
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEED
OF SALE WHICH IS A PRIVATE DOCUMENT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED WHEN
THE
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS ADMITTED ONLY ITS EXISTENCE BUT
NOT ITS CONTENTS.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The third issue was
raised by the petitioners for the first time with the Court of Appeals.
They claim that the complaint should have been dismissed because
private
respondents failed to implead the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino who
died
in 1983 and 1990,[6]
respectively, in their complaint as indispensable parties. We do not
agree.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A careful reading of
the "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" which is a private document, not
having been duly notarized, shows that only the share of Emilia in the
subject property was sold because Benjamin did not sign the document
and
the shares of Ceferino and Catalino were not subject of the sale.
Pertinent
portions of the document read as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
KASULATAN NG BILIHANG
PATULUYANchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PANIWALAAN NG LAHAT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Kaming mag-iinang Emilia
Micking Vda. Coronel at Benjamin M. Coronel kapwa may sapat na gulang,
Pilipino, naninirahan sa nayon ng Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, sa
kasulatang
ito ay malaya naming:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
P I N A T U T U N A
Y A Nchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Na, kami ay tunay na
nagmamay-ari ng isang lagay na lupang Bakuran na minana namin sa aming
Lolong yumaong Mauricio Coronel, na ang ayos, takal at kalagayan ay ang
sumusunod:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE NO. 5737chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bakuran sa nayon ng
Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan na may sukat na 416 Square Meters ang
kabuuan
208 Square Meters Lot A-1 ang kalahati nito na kanilang ipinagbibili.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Na, dahil at alang-alang
sa halagang DALAWAMPU’T LIMANG LIBONG PISO (P25,000) salaping Pilipino,
na aming tinanggap sa kasiyahang loob namin, buhat sa mag-asawang Jess
C. Santos at Prescy Bernardo, kapwa may sapat na gulang, Pilipino at
naninirahan
sa nayon ng Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, sa bisa ng kasulatang ito,
ay
aming isinasalin, inililipat at ipinagbibili ng bilihang patuluyan ang
lahat ng aming dapat na makaparte sa lupang Bakuran Nakasaad sa dakong
unahan nito, sa nabanggit na Jess C. Santos at Prescy Bernardo o sa
kanilang
tagapagmana at kahalili.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Na, ako namang Jess
C. Santos, bilang nakabili, ay kusang loob ding nagsasaysay sa
kasulatang
ito na ako ay kasangayon sa lahat ng dito’y nakatala, bagaman ang
lupang
naturan ay hindi pa nahahati sa dapat magmana sa yumaong Honoria
Aguinaldo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Na, sa aming kagipitan
inari naming ipagbili ang aming karapatan o kaparte na minana sa
yumaong
Guillermo Coronel ay napagkasunduan namin mag-iina na ipagbili ang
bakurang
ito na siyang makalulunas sa aming pangangailangan x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Na, kaming nagbili ang
magtatanggol ng katibayan sa pagmamayari sa lupang naturan, sakaling
may
manghihimasok.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SA KATUNAYAN NITO, kami
ay lumagda sa kasulatang ito sa bayan ng Malabon, Rizal ngayong ika-23
ng Abril, 1981.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Signed) (Signed)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
EMILIA MICKING Vda.
CORONEL JESS C. SANTOSchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nagbili Nakabilichanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Unsigned) (Signed)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
BENJAMIN M. CORONEL
PRISCILLA BERNARDOchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nagbili Nakabili[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, it is clear, as
already stated, that petitioner Benjamin did not sign the document and
that the shares of Catalino and Ceferino in the subject property were
not
sold by them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since the shares of
Catalino and Ceferino were not sold, plaintiffs Constantino and
Buensuceso
have no cause of action against them or against any of their heirs.
Under
Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, indispensable
parties
are parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had
of an action. In the present case, the heirs of Catalino and Ceferino
are
not indispensable parties because a complete determination of the
rights
of herein petitioners and respondents can be had even if the said heirs
are not impleaded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, it is undisputed
that petitioners never raised before the trial court the issue of the
private
respondents’ failure to implead said heirs in their complaint. Instead,
petitioners actively participated in the proceedings in the lower court
and raised only the said issue on appeal with the Court of Appeals. It
is a settled rule that jurisdictional questions may be raised at any
time
unless an exception arises where estoppel has supervened.[8]
In the present case, petitioners’ participation in all stages of the
case
during trial, without raising the issue of the trial court’s lack of
jurisdiction
over indispensable parties, estops them from challenging the validity
of
the proceedings therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, the deed of
sale is not a competent proof that petitioner Benjamin had sold his own
share of the subject property. It cannot be disputed that Benjamin did
not sign the document and therefore, it is unenforceable against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Emilia executed the
instrument in her own behalf and not in representation of her three
children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 493 of the Civil
Code states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Each co-owner shall
have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with
respect
to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted
to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, the sale
of the subject property made by Emilia in favor of Santos and Bernardo
is limited to the portion which may be allotted to her upon the
termination
of her co-ownership over the subject property with her children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the first, second
and fourth issues - it has been established that at the time of
execution
of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" on April 23, 1981[9],
the subject property was co-owned, pro-indiviso, by petitioner Emilia
together
with her petitioner son Benjamin, and her two other sons, Catalino and
Ceferino. No proof was presented to show that the co-ownership that
existed
among the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino and herein petitioners has
ever
been terminated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Applying Articles 1317
and 1403 of the Civil Code, the Court of Appeals ruled that through
their
inaction and silence, the three sons of Emilia are considered to have
ratified
the aforesaid sale of the subject property by their mother.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Articles 1317 and 1403
(1) of the Civil Code provide:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 1317. No one may
contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter,
or unless he has by law a right to represent him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A contract entered into
in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal
representation
or who has acted beyond his powers shall be unenforceable, unless it is
ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has
been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.cralaw:red
Art. 1403. The following
contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) Those entered into
in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or
legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree with
the appellate court. The three sons of Emilia did not ratify the sale.
In Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot[10]
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ratification means that
one under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some
unauthorized
act or defective proceeding, which without his sanction would not be
binding
on him. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a
ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and becomes the
authorized
act of the party so making the ratification.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No evidence was presented
to show that the three brothers were aware of the sale made by their
mother.
Unaware of such sale, Catalino, Ceferino and Benjamin could not be
considered
as having voluntarily remained silent and knowingly chose not to file
an
action for the annulment of the sale. Their alleged silence and
inaction
may not be interpreted as an act of ratification on their part.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also find no concrete
evidence to show that Ceferino, Catalino and Benjamin benefited from
the
sale. It is true that private respondent Constantino testified that
Benjamin
took money from Jess Santos but this is mere allegation on the part of
Constantino. No other evidence was presented to support such
allegation.
Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
proof
under our Rules of Court.[11]
Neither do the records show that Benjamin admitted having received
money
from Jess Santos. Even granting that Benjamin indeed received money
from
Santos, Constantino’s testimony does not show that the amount received
was part of the consideration for the sale of the subject property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To repeat, the sale
is valid insofar as the share of petitioner Emilia Meking Vda. de
Coronel
is concerned. The due execution of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihang
Patuluyan"
was duly established when petitioners, through their counsel, admitted
during the pre-trial conference that the said document was signed by
Emilia.[12]
While petitioners claim that Emilia erroneously signed it under the
impression
that it was a contract of mortgage and not of sale, no competent
evidence
was presented to prove such allegation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, Jess C. Santos
and Priscilla Bernardo, who purchased the share of Emilia, became
co-owners
of the subject property together with Benjamin and the heirs of
Ceferino
and Catalino. As such, Santos and Bernardo could validly dispose of
that
portion of the subject property pertaining to Emilia in favor of herein
private respondents Constantino and Buensuceso.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the particular
portions properly pertaining to each of the co-owners are not yet
defined
and determined as no partition in the proper forum or extrajudicial
settlement
among the parties has been effected among the parties. Consequently,
the
prayer of respondents for a mandatory or prohibitory injunction lacks
merit.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the
following
MODIFICATIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Plaintiffs-private
respondents Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso are declared
owners
of one-half (1/2) undivided portion of the subject property plus the
one-fourth
(¼) undivided share of defendant-petitioner Emilia Meking Vda.
de
Coronel; and, defendant-petitioner Benjamin Coronel together with the
heirs
of Catalino Coronel and the heirs of Ceferino Coronel are declared
owners
of one-fourth (¼) share each of the other one-half (1/2) portion
of the subject property, without prejudice to the parties entering into
partition of the subject property, judicial or otherwise.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The order of removal
of the improvements and the award of the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00)
as attorney’s fees and costs of suit are DELETED.cralaw:red
No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Entitled, "Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs. Benjamin Coronel, Emilia Meking Vda. De Coronel and John Does,
Defendants-Appellants".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Entitled, "Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso, Plaintiffs, vs.
Benjamin Coronel, Emilia Meking Vda. De Coronel, and John Does,
Defendants."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
RTC Decision, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 170-172.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid., p. 177.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Appellants’ Reply Brief, CA Rollo, p. 96.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit [H], Folder of Exhibits, p. 168.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Bayoca vs. Nogales, 340 SCRA 154, 169 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Supra, note 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
329 SCRA 78, 94 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Manzano vs. Perez, Sr., 362 SCRA 430, 439 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
See TSN, March 5, 1991, OR, p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|