1

TIRSO D. MONTEROSO, Petitioner, Present: - versus QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, COURT OF APPEALS, SOLEDAD TINGA, MONTEROSO-CAGAMPANG, VELASCO, JR., and REYGULA MONTEROSO-BAYAN, BRION, JJ. PERFECTO L. CAGAMPANG, SR., SOFIA PENDEJITO VDA. DE MONTEROSO, FLORENDA MONTEROSO, ALBERTO MONTEROSO, HEIRS OF FABIAN MONTEROSO, JR., REYNATO MONTEROSO, RUBY MONTEROSO, MARLENE MONTEROSO-POSPOS, ADELITA MONTEROSO-BERENGUEL, and HENRIETO MONTEROSO, Respondents. x-----------------------------------------------x SOFIA PENDEJITO VDA. DE G.R. No. 113199 MONTEROSO, SOLEDAD MONTEROSO-CAGAMPANG, PERFECTO L. CAGAMPANG, SR., REYGULA MONTEROSO-BAYAN, FLORENDA MONTEROSO, ALBERTO MONTEROSO, RUBY MONTEROSO, MARLENE MONTEROSO-POSPOS, HENRIETO MONTEROSO, ADELITA MONTEROSO-BERENGUEL, and REYNATO MONTEROSO, Petitioners, - versus COURT OF APPEALS and TIRSO Promulgated: D. MONTEROSO, Respondents. April 30, 2008 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 105608 After the death of his first wife, but during the early part of his second marriage, Don Fabian filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan an intestate proceeding for the estate of his deceased first wife, Soledad D. Monteroso, docketed as Special Proceeding (SP) No. 309, apparently to obviate any dispute over the inheritance of his children from his first marriage. Subsequently, the CFI receivedand later approved per an Orden[3] (Order) dated March 11, 1936a Proyecto de Particion[4] (Project of Partition) dated February 21, 1935. The partition in SP No. 309 covered Parcels F-1 to F-5, and adjudicated to Don Fabian the whole of Parcels F-1, F-2, and F-3, and onehalf of Parcel F-5, while the intestate estate of Soledad D. Monteroso comprised the whole of Parcel F-4 and one-half of Parcel F-5. The intestate estate of Soledad D. Monteroso was partitioned and distributed to her four children in equal shares. Subsequently, a Mocion[5] (Motion) was filed for the delivery to Soledad D. Monterosos four children, her legal heirs, their respective shares in her intestate estate, as adjudicated among them under the duly CFIapproved Project of Partition. In the meantime, the children of Don Fabian from his first marriage married accordingly: The eldest, Soledad to Atty. Perfecto Cagampang, Sr.; Reygula to Jose Bayan; Benjamin to Mauricia Nakila; and Tirso to Melecia Taa. Benjamin died on February 1, 1947 leaving behind four children with wife Nakila, namely: Ruby, Marlene, Adelita, and Henrieto. A year and a half later, or on October 26, 1948, Don Fabian also passed away. Before and shortly after Don Fabians demise, conveyances involving certain of parcels thus mentioned were purportedly made. The following is an illustration of the lineal relation of the parties or the family tree of the direct descendants of Don Fabian from his two marriages:

DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case Before us are two petitions for review under Rule 45, the first docketed as G.R. No. 105608, and the second docketed as G.R. No. 113199, both assailing the Decision[1]dated March 31, 1992 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 15805 which modified the June 9, 1987 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 in Butuan City in Civil Case Nos. 1292 and 1332. The Facts It is not unusual. Acrimonious litigation between and among siblings and immediate relatives over inheritance does occur. It is unfortunate when the decedent had, while still alive, taken steps to precisely avoid a bruising squabble over inheritance. In a sense, Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr., a former justice of the peace and municipal mayor of Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, started it all. During his lifetime, Don Fabian married twice and sired eight children, four from each union. In 1906, Don Fabian married Soledad Doldol. Out of this marriage were born Soledad, Reygula, Benjamin, and Tirso. On April 8, 1927, Soledad Doldol Monteroso passed away. A little over a year later, Don Fabian contracted a second marriage with Sofia Pendejito. From this union were born Florenda, Reynato, Alberto, and Fabian, Jr.

2
PARCEL F-THREE A parcel of coconut land under Tax No. 17167 situated on sitio Calibunan, Cabadbaran, Agusan with superficial extension of 8 hectares and 34 centares x x x. PARCEL F-FOUR A parcel of coconut land under Tax No. 14600 situated on sitio Pandanon, Cabadbaran, Agusan, with a superficial extension of 27 hectares, 96 ares and 28 centares x x x. PARCEL F-FIVE A parcel of residential lot under Tax No. 18477 situated within the Poblacion of the Municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan, with a house of strong materials found on the same lot with a superficial extension of 660 square meters x x x. PARCEL F-SIX A parcel of residential lot under Tax No. 5374 situated within the Poblacion of the Municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan, with a superficial extension of 3,890 square meters x x x. PARCEL F-SEVEN A parcel of coconut and corn land under Tax No. 1769 situated at Ambahan, Tubay, Agusan, with a superficial extension of 8 hectares x x x. PARCEL F-EIGHT A parcel of coconut land situated at Ambahan, Tubay, Agusan, under Tax No. 2944, with a superficial extension of 7 hectares, 59 ares and 96 centares x x x.[6] PARCEL S-ONE A parcel of land situated at Tagbongabong, Cabadbaran, Agusan under Tax Dec. No. 5396 with an area of 24 hectares more or less x x x. PARCEL S-TWO This brings us to the objects of the squabble: the conjugal patrimonies of Don Fabian from his two successive marriages. During the lifetime of Don Fabian, the following properties were acquired, viz: PARCEL F-ONE A parcel of coconut plantation on sitio Pandanon, Cabadbaran, Agusan described as follows: North by the property of Telesforo Ago and Gregorio Cupay; East by Miguel Y Climaco Cabonce, Isidro Maamo and Buenaventura Sandigan and Pandanon River, and West by Gregorio Axamin, Alex Fores and Ventura Sandigan with a superficial extension of 10 has. 62 ares and 42 centares. PARCEL F-TWO A parcel of coconut land situated on sitio Pandanon, Cabadbaran, Agusan, with a superficial extension of 6 hectares, 50 ares bearing Tax No. 14801 of the Municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan, x x x. A parcel of coconut land situated at Dal-as, Bay-ang, Cabadbaran, Agusan under Tax No. 69 with an area of 24 hectares more or less x x x. PARCEL S-THREE A parcel of coconut land situated at Pandanon, Mabini, Cabadbaran, Agusan, under Tax No. 21639 with an area of 1.4080 hectares more or less x x x. PARCEL S-FOUR A parcel of land situated at Mabini, Cabadbaran, Agusan under Tax No. 3367 with an area of 1,000 sq. m. bounded x x x.[7] The F designation signified that the covered properties were acquired during the first marriage, to distinguish them from those acquired during the second marriage which are designated as S properties. On July 28, 1969, the children of the late Benjamin D. Monteroso, namely: Ruby Monteroso, Marlene M. Pospos, Henrieto Monteroso, and

3
Adelita Monteroso-Berenguel, filed with the RTC a Complaint for Recovery of Property with Damages against their uncle, Tirso D. Monteroso. Docketed as Civil Case No. 1292, and later raffled to Branch 4 of the court, the complaint involved a portion of Parcel F-4, described in the Project of Partition, as follows: (1) One parcel of coconut land with the improvements thereon existing, Tax No. 14600 with a superficial extension of 6 hectares, 99 ares and 32 centares, bounded as follows: on the North, Regula Monteroso; on the East by the Provincial Road ButuanCabadbaran; on the Sourth Tirso Monteroso and on the West Diego Calo.[8] What appears to be a victory for Tirso was, however, short-lived. Acting on four separate motions for reconsideration duly filed by the various defendants in Civil Case No. 1332, a new judge, who took over the case from Judge Rallos who inhibited himself from the case, rendered a new decision. The Subsequent Ruling of the RTC Dated June 9, 1987, the new Decision set aside the July 22, 1985 RTC Decision of Judge Rallos and gave due course to both Civil Case Nos. 1292 and 1332. In full, thefallo of the new decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, both complaints in Civil Cases No. 1292 and 1332 are hereby given due course and judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Declaring, confirming and ordering that Lot 380, Pls-736 located at Pandanon, Cabadbaran, belongs to the children of first marriage and partitioned as per subdivision survey map made by Geodetic Engineer Antonio Libarios, Exh. 7, page 72 of the records as follows: (a.) Lot 380-A, Share of Soledad Monteroso Cagampang with an area of 5.3376 hectares, with technical description therein;

As the heirs of Benjamin alleged in their complaint, their uncle, Tirso, was entrusted with the above-described one-fourth portion of Parcel F-4 as part of the share from the estate of Soledad D. Monteroso allotted to their father per SP No. 309. However, their uncle refused to surrender and deliver the same when they demanded such delivery upon their reaching the majority age. Tirso countered that the portion pertaining to Benjamin was never entrusted to him; it was in the possession of their sister, Soledad MonterosoCagampang, who was not entitled to any share in Parcel F-4, having previously opted to exchange her share in said property for another parcel of land, i.e., Parcel F-7, then being occupied by her. On April 14, 1970, Tirso, in turn, filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages with Receivership docketed as Civil Case No. 1332, involving 12 parcels of land (i.e., Parcels F-1 to F-8 and Parcels S-1 to S-4, mentioned above) against his stepmother, Pendejito, and all his full and half-siblings and/or their representatives. The complaint in Civil Case No. 1332 was subsequently amended to include Perfecto, as co-defendant, and Pendejito, as guardian ad litem for the minor children of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr., who died in 1970 after the filing of the complaint. In Civil Case No. 1332, Tirso, inter alia, alleged the following: (1) the aforementioned 12 parcels of land belong to the conjugal partnerships of the first and second marriages contracted by Don Fabian; (2) SP No. 309, which purportedly judicially settled the intestate estate of his mother, is null and void for the reason that the project of partition failed to comprehend the entire estate of the decedent as Parcels F-6, F-7, and F-8 were excluded, thereby depriving Tirso of his one-fourth share or legitime over the said three parcels of land; and (3) Parcels S-1 to S-4, having been acquired during the second marriage of Don Fabian, are not paraphernal properties of Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso. Answering, the defendants in Civil Case No. 1332 contended that Don Fabian acquired Parcel F-6 during the second marriage, while Parcels F-7 and F-8 were Don Fabians exclusive properties having been acquired through a donation from the heirs of one Benito Tinosa. They further maintained the validity of the judicial partition under SP No. 309 which operates as res judicata insofar as Parcels F-1 to F-5 are concerned. In particular, they asserted that Parcels F-1, F-2, F-3, and one-half of F-5 were adjudicated to Don Fabian as his share in the conjugal partnership of the first marriage, while Parcel F-4 and the other half of Parcel F-5 were equally divided among the four children of the first marriage; that during his lifetime, Don Fabian sold Parcels F-1, F-2, F-3, F-7, and F-8 to Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang; that Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, Tirso D. Monteroso, and Mauricia Nakila Vda. de Benjamin Monteroso donated Parcel F-6 to Reygula MonterosoBayan; and that Parcels S-1 to S-4 are truly paraphernal properties of Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso as Parcel S-1 was acquired by her through a homestead patent, Parcel S-2 through adverse possession, and Parcels S-3 and S-4 by purchase. The Initial Ruling of the RTC Involving practically the same properties and parties, Civil Case Nos. 1292 and 1332 were consolidated and jointly heard. After a long drawnout trial spanning almost 15 years, with six different judges successively hearing the case, the RTC, presided by Judge Miguel Rallos, rendered on July 22, 1985 a Decision,[9] dismissing Civil Case No. 1292 on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, but finding, in Civil Case No. 1332, for Tirso.

(b.)

Lot 380-B, Share of Reygula Monteroso Bayan with an area of 5.3376 hectares, with technical description therein; Lot 380-C, Share of the Heirs of Benjamin D. Monteroso with an area of 5.3376 hectares with technical description therein; Lot 380-D, Share of Tirso D. Monteroso with an area of 5.3376 hectares and Lot 351, Pls-736 with an area of 6,099 sq. meters, with both technical description therein;

(c.)

(d.)

2. It is hereby ordered that Tirso D. Monteroso must deliver, return, relinquish, cede, waive and/or quit claim immediately the area of 3.7815 hectares being portion of Lot 380-C, Pls-736 indicated in the subdivision survey plan by Engr. Libarios, page 72, Records, Civil Case No. 1292, Folio 2, Exh. V, to the Heirs of Benjamin D. Monteroso who are absolute owners of Lot 380-C, Pls-736 and to pay, return and deliver immediately to the said Heirs of Benjamin D. Monteroso the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983, the total sum of Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four and 70/100 (P260,844.70) Pesos with interest of 12% per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 up to the present and until fully paid; 3. It is hereby ordered that Reygula Monteroso Bayan must deliver, return, relinquish, cede, waive and/or quit claim immediately the area of 1.6128

4
hectares which is part of Lot 380-C, Pls-736, indicated in the subdivision survey plan by Engr. Libarios, page 72, Records (Civil Case No. 1292, Folio 2), Exh. V, to the Heirs of Benjamin D. Monteroso who are the absolute owners of Lot 380-C, Pls-736 and to pay, return and deliver immediately to the said Heirs of Benjamin D. Monteroso the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983 the total sum of One Hundred Six Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and 40/100 (P106,960.40) Pesos with interest of 12% per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 up to the present and until fully paid; 4. It is hereby ordered that Soledad Monteroso Cagampang must deliver, return, relinquish, cede, waive and/or quit claim immediately the area of 1.0929 hectares being portion of Lot 380-C, Pls-736, indicated in the subdivision survey plan by Engr. Libarios, page 72, Records (Civil Case No. 1292, Folio 2), Exh. V, to her sister Reygula Monteroso Bayan who is the absolute owner of Lot 380-C, Pls-736 and to pay, return and deliver immediately to the said Reygula Monteroso Bayan the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983, the total sum of Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five and 96/100 (P77,625.96) Pesos with interest of 12% per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 up to the present and until fully paid, subject to deduction of whatever cash advances, if any, was ever received by Reygula M. Bayan. 5. The three alleged Absolute Sale, Exh. C, D and E with all its submarkings are declared fictitious, simulated and no consideration. It can never be considered a donation because aside from being inofficious and impairing the legitime of other heirs, the vendee had not signed therein which could be considered acceptance and above all, these documents were prepared and acknowledged by Notary Public squarely disqualified and highly prohibited. Therefore, all are declared null and void and of no legal effect. So, parcels F-1, F-2, F-3, F-6, F-7 and F-8 [remain] as part of the intestate estate of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. 6. The Register of Deeds and the Provincial Assessor, both in the Province of Agusan del Norte are hereby ordered to cancel as the same are cancelled and nullified, all transfer of certificates and tax declarations now in the name of Soledad Monteroso de Cagampang and Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. which parcels of land originally were registered and declared in the name of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr., and to register and declare again in the name of Heirs of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr., more particularly the following: (a.) [TCT No. RT-203] (420) for Lot 432, Cad. 121, with an area of 10.0242 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 02-018-0224, Series of 1980, PIN-02-01905-050 known as Parcel F-1; TCT No. RT-205 (424) for Lot 100, Cad. 121, with an area of 1.9083 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 02-0190488, Series of 1980, PIN-02-019-08002 known as F-2; (c.) TCT No. RT-204 (423) for Lot 103, Cad. 121, with an area of 2.8438 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 02019-0335, Series of 1980, PIN-02-019-08017 known as F-2; Parcel of coconut land located at Poblacion, Cabadbaran, known as F-3 with area of 6.3100 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 02-0011810, Series of 1980 and PIN-02-001-30027; Residential Lot, known as F-5 located at Poblacion, Cabadbaran under Tax Dec. No. 18447 then under Tax Dec. No. 1922, containing an area of 660 sq. meters bounded on the North by Washington Street; on the East by Progresso Street; on the South by Rizal Street; and on the West by Ramon Cabrera. Residential Lot known as F-6 located at Poblacion under Tax Dec. No. 5374, Series of 1949 and Tax Dec. No. 499, Series of 1954, consisting of 3,890 sq. meters bounded as follows: North Andres Atega South Rill East Luis Jamboy now Celestino Udarbe, S i x t o F e r r e r a n d N e w

(d.)

(e.)

(f.)

(b.)

5
R o a d West Atega Street; (g.) Coconut land known as F-7, located at Ambajan, Tubay, Agusan del Norte under Tax Dec. No. 1769, Series of 1955 and Tax Dec. No. 1003-0273, Series of 1980 with an area of [8.000] hectares; Parcel of coconut land known as F-8, located at Ambajan, Tubay, Agusan del Norte with an area of 7.5996 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 2944 and Tax Dec. No. 10-030273, Series of 1980; Parcel of S-1, located at Tagbongabong, Cabadbaran under Tax Dec. No. 11506, Series of 1963 with an area of 24 hectares in the name of Sofia Vda. de Monteroso; Parcel of S-2, located at Dal-as, Bay-ang, Cabadbaran, under Tax Dec. No. 1888, Series of 1948, Tax Dec. No. 669, Series of 1952, and subsequently transferred in fraud of other heirs, in the name of Florenda P. Monteroso under Tax Dec. No. 11507, Series of 1964, Tax Dec. No. 3381, Series of 1972, Tax Dec. No. 5036, Series of 1974, Tax Dec. No. 02-0060047, Series of 1980; Parcel of S-3, located at Pandanon, Mabini, Cabadbaran, under Tax Dec. No. 5373, Series of 1949 with an area of 1.4080 hectares and bounded as follows: North Pandanon River South Crisanto Dolleroso East Pandanon River West Pandanon River and Peregrino Aznar; (l.) Parcel S-4, located at Mabini, Cabadbaran, under Tax Dec. No. 3367 with an area of 1.6500 hectares and bounded as follows: North Hrs. of G. Corvera South C. Vda. de Alburo East Ellodoro Delleroso West A. Ventura 7. It is hereby declared that upon the death of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. on March 26, 1948, the following are the properties belonging to his intestate estate: (a.) (b.) (c.) F-3; (d.) (e.) (f.) (g.) (h.) (i.) (j.) (k.) One-half (1/2) parcel F-5; One-half (1/2) parcel F-6; One-half (1/2) parcel F-7; One-half (1/2) parcel F-8; One-half (1/2) parcel S-1; One-half (1/2) parcel S-2; One-half (1/2) parcel S-3; One-half (1/2) parcel S-4. Whole parcel Lot 432, F1; Whole parcels Lot 100 and 103, F-2; Whole parcel cocoland, Calibunan,

(h.)

(i.)

(j.)

8. It is hereby ordered that Lot 432 under TCT [No.] RT-203 (420) with an area of 10.0242 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 02-018-0224 (1980) is hereby divided into nine (9) equal shares for the eight (8) children of Don Fabian B. Monteroso and the oneninth (1/9) share be held in usufruct by the widow Sofia Pendejito Monteroso during her lifetime.

Sofia Pendejito Monteroso being in possession and enjoying the fruits or income of F-1 is hereby ordered to pay and deliver immediately to the following heirs the corresponding amount of net income of F-1, Lot 432, from 1948 to 1983: (a.) (b.) To Soledad Monteroso Cagampang P78,521.32 To Reygula Monteroso Bayan P78,521.32 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso P78,521.32 To Tirso D. Monteroso P78,521.32 To Florenda P. Monteroso P78,521.32 To Reynato P. Monteroso P78,521.32 To Alberto P. Monteroso P78,521.32 To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. P78,521.32

(k.)

(c.) (d.) (e.) (f.) (g.) (h.)

The above-mentioned [amounts] shall be subject to deduction for whatever cash advance any heir may have received. Then the net balance of said [amounts] shall be subject to interest at the rate of

6
twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present until fully paid. 9. It is hereby ordered that Lot 100 under [TCT No. RT-205] (424) with an area of 1.9083 hectares under Tax Dec. No. 02-019-0488, Series of 1980 and Lot No. 103 under [TCT No. RT-204] (423) with an area of 2.8438 hectares and under Tax Dec. No. 02-019-0335, Series of 1980, [both known as Parcel F2,] shall be divided into nine (9) equal shares for the eight (8) children of Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. and oneninth (1/9) share shall be held in usufruct by the widow, Sofia P. Monteroso, during her lifetime. Soledad Monteroso Cagampang and Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. are ordered to deliver to [their] co-heirs their shares in these parcels of land, F-2, free from any lien and encumbrances whatsoever, and to pay each of them the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983, namely: (a.) (b.) (c.) (d.) (e.) (f.) (g.) (h.) To Reygula Monteroso Bayan P34,976.85 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso P34,976.85 To Tirso D. Monteroso P34,976.85 To Florenda P. Monteroso P34,976.85 To Reynato P. Monteroso P34,976.85 To Alberto P. Monteroso P34,976.85 To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. P34,976.85 To Sofia P. Monteroso (usufruct) P34,976.85 Soledad Monteroso Cagampang and Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. are both ordered to deliver to the above-mentioned co-heirs their respective shares free from any lien and encumbrances whatsoever. 11. Parcels F-5, F-6, F-7 and F-8 are declared real properties belonging to the first marriage. Hence one-half (1/2) of each of these four parcels shall equally be divided by the four (4) children of the first marriage and the other half must be divided into nine (9) equal shares for the eight (8) children of Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr., and one-ninth (1/9) shall be held in usufruct by the widow, Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that F-6 is divided as follows: To Soledad Monteroso Cagampang - - - - 702 sq. m. (b.) To Reygula Monteroso Bayan - - - - - - - 702 sq. m. (c.) To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso - - - - 702 sq. m. (d.) To Tirso D. Monteroso - - - - - - - - - - - 702 sq. m. (e.) To Florenda P. Monteroso - - - - - - - - - 216 sq. m. (f.) To Reynato P. Monteroso - - - - - - - - - - 216 sq. m. (g.) To Alberto P. Monteroso - - - - - - - - - - 216 sq. m. (h.) To Hrs. of Fabian Monteroso, Jr. - - - - - 216 sq. m. (i.) To Sofia P. Monteroso - - - - - - - - - - - - 216 sq. m. 12. It is hereby ordered, that Soledad Monteroso Cagampang and Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. must deliver to all heirs their respective shares on F-7 and F-8 including usufruct of Sofia P. Monteroso as declared in paragraph five (5) and in addition, must pay and deliver the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983, summarized as follows: (a.) To Reygula Monteroso Bayan - - - - P189,665.88 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso To Tirso D. Monteroso - - - - - - - - To Florenda P. Monteroso - - - - - To Reynato P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Alberto P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Hrs. of Fabian Monteroso, Jr. - To Sofia P. Monteroso (usufruct) - (a.)

The above-mentioned [amounts] shall be subjected to deduction of whatever amount any heir may have received by way of cash advances. The net amount shall be subjected to an interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present or until fully paid. 10. Soledad Monteroso Cagampang and Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. being in possession and enjoying the fruits and income of Parcel F-3, are hereby ordered to pay to the following heirs, the net income in arrears from 1948 to 1983: (a.) To Reygula Monteroso Bayan P49,727.35 (b.) To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso P49,727.35 (c.) To Tirso D. Monteroso P49,727.35 (d.) To Florenda P. Monteroso P49,727.35 (e.) To Reynato P. Monteroso P49,727.35 (f.) To Alberto P. Monteroso P49,727.35 (g.) To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. P49,727.35 (h.) To Sofia P. Monteroso (usufruct) P49,727.35 The above-mentioned [amounts] shall be subject to deduction for whatever cash advance, if any, such heir may have received. Then the net [amounts] shall be subject to interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present until fully paid.

(b.) - P189,665.88 (c.) - P189,665.88 (d.) - - P 58,358.73 (e.) - - P 58,358.73 (f.) - - P 58,358.73 (g.) - - P 58,358.73 (h.) - - P 58,358.73

all with interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present until fully paid. However, it is subject to deduction of whatever cash advances, if ever any heir, may have received. 13. The Deed of Donation in 1948, Exh. F, over parcel known as F-5, is declared null and void because the same was prepared and acknowledged

7
before a Notary Public disqualified and prohibited to do so under Notarial Law (Barretto vs. Cabreza, 33 Phil. Reports 112). Hence, the transfer of tax declaration is hereby ordered cancelled and the same must be declared again in the name of the Heirs of Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. and ordered partitioned in the proportion stated in paragraph eleven (11) hereof. 14. Parcels of land known as S-1, S-2, S3 and S-4 are declared conjugal properties of the second marriage. Hence, one-half (1/2) thereof belongs to Sofia Pendejito Monteroso and one-half (1/2) shall be equally divided into nine (9) shares for the eight (8) children of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. where the one-ninth (1/9) shall be held in usufruct by Sofia P. Monteroso during her lifetime. 15. For the net income in arrears of S-1 located at Tagbongabong, Cabadbaran, from 1948 to 1983, Sofia Pendejito Monteroso is hereby ordered to pay and deliver to the following heirs the corresponding share: (a.) To Soledad Monteroso Cagampang P93,998.12 To Reygula Monteroso Bayan - - - - P93,998.12 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso To Tirso D. Monteroso - - - - - - - - To Florenda P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Reynato P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Alberto P. Monteroso - - - - - - - To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. 17. Sofia Pendejito Monteroso is hereby ordered to pay and deliver immediately the net income in arrears of parcel S-3 located at Pandanon to the following heirs with the corresponding amount: (a.) To Soledad Monteroso Cagampang P49,349.02 To Reygula Monteroso Bayan - - - - P49,349.02 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso To Tirso D. Monteroso - - - - - - - - To Florenda P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Reynato P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Alberto P. Monteroso - - - - - - - To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. -

(b.)

(c.) - P49,349.02 (d.) - P49,349.02 (e.) - P49,349.02 (f.) - P49,349.02 (g.) - P49,349.02 (h.) - P49,349.02

(b.)

However, [the] above-mentioned [amounts] shall be subject to deductions, if any cash advance was ever made or received by any heir. Then the net amount receivable shall be subject to an interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present until fully paid. 18. For the net income in arrears of parcel S-4, located at Mabini, Cabadbaran, from 1948 to 1983, Sofia P. Monteroso is hereby ordered to pay and deliver to the following heirs their corresponding shares: (a.) To Soledad Monteroso Cagampang P6,477.54 To Reygula Monteroso Bayan - - - - P6,477.54 To Hrs. of Benjamin D. Monteroso To Tirso D. Monteroso - - - - - - - - To Florenda P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Reynato P. Monteroso - - - - - - To Alberto P. Monteroso - - - - - - - To Hrs. of Fabian P. Monteroso, Jr. -

(c.) - P93,998.12 (d.) - P93,998.12 (e.) - P93,998.12 (f.) - P93,998.12 (g.) - P93,998.12 (h.) - P93,998.12

However, all these amounts shall be subject to deduction, if any cash advance was ever made or received by any heir. The above-mentioned [amounts are] subject to an interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) compounded annually from January 1, 1948 to the present until fully paid. 16. The alleged Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sofia P. Monteroso in favor of Florenda P. Monteroso over a coconut land located at Dal-as, Bayang, Cabadbaran, consisting of 24 hectares is hereby declared null and void being in fraud of other heirs. It is clearly inofficious and impairs the legitime of her brothers, sisters and nephews and nieces. Therefore, the tax declaration in the name of Florenda P. Monteroso under Tax Dec. No. 11507, Series of 1964, Tax Dec. No. 3381, Series of 1972, Tax Dec. No. 5036, Series of 1974 and Tax Dec. No. 02-006-0047, PIN-02006-02-002 are hereby ordered cancelled and the said land shall be declared again in the name of Heirs of Fabian B. Monteroso. Sofia Pendejito Monteroso is not required to render accounting as to the income of S-2 because the coconut trees therein were planted by her while being already a widow. One-half (1/2) of the land where the coconut trees are planted shall be her share and the other one-half (1/2) shall be divided into nine (9) shares for the eight (8) children of Fabian B. Monteroso including her 1/9 usufruct thereon.

(b.)

(c.) - P6,477.54 (d.) - P6,477.54 (e.) - P6,477.54 (f.) - P6,477.54 (g.) - P6,477.54 (h.) - P6,477.54

However, all these amounts shall be subject to deductions, if any cash advance was ever made or received by any heir. The above-mentioned amount is subject to an interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) compounded annually from January 1, 1984 to the present until fully paid. Sofia Pendejito Monteroso is ordered to deliver to the above-mentioned heirs their respective shares free from any lien and encumbrances whatsoever. 19. These cases involved inheritance, hence the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) of Agusan del Norte at Butuan City is hereby notified for prompt,

8
proper and appropriate action. Likewise, the Provincial Treasurer of Agusan del Norte and the Municipal Treasurers of Cabadbaran and Tubay are hereby informed and reminded for their prompt, proper and appropriate action in the assessment and collection of real estate taxes including transfers tax. 20. That all the heirs are hereby directed, and ordered to pay all taxes due in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines within thirty (30) days from the finality of judgment hereof, otherwise, upon proper application or manifestation by appropriate or concerned government agency, a portion of the intestate estate of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr., shall be sold at public auction for such purpose. 21. Under Civil Case No. 1292, Tirso D. Monteroso or his heirs, assigns and successors-ininterest, is hereby ordered to pay Ruby Monteroso, Marlene Monteroso-Pospos, Adelita MonterosoBerenguel and Henrieto Monteroso the following sums of money: (a.) (b.) (c.) (d.) P10,000.00 for moral damages; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P3,000.00 for costs of suit; and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees. Soledad D. Monteroso. Thus, the court ordered the equal distribution of Parcel F-4, i.e., Lot 380, Pls-736 located in Pandanon, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, among the children of the first marriage of Don Fabian, and partitioned it based on the subdivision survey map prepared by a geodetic engineer. Turning on the alleged sale of Parcels F-1, F-2, F-3, F-7, and F-8 by Don Fabian to Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, the RTC found the covering three deeds of absolute sale[11] to be null and void for the reason that the alleged conveyances were fictitious, simulated, and/or without sufficient consideration. Alternatively, the RTC ruled that the conveyances, even if considered as donation, would be inofficious for impairing the legitime of the other compulsory heirs, not to mention the lack of due acceptance of the donation by Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang. Adding a vitiating element to the conveyances, as the RTC noted, was the fact that the corresponding documents were prepared by and acknowledged before Perfecto, who happened to be the husband of the alleged vendee, Soledad MonterosoCagampang. The RTC also declared as null and void the donation of Parcel F-5 to Reygula Monteroso-Bayan owing to clear legal infirmities attaching to the covering deed of donation.[12] For one, the parcel in question, while purportedly donated free from any liens or encumbrance, was in fact the subject of a deed of absolute sale between Don Fabian and the Cagampang spouses. For another, one of the signatory-donors, Mauricia Nakila, Benjamins widow, did not have the right to effect a donation because she was not a compulsory heir of her husband by representation. The RTC added that the real owners of the rights and interests of Benjamin over Parcel F-5 are her children as representative heirs. Finally, the RTC declared the Order dated March 11, 1936 issued in SP No. 309 approving the Project of Partition to be valid, and that it constitutes res judicata on the affected properties, i.e., Parcel F-4 and one-half of Parcel F-5, which were equally distributed to the heirs of Soledad D. Monteroso. Pursuing this point and on the finding that Parcels F-1 to F-8 were acquired during the first marriage and Parcels S-1 to S-4 during the second, the RTC thus held that Don Fabians intestate estate consisted of the whole of Parcels F-1, F-2, and F-3; and half of Parcels F-5 to F-8 and half of Parcels S-1 to S-4, to be distributed in accordance with the law on intestate succession. This means, the RTC concluded, that the estate shall descend to Don Fabians compulsory heirs and their representatives, as in the case of the late Benjamin and Fabian, Jr., subject to accounting of the income or produce of the subject properties for the applicable period, less advances made or received by any heir, if any. The Ruling of the CA From the above June 9, 1987 Decision, Tirso, defendant in Civil Case No. 1292, appealed to the CA, so did the Cagampang spouses, defendants in Civil Case No. 1332. The other defendants in Civil Case No. 1332, namely: Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso, Florenda Monteroso, Alberto Monteroso, Heirs of Fabian Monteroso, Jr., Reynato Monteroso, and Reygula Monteroso-Bayan, also interposed their own appeal. The separate appeals were consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 15805. On March 31, 1992, the CA rendered the assailed decision, affirming with modification the June 9, 1987 RTC Decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified, as follows: a) In the event that a homestead patent over Parcel S-1 is issued by the Bureau of Lands pursuant to the patent application of Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso, said patent shall issue not in the name of the applicant but in favor of the eight heirs of Fabian Monteroso, Sr. who thereafter shall be declared absolute owners of the said parcel of land in the proportion stated in this decision

22. Under Civil Case No. 1292, Soledad Monteroso de Cagampang and Reygula Monteroso Bayan are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay Ruby Monteroso, Marlene Monteroso-Pospos, Adelita Monteroso-Berenguel and Henrieto Monteroso the following sums of money: (a.) (b.) (c.) (d.) P10,000.00 for moral damages; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P2,000.00 for costs of suit; and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees.

23. Under Civil Case No. 1332, Soledad Monteroso Cagampang, Atty. Perfecto L. Cagampang, Sr. and Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso or their heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest, are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally, unto and in favor of Tirso D. Monteroso or his heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest, the following sums of money: (a.) (b.) (c.) (d.) P20,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for exemplary damages; P5,000.00 for costs of suit; and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees.

24. It is hereby ordered that a judicial administrator of the intestate estate of Don Fabian B. Monteroso, Sr. shall be appointed by this Court upon written recommendation by all the parties within thirty (30) days from promulgation of this decision. Should the parties fail to submit unanimously a recommendee, the Court at its discretion may appoint an administrator, unless none of the parties appeal this decision and this judgment is complied with by all the parties and/or so executed in accordance with the provisions of the New Rules of Court. SO ORDERED.[10] As regards Civil Case No. 1292, the RTC found that the heirs of Benjamin have indeed been deprived of their inheritance which corresponds to one-fourth share due their father from the intestate estate of their grandmother,

9
but who nevertheless shall allow Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso to exercise during her lifetime usufructuary rights over a portion of the said parcel of land equivalent to the share therein of each of the heirs of her deceased husband; b) The said heirs of Fabian Monteroso, Sr. are hereby declared absolute owners of Parcel F-6 to the extent of their respective shares therein as presently individually possessed by them pursuant to an extrajudicial partition of the said parcel of land which the Court hereby declares as a valid contract among the said heirs; and c) With the exception of those pertaining to Parcel F-4 as stated in this decision, the parties thus found to have unjustly misappropriated the fruits of the subject parcels of land are hereby directed to render an accounting thereof consistent with our findings in the case at bar. With the exception of the foregoing modifications, the decision under review is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.[13] recognized these infirmities, and instead of denying their existence, they tried to justify the same and seek an exception therefrom. On the alleged donation of Parcel F-5 by Don Fabian to Reygula Monteroso-Bayan, the CA likewise agreed with the RTCs finding on the nullity thereof. The CA pointed out that Reygula Monteroso-Bayan did not controvert the RTCs finding, except to gratuitously say that the trial courts declaration of nullity was wrong since nobody questioned the authenticity of the donation in the first place. Apropos Parcel S-1, a disposable agricultural land of the public domain which is the subject of a homestead patent application by Don Fabian, the CA, as opposed to the RTCs disposition, held that a patent, if eventually issued, ought to be in the name of the legal heirs of Don Fabian, not of his surviving spouse, Pendejito. This conclusion, so the CA explained, is in line with the provision of Section 105 of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), as amended. As to Parcel S-2, the CA agreed with the RTC that it is a conjugal property acquired during the second marriage through a deed of sale[14] executed on August 15, 1947 by Marcelo Morancel. Likewise, the CA said that Parcels S-3 and S-4 are conjugal properties as no evidence was adduced supporting the alleged purchase by Pendejito of said properties with her own funds. Anent the RTCs order partitioning Parcel F-6, the CA agreed with the defendants in Civil Case No. 1332 that Parcel F-6 has long been partitioned equitably among all the eight children of Don Fabian. Thus, the CA further modified the RTC on this point. On the third and last issues, the CA set aside all awards of actual damages made by the RTC premised on the income generating capacity of the subject properties, except that of Parcel F-4, as an order of accounting of the fruits of the other subject properties unjustly appropriated by them would address the issue of damages.

It bears to stress at this juncture that, save for the grant of damages and the disposition of Parcels F-6 and S-1, the CA affirmed the questioned RTC Decision on all other points. On June 15, 1992, Tirso D. Monteroso thereafter filed before the Court his partial petition for review under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 105608. On the other hand, Pendejito, together with the other defendants in Civil Case No. 1332, first interposed a joint motion for partial reconsideration, which the CA denied per its equally assailed December 16, 1993 Resolution,[15] before elevating the case via a petition for review under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 113199. G.R. No. 105608 Denied with Finality

The CA summarized into three issues the multifarious assignments of errors raised by the parties, to wit: first, whether or not the intestate estate of Soledad Doldol Monteroso was settled in SP No. 309, thus according the Project of Partition approved therein the effect of res judicata; second, whether or not it was appropriate to partition Parcels F-1, F-2, and F-3, and half of Parcels F-5, F-6, F-7, F-8, S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4; and third, whether or not Tirso D. Monteroso is entitled to damages.

The CA resolved the first issue in the affirmative, SP No. 309 being a valid and binding proceedings insofar as the properties subject thereof are concerned, i.e., Parcels F-1 to F-5 of which the whole of Parcel F-4 and one-half of Parcel F-5, as Soledad D. Monterosos intestate estate, were distributed to her heirs. This is not to mention that the authenticity and due execution of the documents filed or issued in relation therewith referring to the Proyecto de Particion dated February 12, 1935 which is a carbon copy of the original, the Orden issued by the CFI on March 11, 1936, and the Mocion dated March 18, 1936having duly been established. Affirming the RTC, the CA rejected Tirsos claim that SP No. 309 is void for settling only a part of the estate of Soledad D. Monteroso. The CA held that partial settlement is not a ground for the nullification of the judicial partition under either the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 or the present Civil Code. The appellate court added that the proper remedy in such a situation is to ask for the partition and the subsequent distribution of the property omitted. The CA likewise disposed of the second issue in the affirmative, dismissing the opposition of the Cagampang spouses and Reygulo MonterosoBayan who all claimed ownership over some of the parcels of land on the strength of the deeds of conveyance executed in their favor. The CA upheld the RTCs finding that the three deeds of absolute sale in which Don Fabian purportedly sold Parcels F-1, F-2, F-3, F-7, and F-8 to Soledad MonterosoCagampang were infirm. The CA noted that even the Cagampang spouses

Per its Resolution[16] dated June 29, 1992, the Court denied Tirso D. Monterosos petition under G.R. No. 105608 for late payment of fees and non-compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court and Circular Nos. 1-88 and 28-91 on the submission of a certified copy of the assailed decision/order and a certification of non-forum shopping. Another Resolution[17] of August 12, 1992 followed, this time denying with finality Tirso D. Monterosos motion for reconsideration filed on July 29, 1992. On August 31, 1992, an Entry of Judgment[18] was issued. In net effect, the March 31, 1992 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 15805 is final and executory as to Tirso D. Monteroso, and the Court need not pass upon the issues he raised in his petition under G.R. No. 105608, albeit we shall take stock of his Comment[19] and Memorandum[20] in G.R. No. 113199. The Issues Petitioners in G.R. No. 113199 raise the following issues for our consideration: 1. Whether the finding that the Deeds of Sale (Exhibits C, D and E) were not supported by valuable consideration and sham, fictitious and simulated is supported by the evidence.

10
2. Whether the finding or conclusion that petitioners Spouses Atty. Perfecto and Soledad Cagampang did not dispute the finding of the trial Court that the Deeds of Sale in question are sham, fictitious and simulated is supported by evidence. 3. Whether the [CA] committed reversible error in concluding that, By invoking the benefits of prescription in their favor, the Cagampang spouses are deemed to have admitted the existence of a coownership. 4. Whether the [CA] committed reversible error in upholding partition as the proper remedy of private respondent Tirso Monteroso to recover the properties sold by Fabian Monteroso, Sr. to Soledad D. Monteroso de Cagampang when co-ownership is not pleaded as theory in the Complaint. 5. Whether the [CA] committed reversible error in holding that the cause of action of private respondent Tirso Monteroso is not barred by extinctive prescription and laches. 6. Whether the [CA] committed reversible error in granting reliefs not prayed for in the Complaint in favor of parties who did not assert or claim such relief, such as partition and accounting among the parties and the nullification of the donation in favor of petitioner Reygula Bayan when x x x Tirso Monteroso and the petitioners herein who are signatories to the Deed of Donation did not question or ask for the nullification of the donation in favor of Reygula Bayan. 7. Whether the [CA] committed reversible error in ordering the partition of parcels S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-4 which are admitted in the Complaint to be in the exclusive, adverse possession of petitioners Sofia vda. de Monteroso, Florenda, Alberto and Reynato and the Heirs of Fabian Monteroso, Jr. since the death of Fabian Monteroso, Sr. in 1948, appropriating the harvests unto themselves, to the exclusion of plaintiff (private respondent Tirso Monteroso) who was deprived of his share continuously up to the present.[21] set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[22]

None of the above exceptions, however, obtains in the instant case. First and Second Issues: Simulated Sale In connection with the first two related issues, petitioners maintain that the CA erred when it affirmed the RTCs conclusion on the fictitious or simulated nature, for lack or inadequate consideration, of the Deeds of Sale (Exhibits C, D, and E), noting that Tirso failed to present substantial evidence to support the alleged infirmity of the underlying sale. The fact that one of the lots sold under Exhibit C on May 10, 1939 for PhP 2,500 was used as collateral for a PhP 600 loan is not, so petitioners claim, proof that the amount of PhP 600 represents the maximum loan value of the property or that the sale in question is not supported by valuable consideration. Moreover, petitioners belabored to explain that the trial court erred in concluding that the property conveyed under Exhibit C and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-203 (420) in the name of Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, married to Perfecto, was fictitious on the ground that the certificate did not indicate that it was a conjugal property. Petitioners assert that the registration of a property only in the name of one of the spouses is not proof that no consideration was paid therefor. As petitioners would stress, what determines whether a given property is conjugal or separate is the law itself, not what appears in the certificate of title. Lastly, petitioners take exception from the appellate courts posture that the Cagampang spouses did not dispute the trial courts finding that the deeds of sale (Exhibits C, D, and E) were simulated and fictitious for lack of consideration. Petitioners insist that they in fact contested such conclusion of the RTC in their brief before the CA, adding they only raised the issue of prescription as an alternative defense without conceding the RTCs findings on contract infirmity. We are not persuaded. The antecedent facts, as borne by the records, strongly indicate the simulated character of the sale covered by the deeds of absolute sale over Parcels F-1 (Exhibit C), F-2 (Exhibit D), F-3, F-5, F-7, and F-8 (Exhibit E). As found below, Don Fabian never relinquished possession of the covered properties during his lifetime. The first deed,Exhibit E, was executed on May 1, 1939; the second, Exhibit C, on May 10, 1939; and the third, Exhibit D, on September 24, 1939. Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, however, only took possession of the subject properties after Don Fabians death in 1948 or nine years after contract execution. The gap, unexplained as it were, makes for a strong case that the parties to the sale never intended to be bound thereby. The more telling circumstance, however, is the fact that Perfecto had judicially sought the amendment of the corresponding TCTs so that only the name of his wife, Soledad, shall be inscribed as real party-in-interest on the Memorandum of Encumbrances at the back portion of the titles. If only to stress the point, when the deeds were executed in 1939, Soledad and Perfecto Cagampang, the notarizing officer, were already married. A property acquired during the existence of a marriage is presumed conjugal. This postulate notwithstanding, Perfecto Cagampang went out of his way to make it appear that the subject parcels of land were effectively his wifes paraphernal properties. No explanation was given for this unusual move. Hence, we agree with the trial and appellate courts that the unexplained situations described above sufficiently show that the purported conveyances were simulated. We also accord credence to Tirsos allegation that the Cagampang spouses tricked Don Fabian into believing that his creditors were after the properties which have to be hidden by means of simulated conveyances to Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang. The fact that only one of the subject lots was used as collateral for a PhP 600 loan which the Cagampang spouses took out does not weaken the conclusion on the

The Courts Ruling After a circumspect consideration of the arguments earnestly pressed by the parties and in the light of the practically parallel findings of the RTC and CA, we find the petition under G.R. No. 113199 to be devoid of merit. It is a rule of long standing that: [T]he jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are conclusive, except in the following instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts

11
simulated character of the contracts, as logically drawn from the twin circumstances adverted to. The Court can allow that petitioners indeed attempted to traverse, before the CA, the RTCs findings on the area of simulated sale and that they only raised the matter of acquisitive prescription as an alternative defense. However, as we shall explain shortly, the fact of petitioners having made the attempt aforestated will not carry the day for them. Third Issue: Recognition of Co-ownership in Acquisitive Prescription In its assailed decision, the CA declared, By invoking the benefits of prescription in their favor, the Cagampang spouses are deemed to have admitted the existence of a co-ownership x x x. The petitioners tag this declaration as flawed since the benefit of prescription may be availed of without necessarily recognizing co-ownership. Prescription and co-ownership, they maintain, are so diametrically opposed legal concepts, such that one who invokes prescription is never deemed to admit the existence of co-ownership. Petitioners are mistaken; their error flows from compartmentalizing what the CA wrote. The aforecited portion of t he CAs decision should not have been taken in isolation. It should have been read in the context of the appellate courts disquisition on the matter of Tirso being a co-owner of the subject undivided properties whose rights thereto, as a compulsory heir, accrued at the moment of death of Don Fabian, vis--vis the defense of acquisitive prescription foisted by the Cagampang spouses. For clarity, we reproduce the pertinent portion of the assailed decision: Nor do we find any merit in the third. From the allegation in the Complaint in Civil Case No. 1332 as well as from the arguments advanced by the parties on the issues raised therein, this Court is convinced that therein plaintiff Tirso Monterosos principal cause of action is unmistakably one for partition which by its very nature is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches x x x. The only exception to the rule on the imprescriptibility of an action for partition is provided in a case where the co-ownership of the properties sought to be partitioned had been properly repudiated by a co-owner at which instance the remedy available to the aggrieved heirs lies not in action for partition but for reconveyance which is subject to the rules on extinctive prescription. By invoking the benefits of prescription in their favor, the Cagampang spouses are deemed to have admitted the existence of a coownership among the heirs of Fabian Monteroso, Sr. over the properties forming the decedents estate.[23] (Emphasis ours.) Being inextricably intertwined, we tackle both issues together. Petitioners, citing Article 494 of the Civil Code[24] and Art. 1965 of the Spanish Civil Code, aver that the right to ask partition is proper only where co-ownership is recognized. They also suggest that no co-ownership obtains in this case considering that no less than Tirso avers in his complaint in Civil Case No. 1332 that from the time of Don Fabians death in 1948, the lots in question have been in the exclusive, adverse, and public possession of the Cagampang spouses. Assayed against this perspective, petitioners submit that partition is not proper, ergo unavailing, but an action for reconveyance which is subject to the rules on extinctive prescription. Corollary to the posture above taken, petitioners assert that there being no co-ownership over the properties sold by Don Fabian to Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, Tirsos cause of action, under the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) in relation to Art. 1116 of the Civil Code,[25] had already prescribed, either in 1949, i.e., 10 years after the subject properties were registered in Soledad Monteroso-Cagampangs name, or in 1958, i.e., 10 years after the cause of action accrued in 1948 (death of Don Fabian), citingOsorio v. Tan.[26] Tirsos complaint in Civil Case No. 1332 was commenced in 1970. Petitioners contend that the evidence adduced clearly demonstrates that Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang acquired ownership of the subject properties by virtue of the deeds of sale executed in 1939 by Don Fabian. After the sale, she registered them under her name and then took exclusive, adverse, and public possession over them. Thus, they submit that the prescriptive period applicable to the instant case under Act No. 190 had long expired, adding that the CA erred in finding that Soledad MonterosoCagampang repudiated the co-ownership only in 1961 when she and the other heirs ignored the demand of Tirso for partition.

As a final point, petitioners alleged that the exclusion of Tirso from the enjoyment of the fruits of the subject properties since after the death of Don Fabian in 1948 is consistent with Soledad Monteroso-Cagampangs claim of exclusive ownership and dominion. We cannot subscribe to petitioners theory. The fact that Tirso and the other compulsory heirs of Don Fabian were excluded from the possession of their legitime and the enjoyment of the fruits thereof does not per seargue against the existence of a coownership. While Tirso may not have expressly pleaded the theory of coownership, his demand from, and act of initiating Civil Case No. 1332 against, the Cagampang spouses for his share necessarily implies that he was asserting his right as co-owner or co-heir of the properties unjustly withheld by the Cagampang spouses through the instrumentality of simulated deeds of sale covering some of the hereditary properties. By asserting his right as a compulsory heir, Tirso has effectively brought into the open the reality that the Cagampang spouses were holding some of the subject properties in trust and that he is a co-owner of all of them to the extent of his legal share or legitime thereon. Consequently, we are one with the trial and appellate courts that partition is the proper remedy for compulsory or legal heirs to get their legitime or share of the inheritance from the decedent. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. [27] Also, Sec. 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:

From the foregoing disquisition, what the appellate court tried to convey is clear and simple: partition is the proper remedy available to Tirso who is a co-owner of the subject properties by virtue of his being a compulsory heir, like siblings Soledad, Reygula, and Benjamin, of Don Fabian. The right to seek partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. Consequently, acquisitive prescription or laches does not lie in favor of the Cagampang spouses and against Tirso, the general rule being that prescription does not run against a co-owner or co-heir. The only exception to the imprescriptibility of an action for partition against a co-owner is when a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership. Thus, the appellate court ruled that by invoking extinctive prescription as a defense, the lone exception against imprescriptibility of action by a co-owner, the Cagampang spouses are deemed to have contextually recognized the co-ownership of Tirso and must have repudiated such co-ownership in order for acquisitive prescription to set in. Taking off from that premise, the appellate court then proceeded to tackle the issue of repudiation by the Cagampang spouses. Therefore, we hold that the appellate court did not err in finding that the Cagampang spouses are effectively barred from invoking prescription, given that the subject properties are conjugal properties of the decedent, Don Fabian, which cannot be subjected to acquisitive prescription, the necessary consequence of recognizing the co-ownership stake of other legal heirs. Fourth and Fifth Issues: Partition Proper, not Barred by Laches nor by Acquisitive Prescription

SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property. (Emphasis ours.)

Being a compulsory heir of Don Fabian, Tirso has the right to compel partition of the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don

12
Fabian as a measure to get his hereditary share. His right as an heir to a share of the inheritance covers all the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don Fabian at the moment of his death,[28] i.e., onOctober 26, 1948. Before partition and eventual distribution of Don Fabians intestate estate, a regime of co-ownership among the compulsory heirs existed over the undivided estate of Don Fabian. Being a co-owner of that intestate estate, Tirsos right over a share thereof is imprescriptible.[29] As a matter of law, acquisitive prescription does not apply nor set in against compulsory heirs insofar as their proindiviso share or legitime is concerned, unless said heirs repudiate their share.[30] Contrary to petitioners stance, reconveyance is not the proper remedy available to Tirso. Be it remembered in this regard that Tirso is not asserting total ownership rights over the subject properties, but only insofar as his legitime from the intestate estate of his father, Don Fabian, is concerned. Acquisitive prescription, however, may still set in in favor of a coowner, where there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership, and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership.[31] In the instant case, however, no extinctive or acquisitive prescription has set in against Tirso and other compulsory heirs in favor of the Cagampang spouses because effective repudiation had not timely been made against the former. As aptly put by the appellate court, the repudiation which must be clear and open as to amount to an express disavowal of the coownership relation happened not when the deeds of absolute sale were executed in 1939, as these could not have amounted to a clear notice to the other heirs, but in 1961 when the Cagampang spouses refused upon written demand by Tirso for the partition and distribution of the intestate estate of Don Fabian. Since then, Tirso was deemed apprised of the repudiation by the Cagampang spouses. However, considering that the new Civil Code was already then in effect, Art. 1141 of said Code[32] applies; thus, Tirso has at the very least 10 years and at the most 30 years to file the appropriate action in court. The records show that Tirsos cause of action has not prescribed as he instituted an action for partition in 1970 or only nine years after the considered express repudiation. Besides, acquisitive prescription also does not lie against Tirso even if we consider that a valid express repudiation was indeed made in 1961 by the Cagampang spouses since in the presence of evident bad faith, the required extraordinary prescription period[33] of 30 years has not yet lapsed, counted from said considered repudiation. Such would still be true even if the period is counted from the time of the death of Don Fabian when the Cagampang spouses took exclusive possession of the subject properties. Sixth Issue: Partition Proper for Conjugal Properties of Second Marriage On the ground of prescription under Act No. 190, petitioners assert that Tirso lost the right to seek the partition of Parcels S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4, he having admitted, as early as 1948, the adverse, exclusive, and public possession thereof by Pendejito and her children. This type of possession, they maintain, works as a repudiation by Pendejito and her children of the coownership claim of Tirso. They further argue that Parcel S-1 pertains to Pendejito as her paraphernal property since the homestead application therefor was under her name. We are not persuaded. Tirsos acknowledgment of Pendejito and her childrens possession of Parcels S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4 cannot be viewed as the required repudiation to bar Tirso from pursuing his right to seek partition. Under the law on co-ownership, it behooves on the person desiring to exclude another from the co-ownership to do the repudiating. Verily, the records do not show that Pendejito and her children performed acts clearly indicating an intention to repudiate the co-ownership and then apprising Tirso and other co-owners or co-compulsory heirs of such intention. To be sure, Tirso and his siblings from the first marriage have a stake on Parcels S-2, S-3, and S-4, even if these parcels of land formed part of the conjugal partnership of gains of the second marriage. There can be no serious dispute that the children of the first marriage have a hereditary right over the share of Don Fabian in the partnership assets of the first marriage. Anent Parcel S-1, we join the CA in its holding that it belongs to the heirs of Don Fabian under Sec. 105 of CA 141, which pertinently provides: Sec. 105. If at any time the applicant or grantee shall die before the issuance of the patent or the final grant of the land, or during the life of the lease, or while the applicant or grantee still has obligations pending towards the Government, in accordance with this Act, he shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations with respect to the land applied for or granted or issued under this Act by his heirs in law, who shall be entitled to have issued to them the patent or final concession if they show that they have complied with the requirements therefor, and who shall be subrogated in all his rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act. (Emphasis ours.)

It is undisputed that Don Fabian was the homestead patent applicant who was subrogated to the rights of the original applicants, spouses Simeon Cagaanan and Severina Naranjo, by purchasing from the latter Parcel S-1 on May 8, 1943. Don Fabian cultivated the applied area and declared it for taxation purposes. The application, however, would be rejected because death supervened. In 1963, Pendejito filed her own homestead application for Parcel S-1. Assayed against the foregoing undisputed facts in the light of the aforequoted Sec. 105 of CA 141, the heirs of Don Fabian are entitled to Parcel S-1. Said Sec. 105 has been interpreted in Soliman v. Icdang[34] as having abrogated the right of the widow of a deceased homestead applicant to secure under Sec. 3 of Act No. 926, otherwise known as the Public Land Act of 1903, a patent in her own name, thus: [W]e should bear in mind that, although Adolfo Icdang was married to plaintiff when he filed the homestead application, an applicant may be said to have acquired a vested right over a homestead only by the presentation of the final proof and its approval by the Director of Lands. (Ingara vs. Ramelo, 107 Phil., 498; Balboa vs. Farrales, 51 Phil., 498; Republic vs. Diamon, 97 Phil., 838.) In the case at bar, the final proof appears to have been presented to, and approved by the Director of Lands, in 1954, or several years after the death of Adolfo Icdang and the dissolution of his conjugal partnership with plaintiff herein. Hence, the land in question could not have formed part of the assets of said partnership. It belonged to the heirs of Adolfo Icdang, pursuant to section 105 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, reading: xxxx It is worthy of notice that, under the Public Land Act of 1903 (Act No. 926, section 3), in the event of the death of an applicant prior to the issuance of a patent, his widow shall be entitled to have a patent for the land applied for issue to her upon showing that she has consummated the requirements of law for homesteading the lands, and that only in case the deceased applicant leaves no widow shall his interest in the land descend and the patent issue to his legal heirs. Incorporated substantially in section 103 of the Public Land Act of 1919 (Act No. 2874), this policy was changed by Act No. 3517, pursuant to which the deceased shall be succeeded no longer by his widow, but by his heirs in law, who shall be entitled to have issued to them the patentif they show that they have complied with the requirements therefor. And this is, in effect, the rule maintained in the above quoted section 105 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.[35] (Emphasis added.)

It appearing that Don Fabian was responsible for meeting the requirements of law for homesteading Parcel S-1, said property, following Soliman, cannot be categorized as the paraphernal property of Pendejito. Thus, the homestead patent thereto, if eventually issued, must be made in the name of the compulsory heirs of Don Fabian. Over it, Pendejito

13
shall be entitled, pursuant to Art. 834 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, only to a usufructuary right over the property equal to the corresponding share of each of Don Fabians compulsory heirs, i.e., his eight children. Seventh Issue: Judgment Must not Only be Clear but Must Also be Complete Petitioners bemoan the fact that both the trial and appellate courts granted relief and remedies not prayed for by the parties. As argued, Civil Case No. 1292, initiated by the heirs of Benjamin against Tirso, basically sought recovery of real properties; while Civil Case No. 1332, a countersuit filed by Tirso, was for partition and damages, the main thrust of which is to recover his alleged share from properties in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of other heirs since the death of Don Fabian in 1948. Thus, petitioners take issue against both decisions of the trial and appellate courts which ordered partition not only in favor of Tirso but also in favor of the other petitioners he sued. What is particularly appalling, according to them, is the order for accounting which no one requested. under the legal guardianship of Nakila, a situation which thus disqualifies her from signing on their behalf.

The fact that nobody objected to the donation is of little consequence, for as the CA aptly observed, The circumstance that parties to a void contract choose to ignore its nullity can in no way enhance the invalid character of such contract. It is axiomatic that void contracts cannot be the subject of ratification, either express or implied.[41] WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 113199 is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated March 31, 1992 and December 16, 1993, respectively, of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 15805 are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Petitioners lament, while understandable, is specious. Our judicial system requires courts to apply the law and grant remedies when appropriately called for by law and justice. In the exercise of this mandate, courts have the discretion to apply equity in the absence or insufficiency of the law. Equity has been defined as justice outside law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for application where there is law.[36] In the instant case, a disposition only ordering partial partition and without accounting, as petitioners presently urge, would be most impractical and against what we articulated in Samala v. Court of Appeals.[37] There, we cautioned courts against being dogmatic in rendering decisions, it being preferable if they take a complete view of the case and in the process come up with a just and equitable judgment, eschewing rules tending to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Surely, the assailed path taken by the CA on the grant of relief not specifically sought is not without precedent. In National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, where the petitioner questioned the competence of the courts a quo to resolve issues not raised in the pleadings, and to order the disposition of the subject property when what was raised was the issue of right to possession, this Court in dismissing the challenge stated that a case should be decided in its totality, resolving all interlocking issues in order to render justice to all concerned and to end the litigation once and for all. [38] Verily, courts should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seed of future litigation. [39] Eighth Issue: Deed of Donation Null and Void Finally, as an incidental issue, petitioners asseverate that the deed of donation (Exhibit F) executed on September 19, 1948, or after the death of Don Fabian, in favor of Reygula M. Bayan, is valid, particularly so since Tirso and the heirs of Benjamin, as represented by their mother, Nakila, do not question the validity of said deed as they in fact signed the same. That the donated property was the same property described and included in the deed of sale (Exhibit E) in favor of Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang is not, they contend, an invalidating factor since what Don Fabian sold under Exhibit E did not extend beyond his conjugal share thereon. Just like the issue of the nullity of the three deeds of absolute sale (Exhibits C, D, and E) heretofore discussed, we agree with the determination of the RTC and CA as to the invalidity of the donation of Parcel F-5 to Reygula M. Bayan. We need not repeat the reasons for such determination, except the most basic. We refer to the authority of the person who executed the deed of donation. As it were, the widow of Benjamin, Nakila, signed the deed of donation. She, however, cannot give consent to the donation as she has no disposable right thereto. The legal maxim nemo dat quod non habet[40] applies to this instance as Nakila only has usufructuary right equal to the share of her children under Art. 834 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889. Besides, Nakila signed the deed of donation in her name and not in the name of her children who are the heirs in representation of their father, Benjamin. Lest it be overlooked, the then minor children were not

14
G.R. No. 76351 October 29, 1993 VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SENEN B. AGUILAR, respondents. Jose F. Manacop for petitioner. Siruello, Muyco & Associates Law Office for private respondent. On 26 July 1979, rendering judgment by default against defendant, the trial court found him and plaintiff to be co-owners of the house and lot, in equal shares on the basis of their written agreement. However, it ruled that plaintiff has been deprived of his participation in the property by defendant's continued enjoyment of the house and lot, free of rent, despite demands for rentals and continued maneuvers of defendants, to delay partition. The trial court also upheld the right of plaintiff as co-owner to demand partition. Since plaintiff could not agree to the amount offered by defendant for the former's share, the trial court held that this property should be sold to a third person and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. The trial court likewise ordered defendant to vacate the property and pay plaintiff trial. Consequently, the trial court, on motion of plaintiff, declared defendant as in default and ordered reception of plaintiff's evidence ex parte. On 7 May 1979, defendant through counsel filed an omnibus motion to reconsider the order of default and to defer reception of evidence. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff presented his evidence.

BELLOSILLO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 03933 declaring null and void the orders of 23 and 26 April, 1979, the judgment by default of 26 July 1979, and the order of 22 October 1979 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City, Branch 30, and directing the trial court to set the case for pre-trial conference. Petitioner Virgilio and respondent Senen are brothers; Virgilio is the youngest of seven (7) children of the late Maximiano Aguilar, while Senen is the fifth. On 28 October 1969, the two brothers purchased a house and lot in Paraaque where their father could spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. Initially, the brothers agreed that Virgilio's share in the coownership was two-thirds while that of Senen was one-third. By virtue of a written memorandum dated 23 February 1970, Virgilio and Senen agreed that henceforth their interests in the house and lot should be equal, with Senen assuming the remaining mortgage obligation of the original owners with the Social Security System (SSS) in exchange for his possession and enjoyment of the house together with their father. Since Virgilio was then disqualified from obtaining a loan from SSS, the brothers agreed that the deed of sale would be executed and the title registered in the meantime in the name of Senen. It was further agreed that Senen would take care of their father and his needs since Virgilio and his family were staying in Cebu. After Maximiano Aguilar died in 1974, petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them. Because of the refusal of respondent to give in to petitioner's demands, the latter filed on 12 January 1979 an action to compel the sale of the house and lot so that the they could divide the proceeds between them. In his complaint, petitioner prayed that the proceeds of the sale, be divided on the basis of two-thirds (2/3) in his favor and one-third (1/3) to respondent. Petitioner also prayed for monthly rentals for the use of the house by respondent after their father died. In his answer with counterclaim, respondent alleged that he had no objection to the sale as long as the best selling price could be obtained; that if the sale would be effected, the proceeds thereof should be divided equally; and, that being a coowner, he was entitled to the use and enjoyment of the property. Upon issues being joined, the case was set for pre-trial on 26 April 1979 with the lawyers of both parties notified of the pre-trial, and served with the pre-trial order, with private respondent executing a special power of attorney to his lawyer to appear at the pre-trial and enter into any amicable settlement in his behalf. 1 On 20 April 1979, Atty. Manuel S. Tonogbanua, counsel for respondent, filed a motion to cancel pre-trial on the ground that he would be accompanying his wife to Dumaguete City where she would be a principal sponsor in a wedding. On 23 April 1979, finding the reasons of counsel to be without merit, the trial court denied the motion and directed that the pre-trial should continue as scheduled. When the case was called for pre-trial as scheduled on 26 April 1979, plaintiff and his counsel appeared. Defendant did not appear; neither his counsel in whose favor he executed a special power of attorney to represent him at the pre-

from January 1975 up to the date of decision plus interest from the time the action was filed.
P1,200.00 as rentals 2 On 17 September 1979, defendant filed an omnibus motion for new trial but on 22 October 1979 the trial court denied the motion. Defendant sought relief from the Court of Appeals praying that the following orders and decision of the trial court be set aside: (a) the order of 23 April 1970 denying defendants motion for postponement of the pre-trial set on 26 April 1979; (b) the order of 26 April 1979 declaring him in default and authorizing plaintiff to present his evidenceex-parte; (e) the default judgment of 26 July 1979; and, (d) the order dated 22 October 1979 denying his omnibus motion for new trial. On 16 October 1986, the Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court of 26 April 1979 as well as the assailed judgment rendered by default., The appellate court found the explanation of counsel for defendant in his motion to cancel pre-trial as satisfactory and devoid of a manifest intention to delay the disposition of the case. It also ruled that the trial court should have granted the motion for postponement filed by counsel for defendant who should not have been declared as in default for the absence of his counsel. Petitioner now comes to us alleging that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in not holding that the motion of defendant through counsel to cancel the pre-trial was dilatory in character and (2) in remanding the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial. The issues to be resolved are whether the trial court correctly declared respondent as in default for his failure to appear at the pre-trial and in allowing petitioner to present his evidence ex-parte, and whether the trial court correctly rendered the default judgment against respondent. We find merit in the petition. As regards the first issue, the law is clear that the appearance of parties at the

A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. In the case at bar, where private respondent and counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, the trial, court has authority to declare respondent in default.
pre-trial is mandatory. 3
4 5

Although respondent's counsel filed a motion to postpone pre-trial hearing, the grant or denial thereof is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should take into account two factors in the grant or denial of motions for postponement, namely: (a) the reason for the postponement and (b) the merits of the case of movant. 6 In the instant case, the trial court found the reason stated in the motion of counsel for respondent to cancel the pre-trial to be without merit. Counsel's explanation that he had to go to by boat as early as 25 March 1979 to fetch his wife and accompany her to a wedding in Dumaguete City on 27 April 1979 where she was one of the principal sponsors, cannot be accepted. We find it insufficient to justify postponement of the pre-trial, and the Court of Appeals did not act wisely in overruling the denial. We sustain the trial court and rule that it did not

15
abuse its discretion in denying the postponement for lack of merit. Certainly, to warrant a postponement of a mandatory process as pre-trial would require much more than mere attendance in a social function. It is time indeed we emphasize that there should be much more than mere perfunctory treatment of the pre-trial procedure. Its observance must be taken seriously if it is to attain its objective, i.e., the speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. Moreover, the trial court denied the motion for postponement three (3) days before the scheduled pre-trial. If indeed, counsel for respondent could not attend the pre-trial on the scheduled date, respondent at least should have personally appeared in order not to be declared as in default. But, since nobody appeared for him, the order of the trial court declaring him as in default and directing the presentation of petitioner's evidence ex parte was proper. 7 With regard to the merits of the judgment of the trial court by default, which respondent appellate court did not touch upon in resolving the appeal, the Court holds that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence presented ex parte, petitioner and respondents are co-owners of subject house and lot in equal shares; either one of them may demand the sale of the house and lot at any time and the other cannot object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally according to their respective interests. Private respondent and his family refuse to pay monthly rentals to petitioner from the time their father died in 1975 and to vacate the house so that it can be sold to third persons. Petitioner alleges that respondent's continued stay in the property hinders its disposal to the prejudice of petitioner. On the part of petitioner, he claims that he should be paid two-thirds (2/3) of a monthly rental of P2,400.00 or the sum of P1,600.00. In resolving the dispute, the trial court ordered respondent to vacate the property so that it could be sold to third persons and the proceeds divided between them equally, and for respondent to pay petitioner one-half (1/2) of P2,400.00 or the sum of P1,200.00 as monthly rental, conformably with their stipulated sharing reflected in their written agreement. We uphold the trial court in ruling in favor of petitioner, except as to the effectivity of the payment of monthly rentals by respondent as co-owner which we here declare to commence only after the trial court ordered respondent to vacate in accordance with its order of 26 July 1979. Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially, indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be, allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to (1) when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co-owners but because of the nature of the property it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would prejudice the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the coowners are not in agreement as to who among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement of the co-owners. In one been preventing the sale of the property by his continued occupancy of the premises, justice and equity demand that respondent and his family vacate the property so that the sale can be effected immediately. In fairness to petitioner, respondent should pay a rental of P1,200.00 per month, with legal interest; from the time the trial court ordered him to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the property appertaining to petitioner. When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the coownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the continued stay of respondent and his family in the house prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. To this extent and from then on, respondent should be held liable for monthly rentals until he and his family vacate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 October 1986 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 69.12-P dated 16 July 1979 is REINSTATED, with the modification that respondent Senen B. Aguilar is ordered to vacate the premises in question within ninety (90) days from receipt of this and to pay petitioner Virgilio B. Aguilar a monthly rental of P1,200.00 with interest at the legal rate from the time he received the decision of the trial court directing him to vacate until he effectively leaves the premises. The trial court is further directed to take immediate steps to implement this decision conformably with Art. 498 of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court. This decision is final and executory. SO ORDERED.

this Court upheld the order of the trial court directing the holding of a public sale of the properties owned in common pursuant to Art. 498 of the Civil Code.
case, 8 However, being a co-owner respondent has the right to use the house and lot without paying any compensation to petitioner, as he may use the property owned in common long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other co-

Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his coowners, the reason being that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his coparticipants joint ownership over the pro indivisoproperty, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.
owners. 9
10

Since petitioner has decided to enforce his right in court to end the co-ownership of the house and lot and respondent has not refuted the allegation that he has

16
G.R. No. 150707 April 14, 2004 preponderance of evidence and on the added ground of prescription; 2. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay as their joint and several obligation, to defendants Fidela Ll. Ocampo, Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito, the total sum of P15,000.00 for attorneys fees and other expenses of litigation and P50,000.00 for moral damages; 3. The plaintiffs jointly and severally pay the cost of this suit. 4. Upon the finality of this decision, the notice of lis pendens annotated at plaintiffs behest in the Certificates of Title covering the properties in question, of defendants be cancelled; and the plaintiffs, their agents and representatives as well as successors-in-interest are ordered to respect the right of ownership of said defendants thereto, and to vacate and restore the lawful possession of all portions of said properties to herein defendants, their agents, representatives and successors-in-interest."5 The Facts The CA adopted the RTCs summation of facts as follows: "Notwithstanding its somewhat deficient grammar and syntax, the following summation of the relevant and material antecedents of the case by the court a quo, is substantially correct -This is a civil suit for partition and damages filed by plaintiffs against the defendants. The complaint alleges that during the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander-Ocampo, they begot ten (10) children, namely: Fidela, Felix, Andres, Nemesio, Jose, Apolonia, Felicidad, Luisa, Rosario, and Luis. Of the aforementioned children, the following are already dead, namely: Felix, who is survived by his widow, Melita F. Ocampo and children Felix, Jr., Ramon and Miguel; Andres, who is survived by Juana Ocampo and children Jose, Andres, Imelda, Violeta and Mercedita; Jose, who is survived by his children Antonia, Elias and Juan (Johnny); Rosario, who is survived by Ernesto O. Fortuno; Luis, who is survived by his children Rose, Ricardo, Jonas, Maria Dolores, Rebecca, Fidela and Luis, Jr.; and Luisa, who is survived by Carlos Llorin and children Mecita, Manuel, Carlos, Jr., Carmelita and Marilou L. Arellano. The complaint further alleges that during the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Luisa Llander-Ocampo, they acquired several parcels of land and, upon their death, left the following properties, namely: (a) A parcel of residential/ commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the NE by Carmen Ocampo and Alberto Espiritu, on the SE by the Burgos Street, on the SW by a Street, and on the NW by Julian Ocampo and Carmen Ocampo, containing an area of 1,119 square meters, more or less, presently covered by TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of Fidela Ocampo, declared under TD No. 18856 and assessed at P17,240.00; (b) A parcel of residential land situated at San Luis, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North and East by a barrio road, on the South by a creek, and on the West by Lot 237, with an area of about 300 square meters, declared under TD No. 19639 with an assessed value ofP6,240.00; and

APOLONIA LL. OCAMPO Now Substituted by MARIANO O. QUIEN, AMELITA Q. TAN, MILOVAN O. QUIEN, LUISA OCAMPO-LLORIN, MELITA F. OCAMPO, FELIX OCAMPO JR., RAMON OCAMPO, MIGUEL OCAMPO, JUANA OCAMPO, ANDRES OCAMPO SR., VIOLETA OCAMPO, MERCEDITA OCAMPO, ANTONIA OCAMPO, ELISA OCAMPO, BEATRIZ OCAMPO, JUAN JOHNNY OCAMPO, JONAS OCAMPO, MARIA DOLORES OCAMPO, REBECCA OCAMPO, FIDELA OCAMPO, LUIS OCAMPO JR. and ERNESTO O. FORTUNO,petitioners, vs. FIDELA LL. OCAMPO, FELICIDAD LL. OCAMPO, BELEN OCAMPOBARRITO, VICENTE BARRITO, NEMESIO LL. OCAMPO, IMELDA OCAMPO and JOSE OCAMPO, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: Basic is the rule that the party making an allegation in a civil case has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. In an action involving property, petitioners should rely on the strength of their own title and not on the alleged weakness of respondents claim. The Case Before this Court is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 31, 2001 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 56941. The decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, with the sole modification that the awards for damages and attorneys fees are hereby deleted, the judgment appealed from is, in all other respects, AFFIRMED. Without costs."3 The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision,4 rendered on October 30, 1996, which decreed thus: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds, holds and declares that defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to Vicente Barrito, are the true and lawful exclusive owners of the following properties, namely: (a) A parcel of residential/commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the NE by Carmen Ocampo and Alberto Espiritu, on the SE by the Burgos Street, on the SW by a street, and on the NW by Julian Ocampo and Carmen Ocampo, containing an area of 1,119 square meters, more or less, presently covered by TCT No. 13654 in the name of Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to Vicente Barrito and previously covered by TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of Fidela Ocampo, declared under TD No. 18856 and assessed at P17,240.00. (b) A parcel of residential land situated at San Luis, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North and East by a barrio road, on the South by a creek, and on the West by Lot 237, with an area of about 300 square meters, declared under TD No. 19639 with an assessed value of P6,240.00. (c) A parcel of land situated at Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North by Lot 10323, on the East by Lot 9543, on the South by Lot 10325, and on the West by Lot 10322, with an area of about 4884 square meters, declared under TD No. 35122 and assessed at P6780.00 as described and referred to in paragraph 9, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the original complaint and it is hereby ordered that: 1. The complaint and supplemental complaint are dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to prove their cause/causes of action by

17
(c) A parcel of land situated at Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North by Lot 10323, on the East by Lot 9543, on the South by Lot 10325, and on the West by Lot 10322, with an area of about 4,884 square meters, declared under TD No. 35122 and assessed at P6,780.00. that all the above named parcels of land are actually owned in common by the children of the late spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander Ocampo although the land denominated as parcel (a) of the complaint is ostensibly registered in the name of Fidela Ocampo alone but acknowledged by her as a property owned in common by all of them, brothers and sisters; that plaintiffs desire to partition said properties but defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad unlawfully and unreasonably refuse to do so and moved by a common purpose, both of them mortgaged to the PNB the land denominated as parcel (a) of the complaint to secure the payment of a P110,000.00 loan, the proceeds of which were x x x exclusively to the benefit of said defendants only; that the same defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo have been receiving the fruits of the properties to the exclusion of their co-heirs amounting to not less than P2,000.00 a year; and, that because of their relationship, they undertook earnest efforts to amicably settle this controversy but because of defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo[s] utterly unreasonable and unjustified actuations, the same failed. xxx xxx xxx exclusive owner thereof; that the transfer of defendants Fidela Ll. Ocampo and Belen Ocampo-Barrito of the ownership over said property now subject of this partition is tainted with fraud, actual and deliberate, to deprive plaintiffs of their legitimate share therein, knowing as they do that the same are a co-ownership of the original parties plaintiffs and defendants herein; that defendants Fidela Ll. Ocampo and the spouses Belen OcampoBarrito and Vicente Barrito have not acted in good faith, deliberately causing damage and injury to the plaintiffs by their avaricious desire to obtain sole ownership of said properties through dubious and illegal means that the defendant spouses Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito, through dubious means and undue influence over Fidela Ll. Ocampo, a very old spinster whom they have lately taken into their custody, succeeded in having the latter execute this supposed deed of donation inter vivos; that defendants have not acted with justice, honesty and good faith, causing injury to plaintiffs rights in a manner inconsistent with morals and good customs, hence, are liable for moral damages of not less than P50,000.00; and that to set an example for the public good and to deter others similarly minded from doing so, defendants should be assessed exemplary damages of not less than P50,000.00. Plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered (a) declaring the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos allegedly executed by Fidela Ll. Ocampo in favor of Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito be declare[d] null and void, (b) ordering defendants Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito to reconvey so much of the property subject thereof as pertain to the plaintiffs, (c) directing defendants, jointly and severally, to indemnify plaintiffs such amounts as this Honorable Court may consider fair and reasonable by way of actual, moral and exemplary damages, inclusive of attorneys fees and related expenses of litigation, and (d) granting plaintiffs such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises. xxx xxx xxx

In their complaint, plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered ordering the partition of the properties described in paragraph 9 of the complaint; ordering defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo, to release or otherwise cancel any and all encumbrances on TCT No. RT-4389(983) which they had caused to be annotated thereon, particularly, the mortgage in favor of the PNB; requiring Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo to refrain from further encumbering said properties or otherwise subjecting the same to any lien and for that purpose, a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued against them to enjoin the commission of such acts; ordering defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo to submit an accounting of the fruits and other produce they had received from said properties; further ordering Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo to indemnify plaintiffs the sum of not less than P15,000.00 by way of attorneys fees and related expenses of litigation, plus the costs of the suit; and, further granting plaintiffs such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises. xxx xxx xxx

On 17 December 1987, counsel for plaintiffs filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint dated 2 December 1987 which was granted by the Court as there was no opposition to it. The Supplemental Complaint alleges that defendants Helen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito are spouses; that on 30 September 1987, TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of defendant Fidela Ocampo and covering the lot described as parcel (a) in paragraph 9 of the original complaint was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 1364 was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to defendant Vicente Barrito, on the strength of an allege[d] Deed of Donation Inter Vivos ostensibly executed by defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo in their favor on 13 January 1984; that at the time the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos was presented for registration and when TCT No. 1364, Registry of Camarines Sur, was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, both the donor and donees were notoriously aware that said parcel of land was among the lots subject of this Civil Case No. IR-1867 of which the donor Fidela Ll. Ocampo and the mother of the donees, Felicidad Ll. Ocampo, are defendants, that said properties were owned by the Ocampo brothers and sisters, and that the donor Fidela Ll. Ocampo was not the

As Special Defenses, defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito allege that the original defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo, her predecessor-in-interest, since 1949 has been the absolute owner in fee simple of the property by virtue of the issuance of the certificate of title in her name; that her predecessor-in-interest held the same certificate of title to the same parcel of land (TCT No. RT-4389(983) free of all encumbrances and adverse claims and was in notorious, public, and actual possession of the property in concept of absolute owner from 1949 until 13 January 1984, when said predecessor-in-interest validly conveyed the property by donation inter vivos which she accepted in the same public instrument; that TCT No. 1364 was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito on the strength of the donation inter vivos executed in her favor by her predecessor-in-interest and has since 30 September 1987, been the absolute owner thereof; that since 1949 none of the plaintiffs ever questioned the absolute ownership and title of defendant Belen Ocampo-Barritos predecessor-in-interest over the property making the decree of registration incontrovertible; that it is fatal for plaintiffs cause of action to allege that defendants exerted undue influence over Fidela Ll. Ocampo for the latter to execute the deed of donation while clearly admitting in both the original and supplemental complaints that defendants are residents of Mindoro Occidental a far away place from Nabua, Camarines Sur, the place where the same predecessor-in-interest admittedly resides; and, that Belen Ocampo-Barritos title cannot be collaterally attacked in these supposed partition proceedings. xxx xxx xxx

Defendants pray that the case be dismissed for utter lack of merit and plaintiffs be ordered to pay defendants the sum of P200,000.00 for moral damages, P50,000.00 for exemplary damages,P100,000.00 as compensatory damages, to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P15,000.00, and for other just and equitable remedies.

18
xxx xxx xxx "1. Where the evidence presented, oral and documentary, on the question of co-ownership, is overwhelming as it is unopposed, unrebutted and unimpeached, has co-ownership been proved? "2. Where co-ownership is confirmed by long, public possession by co-owners, did the courts commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that there is no co-ownership? "3. Where the evidence of respondents is weak, puerile and inconsistent, did the courts commit a grave misapprehension of facts when they gave credence to it? "4. Where a deed of donation intervivos entered in bad faith deprives the heirs of their hereditary shares, is said deed valid? "5. Where a declaration against interest has not been opposed, assailed, rebutted or impeached, did the courts commit grave abuse of discretion in holding there is no such declaration?"9 At bottom, the question to be resolved in this case is who owns the disputed property? The Court's Ruling Defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo prays that judgment be rendered dismissing the complaint and ordering plaintiffs to indemnify such sum as will be proved as well as [s]uch amount as this Court may assess by way of moral and exemplary damages and costs, including necessary expenses for litigation, and for just and equitable reliefs."6 Ruling of the Court of Appeals According to the appellate court, other than the Acknowledgment of Coownership7 executed by Respondent Fidela Ocampo, no documentary evidence was offered to establish petitioners claim of co-ownership. The CA held that this piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the array of testimonial and documentary evidence that had been adduced by respondents to prove their defenses. Communal ownership of the property in question was supposedly not proven, either, by the ancient photograph showing Spouses Chino Jose and Juana Llander Ocampo with their ten children in front of the disputed property; or by another picture showing the name "Oniang Ocampo -- 1-15-61" engraved on the said house or building. The court a quo rejected the argument of petitioners that the title to the subject property had been placed in the name of Fidela, because their parents followed the Chinese custom of placing properties in the name of the eldest son or daughter who was single. Petitioners explained that upon the death of the eldest sibling, the properties would revert to the younger brothers and sisters. According to the CA, however, not a shred of evidence was adduced to prove that such a Chinese custom existed or was observed in that place. The CA also dismissed petitioners contention that common ownership was indicated by the fact that some of the children of Spouses Ocampo stayed and lived on the subject property. It ruled that fraternal affection could have been the motive that impelled respondents to allow their relatives to use it. In contrast to the arguments of petitioners, the CA said that respondents were able to give clear proof of their ownership of the property: the Transfer Certificate of Title and the corresponding Tax Declaration in the name of Fidela, and later of Belen Ocampo-Barrito. Nevertheless, the CA eliminated the awards for damages and attorneys fees, because the trial court had failed to cite the factual, the legal and the equitable bases therefor. Hence, this Petition.8 The Issues Petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration: On the other hand, Belen clearly traced the basis of her alleged sole ownership of the property and presented preponderant proof of her claim. First, she presented a Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential Land, 17 referring to the subject property, executed between Adolfo Ocampo as seller and Felix Ocampo as buyer. The document dated July 6, 1948, was signed in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged before Juan B. Ballecer, a notary public. At the outset, we clarify that although there were three (3) properties originally involved in the litigation brought before the RTC, petitioners appeal dealt only with the first one, referred to in the Statement of Facts above -- a parcel of residential/commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur. In their CA appeal, petitioners declared that "the focus of this case is on the first [property] which is located at downtown Poblacion of Nabua and therefore a valuable piece of property, 1,119 square meters in all." 10 Because petitioners had not questioned the RTC Decision with regard to the other properties, then the adjudication of these matters became final. Thus, only one property is left for resolution in the present proceedings.11 Since the original Complaint was an action for partition, this Court cannot order a division of the property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of a co-ownership.12 The settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in an action for partition.13 This action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the subject property. Parties filing the action are in fact required by the Rules of Court14 to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their title to the property. It would be premature to effect a partition thereof until and unless the question of ownership is first definitely resolved. 15 Basic is the rule that the party making an allegation in a civil case has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence.16 Petitioners chief evidence of coownership of the property in question is simply the Acknowledgement of Coownership executed by Fidela. As mentioned earlier, both the trial and the appellate courts were correct in finding that this piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the array of testimonial and documentary evidence that were adduced by respondents, as will be expounded below. Petitioners failed to trace the successive transfers of ownership of the questioned property that eventually led to them. Allegedly, it was originally owned by their parents -- Spouses Ocampo -- whose deaths passed it on to the children. Petitioners, however, presented absolutely no proof of ownership of their predecessors-in-interest. In insisting that it was so transferred and thus coowned, the former rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership executed by Fidela, their eldest sibling. The Petition has no merit. Main Issue: Ownership of the Subject Property

As the Special and/or Affirmative Defenses, defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo alleges that she is the true and absolute owner of the real properties described in paragraph 9 of the original complaint having acquired the same by lucrative title and has, since becoming owner thereof, been in actual possession thereof excepting the portion of the lot described in paragraph 9 (a) of the complaint and covered by Torrens title which was and is still being unlawfully occupied by plaintiffs Quiens; that the properties have been declared for assessment in defendants name as exclusive owner thereof and since her acquisition of said properties, has paid the taxes thereon; that defendant had exercised continuously all the legal incidents of ownership on said lands to the exclusion of and adversely to the public, plaintiffs herein included; that the [D]eed of Donation Inter Vivos and the subsequent transfer of the property mentioned in paragraph 9 of the complaint to other defendants Belen Ocamp[o]-Barrito is valid conveyance which binds the said property; and, that assuming that plaintiffs have a cause of action, the same is barred by laches. xxx xxx xxx

19
The theory of petitioners is completely demolished by this document, which they never contested. According to them, the land in question was the conjugal property of their parents; and that upon the latters deaths, the former inherited it in common. If indeed the land was the conjugal property of Spouses Ocampo, then petitioners should have presented evidence to prove such ownership by their alleged predecessors-in-interest. Since the former failed to do so, how then can they prove the transfer to them of ownership that has not been established in the first place? It is axiomatic that no one can transfer to another a right greater than that which one has;18 thus, the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its source.19 Likewise, in this Deed of Absolute Sale, Adolfo Ocampo declared his "exclusive ownership" of the property, "having been acquired by purchase[;] and [having] been in [his] continuous, public, peaceful, adverse and material possession for more than 50 years together with [his] predecessors in rights and interest, in [the] concept of owner without any claim of other persons." 20 Second, Respondent Belen proved that on February 10, 1953, this property had been sold to Fidela by Felix Ocampo for a valuable consideration; and that Fidela had entered the property, actually occupied it, and exercised all powers of dominion over it to the exclusion of petitioners. As proofs of ownership of the property by Fidela, Belen presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4389 (983),21 which named the former as owner in fee simple; and a Declaration of Real Property,22 evidencing payment of real property taxes, also by Fidela as owner. To prove further that Fidela had exercised dominion over the property, Belen also presented a Real Estate Mortgage23 executed by the former as absolute owner. Fidela had executed it in favor of her sister Apolonia Ocampo, one of the original petitioners in this case, who is now represented by her heirs. Belen correctly argues that in agreeing to be a mortgagee, Apolonia admitted and recognized Fidela as the true owner of the land in question. The Civil Code provides that an essential requisite of a contract of mortgage is that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. 24 Co-ownership cannot be presumed even if only a portion of the property was mortgaged to Apolonia, because a co-owner may dispose only of ones interest in the ideal or abstract part of the undivided thing co-owned with others.25 The effect of a mortgage by a co-owner shall be limited to the portion that may be allotted to that person upon the termination of the co-ownership.26 In this case, Fidela mortgaged adefinite portion of the property and thus negated any acknowledgement of co-ownership. Third, Belen then presented a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos 27 executed on January 13, 1984, between herself as donee and Fidela as donor. This act shows the immediate source of the formers claim of sole ownership of the property. A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title to the property from the donor to the donee.28 Petitioners stubbornly rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership allegedly executed by Fidela in favor of her siblings. What they overlook is the fact that at the time of the execution of the Acknowledgement -- assuming that its authenticity and due execution were proven -- the property had already been donated to Belen. The Deed of Donation, which is the prior document, is clearly inconsistent with the document relied upon by petitioners. We agree with the RTCs ratiocination: "On the claim of plaintiffs that defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo herself made a written acknowledgement for her co-ownership over all the properties disputed with plaintiffs in this case, the same cannot be considered as a declaration against Fidelas interest since the alleged acknowledgement was written and executed on 24 December 1985 when she was no longer the owner of the property as the year previous, on 13 January 1984, she had already donated all her properties to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, so that, in effect, she had no more properties with which she can have an interest to declare against."29 Petitioners argue that the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership may be considered as a declaration against interest. A statement may be admissible as such a declaration if it complies with the following requisites: 1) the declarant is dead or unable to testify; 2) it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant; 3) at the time of the declaration, the declarant was aware that it was contrary to his or her interest; and 4) the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed the declaration to be true.30 As correctly found by the trial court, however, the Acknowledgement of Coownership could not be a fact against the interest of the declarant, since her right over the property had already been extinguished by the prior act of donation. Thus, at the time of the declaration, Fidela could not have acknowledged coownership, as she had no more property against which she had an interest to declare. Finally, Belen presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1365431 as proof of her ownership of the property. To be sure, the best proof of ownership of the land is the Certificate of Title (TCT). Hence, more than a bare allegation is required to defeat the face value of respondents TCT, which enjoys a legal presumption of regularity of issuance.32 It is quite surprising that despite the process of transfers and titling of the subject property -- commencing in 1948 and eventually leading to the sole ownership of Belen in 198433 -- it was only after 1984 that petitioners started asserting their claim of co-ownership thereof. We are not unmindful of our ruling that the mere issuance of a certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under coownership with persons not named therein.34 But given the circumstances of this case, the claim of co-ownership by petitioners has no leg to stand on. Again, we stress, Belen clearly traced the source of her sole ownership of the property in question and thereby foreclosed the unproven and unsubstantiated allegation of co-ownership thereof. In addition to the TCT presented, Belen offered as evidence the Tax Declaration35 indicating that she, as owner, had been paying real estate taxes on the property, all to the exclusion of petitioners. On the other hand, petitioners could not show any title, tax receipt or document to prove their ownership. Having filed an action involving property, they should have relied on the strength of their own title and not on the alleged weakness of respondents claim.36 Petitioners assert that their claim of co-ownership of the property was sufficiently proved by their witnesses -- Luisa Ocampo-Llorin and Melita Ocampo. We disagree. Their testimonies cannot prevail over the array of documents presented by Belen. A claim of ownership cannot be based simply on the testimonies of witnesses; much less on those of interested parties, self-serving as they are. As to the photographs presented by petitioners to bolster their claim of coownership, we affirm the CAs disposition showing the flimsiness of their claim as follows: "The other piece of documentary evidence presented by appellants really proved nothing. The ancient photograph showing the spouses Chino Jose and Juana Llander Ocampo together with their ten children, simply proved that there was such a picture taking of the spouses with their children. But the photograph does not prove communal ownership by appellants over the disputed parcels of land; neither does it prove that the said properties were indeed owned by the spouses Chino Jose and Juana Ocampo, and then later on transferred to and commonly owned by their children. By the same token, the picture exhibited by appellant showing the name Oniang Ocampo -- 1-15-61 (or Apolonia Ocampo, one of the children of the spouses Chino Jose and Juana) engraved in the house or building, does not prove communal ownership of the properties in question. At best, it is susceptible of various meanings, like: that of Oniang Ocampo was born on 1-15-61, or that she got married on that date, or that she was celebrating a special event on the date mentioned, or that she even died on the date mentioned. And even assuming ex gratia argumenti, that the said engraving proved ownership over the disputed building, some such fact can only work to the prejudice of herein appellants. Why? Because it would mean that only Oniang (or Apolonia) was the owner of the building and that the building is not, therefore, a communal property of the children of the late spouses Chino Jose and Juana. Adverting to this piece of evidence, the Trial Court postulated -The engravings on the house ONIANG OCAMPO BLDG. -- 1-15-61 cannot serve as evidence that the property is of common ownership. At most, this can only establish the fact that said building was constructed for a certain Oniang on 15 January 1961. If, indeed, the property is of common ownership, there could not have been any difficulty to engrave thereon HEIRS OF JOSE OCAMPO and JUANA LLANDER-OCAMPO -- 1-15-61 instead of ONIANG OCAMPO BLDG. -- 1-15-61."37

20
Neither can we accept petitioners contention that co-ownership is shown by the fact that some of the children of Spouses Ocampo stayed, lived, and even put up businesses on the property. The appellate court correctly found that since the litigants in this case were blood relatives, fraternal affection could have been a good motive that impelled either Belen or Fidela to allow petitioners to use the property. Without any proof, however, co-ownership among the parties cannot be presumed. Neither are we persuaded by the contention that Spouses Ocampo placed the subject property in the name of only one person in accordance with a Chinese custom. As mentioned earlier, that custom consisted of placing properties of parents in the name of the eldest unmarried son or daughter, with the implicit understanding that ownership thereof would later revert to the siblings. In contrast to the failure of petitioners to prove that such custom existed and was practiced in that place,38 Belen presented evidence that clearly negated any claim of ownership by the formers predecessors-in-interest. Having shown that the property in question was originally owned by one Adolfo Ocampo -- not by Spouses Ocampo, from whom petitioners derive their right -- the claim of custom becomes immaterial. The fact that Fidela was not presented in court will not necessarily favor petitioners and prove that the property in question is indeed co-owned. If they felt that her testimony would prove their cause, then they could have easily called her as an adverse or a hostile witness.39 But since respondents were confident in the documents they presented in court, they did not see any need to call her as a witness. Petitioners also question the motives of Fidela for donating her properties, when she is still alive and needs money in her old age. They clearly overlook the nature of a donation. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person gratuitously disposes of a thing or a right in favor of another who accepts it.40 Once perfected, a donation is final; its revocation or rescission cannot be effected, absent any legal ground therefor.41 A donation may in fact comprehend the entire property of the donor.42 At any rate, the law provides that donors should reserve, in full ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for their own support and that of all their relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by them.43 In questioning the motives of Fidela for donating the subject property, petitioners are contradicting even themselves. On the one hand, they assert that she would not have disposed of her property, since she would need it in her old age; on the other, they argue that it was not hers alone anyway. It should be clear that the law protects donors by providing that, without any reservation of sufficient means for themselves, the donation shall be reduced upon the petition of any person affected.44 To be sure, petitioners arguments all pertain to circumstances extraneous to the Deed of Donation itself. The law is clear that when its terms have been reduced to writing, an agreement must be presumed to contain all the terms agreed upon; and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.45 Petitioners did not question the consent of Fidela to the donation. Never was there any intimation that she had either been coerced or defrauded into entering into it. As all the essential elements of a donation -- consent, subject matter and cause46 -- have been satisfied, we see no reason to entertain any doubt about the Deed pertaining thereto. The question of why the land was registered several years after the donation is purely speculative. What is important is that there was a duly proven Deed of Donation, which formed the basis of Belens claim and led to the registration of the property in her name. Petitioners also question Fidelas filing of an unlawful detainer suit after the date of the Deed of Donation. Again, we remind petitioners that because this action involves property, they should rely on the strength of their own title, not on the alleged weakness of the claim of respondents. At any rate, the burden of proof of the claim of co-ownership rests on the former. Moreover, the final resolution of this case entails the review of factual findings of the courts below. It is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and conclusive are the factual findings of the trial court, if supported by clear and convincing evidence on record. Usually, the Supreme Court does not review those findings - especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. 47 From the records of the present case, no cogent evidence appears that would impel us to apply the above doctrine differently. The courts below have not overlooked essential facts that, if considered, may produce a different outcome. The trial court correctly explained thus: "This Court from the outset had the opportunity to see and hear the tell-tale [signs] of truthfulness or perjury like the flush of face, or the tone of voice, or the dart of eyes, or the fearful pause [--] and finds that credibility is with the defendants [herein respondents]. Moreover, the preponderance of evidence is with defendants whose testimonial evidences are buttressed by their documentary evidences."48 Finally, we agree with the CA in eliminating the awards for damages and attorneys fees for respondents failure to show any factual, legal or equitable bases therefor.49 WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

21
G.R. No. L-33187 March 31, 1980 CORNELIO PAMPLONA alias GEMINIANO PAMPLONA and APOLONIA ONTE, petitioners, vs. VIVENCIO MORETO, VICTOR MORETO, ELIGIO MORETO, MARCELO MORETO, PAULINA MORETO, ROSARIO MORETO, MARTA MORETO, SEVERINA MENDOZA, PABLO MENDOZA, LAZARO MENDOZA, VICTORIA TUIZA, JOSEFINA MORETO, LEANDRO MORETO and LORENZO MENDOZA, respondents. E.P. Caguioa for petitioners. Benjamin C. Yatco for respondents. This is a petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the decision of the Court of their said house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496. On August 12, 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises where they had their house and piggery on the ground that Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife and the latter was already dead when the sale was executed without the consent of the plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica. The spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte refused to vacate the premises occupied by them and hence, this suit was instituted by the heirs of Monica Maniega seeking for the declaration of the nullity of the deed of sale of July 30, 1952 above-mentioned as regards one-half of the property subject matter of said deed; to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of the other half of said lot; to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one-half portion thereof sold to the defendants. "After payment of the other half of the purchase price"; to order the defendants to vacate the portions occupied by them; to order the defendants to pay actual and moral damages and attorney's fees to the plaintiffs; to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs P120.00 a year from August 1958 until they have vacated the premises occupied by them for the use and occupancy of the same. The defendants claim that the sale made by Flaviano Moreto in their favor is valid as the lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano Moreto and they are purchasers believing in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold. After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and 4545 made by agreement of the parties, it was found out that there was mutual error between Flaviano Moreto and the defendants in the execution of the deed of sale because while the said deed recited that the lot sold is lot No. 1495, the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. 1496 which was the subject matter of their sale transaction. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive part thereof being as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs declaring the deed of absolute sale dated July 30, 1952 pertaining to the eastern portion of Lot 1496 covering an area of 781 square meters null and void as regards the 390.5 square meters of which plaintiffs are hereby declared the rightful owners and entitled to its possession. The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern onehalf (1/2) of 1781 square meters of Lot 1496 measuring 390.5 square meters of which defendants are declared lawful owners and entitled to its possession. After proper survey segregating the eastern one-half portion with an area of 390.5 square meters of Lot 1496, the defendants shall be entitled to a certificate of title covering said portion and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9843 of the office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna shall be cancelled accordingly and new titles issued to the plaintiffs and to the defendants covering their respective portions. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5671 of the office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna covering Lot No. 1495 and registered in the name of Cornelio Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, is by virtue of this decision ordered cancelled. The defendants are ordered to surrender to the office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna the owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5671 within thirty (30) days after this decision shall have become final for cancellation in accordance with this decision. Let copy of this decision be furnished the Register of Deeds for the province of Laguna for his information and guidance.With costs against the defendants. 2 The defendants-appellants, not being satisfied with said judgment, appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment, hence they now come to this Court. The fundamental and crucial issue in the case at bar is whether under the facts and circumstances duly established by the evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the property in litigation, or only one-half of the same. There is no question that when the petitioners purchased the property on July 30, 1952 from Flaviano Moreto for the price of P900.00, his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six years before, Monica having died on May 6, 1946.

in CA-G.R. No. 35962-R, entitled "Vivencio Moreto, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees vs. Cornelio Pamplona, et al., Defendants-Appellants," affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch I at Bian.
Appeals 1 The facts, as stated in the decision appealed from, show that: Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife. During their marriage, they acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545, and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate, situated in Calamba, Laguna, containing 781-544 and 1,021 square meters respectively and covered by certificates of title issued in the name of "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega." The spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega begot during their marriage six (6) children, namely, Ursulo, Marta, La Paz, Alipio, Pablo, and Leandro, all surnamed Moreto. Ursulo Moreto died intestate on May 24, 1959 leaving as his heirs herein plaintiffs Vivencio, Marcelo, Rosario, Victor, Paulina, Marta and Eligio, all surnamed Moreto. Marta Moreto died also intestate on April 30, 1938 leaving as her heir plaintiff Victoria Tuiza. La Paz Moreto died intestate on July 17, 1954 leaving the following heirs, namely, herein plaintiffs Pablo, Severina, Lazaro, and Lorenzo, all surnamed Mendoza. Alipio Moreto died intestate on June 30, 1943 leaving as his heir herein plaintiff Josefina Moreto. Pablo Moreto died intestate on April 25, 1942 leaving no issue and as his heirs his brother plaintiff Leandro Moreto and the other plaintiffs herein. On May 6, 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate in Calamba, Laguna. On July 30, 1952, or more than six (6) years after the death of his wife Monica Maniega, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife Monica, and before any liquidation of the conjugal partnership of Monica and Flaviano could be effected, executed in favor of Geminiano Pamplona, married to defendant Apolonia Onte, the deed of absolute sale (Exh. "1") covering lot No. 1495 for P900.00. The deed of sale (Exh. "1") contained a description of lot No. 1495 as having an area of 781 square meters and covered by transfer certificate of title No. 14570 issued in the name of Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica Maniega, although the lot was acquired during their marriage. As a result of the sale, the said certificate of title was cancelled and a new transfer certificate of title No. T-5671 was issued in the name of Geminiano Pamplona married to Apolonia Onte (Exh. "A"). After the execution of the above-mentioned deed of sale (Exh. "1"), the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona. Shortly thereafter, Rafael Pamplona, son of the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte, also built his house within lot 1496 about one meter from its boundary with the adjoining lot. The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their sale transaction was No. 1495 and so lot No. 1495 appears to be the subject matter in the deed of sale (Exh. "1") although the fact is that the said portion sold thought of by the parties to be lot No. 1495 is a part of lot No. 1496. From 1956 to 1960, the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonio Onte enlarged their house and they even constructed a piggery corral at the back of

22
Hence, the conjugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega had already been dissolved. (Article 175, (1) New Civil Code; Article 1417, Old Civil Code). The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The necessary proceedings for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership were not instituted by the heirs either in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse pursuant to Act 3176 amending Section 685 of Act 190. Neither was there an extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for partition brought for the purpose. Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a co-ownership. The community property of the marriage, at the dissolution of this bond by the death of one of the spouses, ceases to belong to the legal partnership and becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse, or the exclusive property of the widower or the widow, it he or she be the heir of the deceased spouse. Every co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. (Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, 17 Phil. 107) In Borja vs. Addision, 44 Phil. 895, 906, the Supreme Court said that "(t)here is no reason in law why the heirs of the deceased wife may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for the management and control of the community property of the marriage and conceivably such a partnership, or rather community of property, between the heirs and the surviving husband might be formed without a written agreement." In Prades vs. Tecson, 49 Phil. 230, the Supreme Court held that "(a)lthough, when the wife dies, the surviving husband, as administrator of the community property, has authority to sell the property with ut the concurrence of the children of the marriage, nevertheless this power can be waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a conventional ownership in common between the father and children as to such property; and any one purchasing with knowledge of the changed status of the property will acquire only the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in the act of conveyance. It is also not disputed that immediately after the execution of the sale in 1952, the vendees constructed their house on the eastern part of Lot 1496 which the vendor pointed out to them as the area sold, and two weeks thereafter, Rafael who is a son of the vendees, also built his house within Lot 1496. Subsequently, a cemented piggery coral was constructed by the vendees at the back of their house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of Lot 1496. Both vendor and vendees believed all the time that the area of 781 sq. meters subject of the sale was Lot No. 1495 which according to its title (T.C.T. No. 14570) contains an area of 781 sq. meters so that the deed of sale between the parties Identified and described the land sold as Lot 1495. But actually, as verified later by a surveyor upon agreement of the parties during the proceedings of the case below, the area sold was within Lot 1496. Again, there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses Cornelio Pamplona and Apolonia Onte as well as that of their son Rafael Pamplona, including the concrete piggery coral adjacent thereto, stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint by the private respondents on July 25, 1961, or a period of over nine (9) years. And during said period, the private respondents who are the heirs of Monica Maniega as well as of Flaviano Moreto who also died intestate on August 12, 1956, lived as neighbors to the petitioner-vendees, yet lifted no finger to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land purchased by the Pamplonas, so that We are persuaded and convinced to rule that private respondents are in estoppel by laches to claim half of the property, in dispute as null and void. Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same. (International Banking Corporation vs. Yared, 59 Phil. 92) We have ruled that at the time of the sale in 1952, the conjugal partnership was already dissolved six years before and therefore, the estate became a coownership between Flaviano Moreto, the surviving husband, and the heirs of his deceased wife, Monica Maniega. Article 493 of the New Civil Code is applicable and it provides a follows: Art. 493. 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 involve. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the coowners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by him to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built their house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery. Petitioners point to the fact that spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega owned three parcels of land denominated as Lot 1495 having an area of 781 sq. meters, Lot 1496 with an area of 1,021 sq. meters, and Lot 4545 with an area of 544 sq. meters. The three lots have a total area of 2,346 sq. meters. These three parcels of lots are contiguous with one another as each is bounded on one side by the other, thus: Lot 4545 is bounded on the northeast by Lot 1495 and on the southeast by Lot 1496. Lot 1495 is bounded on the west by Lot 4545. Lot 1496 is bounded on the west by Lot 4545. It is therefore, clear that the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located in different places but they abut each other. This is not disputed by private respondents. Hence, at the time of the sale, the co-ownership constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other. And since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to onehalf pro-indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale. We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners. The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erectd without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by said vendor Flaiano Moreto. Equity commands that the private respondents, the successors of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of P900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same. Moreover, as the heirs of both Monica Maniega and Flaviano Moreto, private respondents are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of Articles 1458 and 1495, Civil Code, which is the obligation of the vendor of the property of delivering and transfering the ownership of the whole property sold, which is transmitted on his death to his heirs, the herein private respondents. The articles cited provide, thus:Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other part to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditionial. Art. 1495. The vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale. Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private respondents received from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death. And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said obligation. The records reveal that the area of 781 sq. meters sold to and occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the filing of the complaint in 1961 had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas. Petitioners are entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9843 covering Lot 1496 and they are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name based on the relocation survey. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and valid in its entirely.Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of the 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral stand.

23
The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to segregate the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters.No costs.SO ORDERED.