Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

Edwardo Costales
Defendant
-versus- CIVIL CASE
NO. L-12345
For:
Heirs of Pedro, Ana, and Maria
Plaintiff

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another
shall indemnify the latter for the same. (Art. 20, Civil Code)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Heirs of Pedro, Ana, and Maria filed present action for annulment of the affidavit
of ownership executed by Jose and to recover the ownership and possession of the
1,000 square meters of land which was bought by Defendant Eduardo.
Juan Sabado died intestate leaving a parcel of land with an area of 2,800 to his 4
children. The land was divided equally among themselves by Jose, Pedro, Ana, and
Maria. Despite the partition, the Tax declaration was transferred only to Jose. The other
siblings died without acquiring Tax Declarations in their names over the land they
divided among themselves.
Jose executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, proclaiming himself as the sole heir of
Juan and sole owner of the entire land. Jose executed a deed of sale to Eduardo selling
1,000 square meters of the land.
Heirs of Pedro, Ana, and Maria, the Plaintiff filed a case to annul the affidavit of
ownership and the deed of sale to Eduardo. They also seek to recover ownership over
the subject land in the deed of sale. The Plaintiff alleged that the affidavit executed by
Jose is false on the ground that he is not the only sole heir of the deceased Juan
Sabado. They allege that the sale must be annulled because Jose cannot sell the
property which he does not own. They further alleges that the deed of sale did not
involve any consideration, however in the deed of sale it make mentions that Eduardo
paid Jose the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (10,000.00).
The defendant, Eduardo argues that he is the rightful owner of the 1,000 square meters
of land sold to him on the following grounds:
1. He presented Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition with sale executed by Pedro,
Maria, and Ana when they are still alive.
2. The document was dully notarized, and it also states that they all sold the 1,000
square meters of land to Eduardo for 10,000.00.
3. The subsequently dated affidavit of ownership was for Tax Declarations only
because the Tax Declaration of the whole property was in the name of Jose only
and such affidavit was executed with the consent of Jose’s siblings.
A handwriting expert from the NBI concluded that the signatures of the children of Juan
Sabado affixed in the document were genuine.
 ISSUES:
I. Whether co-heir is the sole administrator of the property co-owned by its
deceased siblings?
II. Whether or not there is a valid contract of sale between Jose and Edgardo.
III. Whether a notarized deed prevails over a certificate of title?

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The facts of the case show that there is a dispute between two parties who are both
claiming of having a better right to the subject property.
Under the civil code, succession is defined as a mode of acquiring ownership by virtue
of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance
of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by
operation of law.
I.
The case at bar clearly displays the mode of acquiring ownership which is a valid mode.
The validity of the claims of Jose that he is the sole heir of Juan has no merit. A co-heir
to the property has a right to the extent of his/her own share in the property. Title or
rights to a deceased person’s property are immediately passed to his or her heirs upon
death. The heirs’ rights become vested without need for them to be declared “heirs.”
Before the property is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the property.
Thus, in this case, the rights to Juan Sabado’s property were automatically passed to
his children —Jose, Pedro, Anna, and Maria— when he died in 1948. Jose, Pedro,
Anna, and Maria became co-owners of the property, with each of them entitled to an
undivided portion of only a quarter of the property. Upon their deaths, their children
became the co-owners of the property, who were entitled to their respective shares,
such that the heirs of Pedro became entitled to Pedro’s one-fourth share, and Anna’s
and Maria’s respective heirs became entitled to their corresponding one fourth shares in
the property. The heirs cannot alienate the shares that do not belong to them. Article
493 of the Civil Code provides:
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
involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners,
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.
It is displayed in the case at bar that there are still heirs of the deceased siblings of Jose
who is the rightful owner/possessor of the property being declared in the said affidavit of
self-adjudication.
In the case of Rebusquillo v. Sps. Domingo (2014), defines that an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. The second
sentence of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that self-
adjudication is only warranted when there is only one heir.

If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an
affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. In the present case, Jose was not the
sole heir of Juan Sabado. In fact, Jose is one of the co-heirs. Without a doubt, Jose had
perjured himself when he declared in the affidavit that he is “the only and sole heir of
Juan Sabado.” The falsity of this claim renders his act of adjudicating to himself the
inheritance left by his father invalid.
 II.
In the case of Heirs of Gregorio Lopez vs Development Bank of the Philippines (2014),
it was consistently upheld the principle that "no one can give what one does not have."
A seller can only sell what he or she owns, or that which he or she does not own but
has authority to transfer, and a buyer can only acquire what the seller can legally
transfer.
The seller cannot perform this obligation if he or she does not have a right to convey
ownership of the thing. Hence, Article 1459 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1459. The thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the
ownership thereof at the time it is delivered.
The contract of sale is valid if the three elements are present namely:
A. Consent
B. Object
C. Price/Consideration

However, absence of the third requisite shall render the sale void because it is stated in
a case decided by the Supreme Court that “no contract of sale can be valid if the
existence of the price or consideration is not present”. If such scenario will take place,
the contract will be for a donation if it has no price because it is surely gratuitous in
which the nature of the contract between parties will be changed.

As reiterated in the case of Heirs of Dr. Mario S. Intac vs. Court of Appeals (2012):

“. . . It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states that

the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the
deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. Moreover,
Art. 1471 of the Civil Code, which provides that "if the price is simulated,
the sale is void," also applies to the instant case, since the price
purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was simulated for no
payment was actually made. . . .

Consideration and consent are essential elements in a contract of sale.

Where a party’s consent to a contract of sale is vitiated or where there is
lack of consideration due to a simulated price, the contract is null and
void ab initio.”

III.

Genuinely of the signature is only used for the said transfer of rights and giving of the
authority to be the administrator of the property. Administration of the property is not
tantamount to succession of the legitime/subject property.

The Supreme Court on its decision in the case of Jovina Dabon Vda De Mendez vs CA
(2012), states that forgery is not presumed but must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence by the party alleging it. It is established by comparing the alleged
forged signature with the genuine signatures. Considering the technical nature of the
procedure in examining forged documents, handwriting experts are often offered as
expert witnesses. But although their testimonies are useful, resort to these experts is
not mandatory or indispensable because a finding of forgery does not depend entirely
on their testimonies. Judges must also exercise independent judgment in determining
the authenticity or genuineness of the signatures in question, and not rely merely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts.
The issuance of the original certificate of title in favor of Eduardo does not cure Jose’s
lack of title or authority to convey his co-owners’ portions of the property. Issuance of a
certificate of title is not a grant of title over petitioners’ undivided portions of the property.
The physical certificate of title does not vest in a person ownership or right over a
property. It is merely an evidence of such ownership or right.
Eduardo could acquire valid title over the whole property if h were an innocent
purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value purchases a property without any
notice of defect or irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller. He or she is without
notice that another person holds claim to the property being purchased.
As a rule, an ordinary buyer may rely on the certificate of title issued in the name of the
seller. He or she need not look "beyond what appears on the face [of the certificate of
title]." However, the ordinary buyer will not be considered an innocent purchaser for
value if there is anything on the certificate of title that arouses suspicion, and the buyer
failed to inquire or take steps to ensure that there is no cloud on the title, right, or
ownership of the property being sold.
Eduardo cannot claim the protection accorded by law to innocent purchasers for value
because the circumstances do not make this available to him.
In this case, there was no certificate of title to rely on when he purchased the property
from Jose. At the time of the sale, the property was still unregistered. What was
available was only a tax declaration.

CONCLUSION
Jose cannot invoke such claim that he is the sole administrator of the said property.
There are still surviving heirs of the siblings in which the order of succession must be
lawfully complied with. In succession in general, the descendants of the deceased shall
be the first order of succession. In the absence of a descendant, the ascendants are
next in line and if both are not present, the siblings shall be the last resort.
Jose not being the sole owner of the land, made it appear in a deed of sale,
acknowledged before a notary public that he was the only owner thereof, and that as an
alleged owner, conveyed it to a third person, should be guilty of Falsification of Public
document punishable under Art, 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Jose in favor of Eduardo is null and void. Jose
was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute ownership of the subject
property to Eduardo. As he was not the sole heir of Juan and his Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication is void, the subject property is still subject to partition. Jose, in fine, did not
have the absolute ownership of the subject property but only an aliquot portion. What he
could have transferred to Eduardo was only the ownership of such aliquot portion.
In a contract of sale, it is stated that a certificate of title shall prevail over a deed of sale.
Law and jurisprudence concurred on this matter in a case in which the court held that
the best evidence of ownership is the title of the property in the name of the person
claiming such right.
Furthermore, in a contract of sale, the buyer is expected to have exercised due
diligence before acquiring a property.
On the issue of the recovery of the property, under the law and rules governing the sale
of real estates, the lawful owner of a property can only recover to the seller in bad faith
and not to the buyer of the property.
VERCHELLE M. BAYENG DIWAY U. COBSILEN
Co-counsel for the Plaintiff Co-counsel for the Plaintiff

JEMYMA C. DICKSON COLLEEN MAY S. DIONISIO

Co-counsel for the Plaintiff Co-counsel for the Plaintiff

RIZZA ROZ G. PE BENITO

Co-counsel for the Plaintiff