Secuya V Vda de Selma

Secuya v Vda de Selma
Feb 22, 2000

J. Panganiban
Facts:
 This case rooted in an action for quieting of title filed before the RTC by Benigna,
Miguel, Marcelino, Corazon, Rufina, Bernardino, Natividad, Gliceria and Purita (all
Secuya against Gerarda vda de Selma
 Parcel of land from the Talisay Friar Lands Estate were eventually sold to Maxima
Caballero Vda de Carino with an area of 12,750 sqm
 During the lifetime of Maxima Caballero( vendee and patentee), she entered into that
agreement of partition dated Jan 5 1938 with Paciencia Sabellona
o Maxuma bound herself and parted with 1/3 portion of lot 5679 in favor of
Paciencia
o Stipulated in said agreement of partition that the said portion of 1/3 so ceded
will be located adjoining the municipal road
o Pacencia took possession and occupation, and then sold to Dalmacio Secuya
3,000 sqm for 1850pesos by means of a private document that was lost
 Such sale was admitted and confirmed by Ramon Sabellona (only heir),
per that instrument denominated CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF
UNDIVIDED SHARES – SEPT 28, 1976
o When Pacencia died, by virtue of the last will and testament, Ramon inherited
everything
o After the purchase by Dalmacio Secuya, along with his brothers and sisters, being
single, took physicalnpossession of the land and cultivated the same.
o Edilberto Supersales married Rufina Secuya(niece of Dalmacio) constructed his
house on the lot in question with the permission of the Secuyas on January 1974
and lived thereon continuously up to the present
o Dalmacio died and thus the heirs -brothers, sisters, nephews etc are now
plaintiffs and petitioners
o 1972, Gerarda Selma bought a 1,000 sqm portion of Lot 5679 evidenced by
Exhibit P
o Then bought a bigger bulk of the lot consisting of 9,302 sqm evidenced by the
deed of absolute sale marked exhibit 5
o The land in question, a 3000 sqm portion of lot 5679 is embraced and included
within the boundary of the later acquisition by Sekma
o Selma lodged a complaint, and had the plaintiffs summoned before the barangay
captain of the place, and in the confrontation and conciliation before the lupon
 The land plaintiffs have inherited had long been in possession in concept
of owner. Such claim is a cloud on the title
 Selma’s version
o She is the registered owner of Lot 5679 consisting of 9302 sqm as evidenced by
TCT having bought from Cesaria Caballero as evidenced by a notarized Deed of
Sale and who was in possession since then
o When Silvestre Aro’s demise( husband of cesaria) , his heirs executed an
extrajudicial partiion and ½ plus 1/5th of lot was adjudicated to the widow,
Cesaria
 TC in favor of Defendant Selma
 CA affirmed
ISSUE:
WON there was a valid transfer or conveyance of the 1/3 lot by maxima caballero in favor of
Pacencia by virtue of the agreement partition dated Jan 5 1938
WON Gerarda Selma was a buyer in bad faith with respect to the land, which is a portion of
Lot 5679
Held
First issue:
 Notwithstanding the purported nomenclature, this agreement is not one of partition
because there was no property to partition and the parties were not co-owners.
Rather it is in the nature of a trust agreement
Second issue: (topic)
 Petitioners insist that Pacencia sold the disputed property to Dalmacio Secuya on
Oct 20, 1953 and that the sale was embodied in a private document.
 However, such best evidence of the transaction was never presented in court,
allegedly because it had been stolen
 Sale of a piece of land appearing in a private deed is binding between the partiesm
it cannot be considered binding on third persons, if it is not embodied in a public
instrument and recoded in the registry of property
 While Petitioners could not present the purported deed between Pacencia Sabellona
and Dalmacio Secuya (P’s immediate predecessor in interest, private respondent in
contrast has the necessary documents to support her claim to the disputed property
 The value of Ramon’s execution of confirmation of sale is doubtful as he failed to
prove that he was Pacencia’s heir
 There was no proof that they indeed exercised their rights and duties as owners of
the same
Affirmed

Secuya V Vda de Selma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secuya V Vda de Selma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secuya V Vda de Selma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secuya v Vda de Selma

Feb 22, 2000

You might also like