Distajo Vs CA

G.R. No.
112954 August 25, After purchasing the above-mentioned

2000 parcels of land, Rufo Distajo took possession
of the property and paid the corresponding
RICARDO DISTAJO, ERNESTO DISTAJO, real estate taxes thereon. Rhodora Distajo
RAUL DISTAJO, FEDERICO DISTAJO, likewise paid for the real estate taxes of Lot
ZACARIAS A. DISTAJO, EDUARDO No. 1057.
DISTAJO, and PILAR DISTAJO TAPAR,
petitioners, When Iluminada Abiertas died in 1971,
vs. Zacarias Distajo, Pilar Distajo-Tapar, and
COURT OF APPEALS and LAGRIMAS Rizaldo Distajo,9 demanded possession of
SORIANO DISTAJO, the seven parcels of land from Lagrimas S.
Distajo, and her husband, Rufo Distajo. The
Facts: latter refused.
During the lifetime of Iluminada Abiertas, Filing of Complaint:

she designated one of her sons, Rufo
Distajo, to be the administrator of her Consequently, on June 5, 1986, Ricardo
parcels of land denoted as Lot Nos. 1018, Distajo, with the other heirs of Iluminada
1046, 1047, and 1057 situated in Barangay Abiertas, namely, Ernesto Distajo, Raul
Hipona, Pontevedra, Capiz. Distajo, Federico Distajo, Zacarias Distajo,
Eduardo Distajo, and Pilar Distajo, filed with
On May 21, 1954, Iluminada Abiertas sold a the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City a
portion of Lot No. 1018 (1018-A) to her complaint for recovery of possession and
other children, namely, Raul Distajo, Ricardo ownership of Lot No. 1018, partition of Lot
Distajo, Ernesto Distajo, Federico Distajo, Nos. 1001, 1018-B, 1046, 1047, 1048,
and Eduardo Distajo.3 1049, 1057, and damages.
On May 29, 1963, Iluminada Abiertas On September 4, 1986, private respondent

certified to the sale of Lot Nos. 1046 and Lagrimas Distajo10 filed an answer with
1047 in favor of Rufo Distajo.4 counterclaim.
On June 4, 1969, Iluminada Abiertas sold Lot

No. 1057 to Rhodora Distajo, the daughter of
Rufo Distajo.5 RTC Ruling:
On July 12, 1969, Iluminada Abiertas sold On April 9, 1990, the trial court dismissed
Lot No. 1018 to Rufo Distajo.6 the complaint for lack of cause of action,
laches and prescription. The counterclaim
Meanwhile, Justo Abiertas, Jr., the brother of was likewise dismissed. The parties appealed
Iluminada Abiertas, died leaving behind his to the Court of Appeals.11
children, Teresita, Alicia, Josefa and Luis
Abiertas. Teresita paid for the real estate CA Ruling:
taxes of the following properties, which she
inherited from her father: Lot Nos. 1001, On August 21, 1992, the Court of Appeals
1048, 1049, and a portion of Lot No. 1047, rendered its decision,12 the dispositive
all located in Capiz. On May 26, 1954, portion of which states as follows:
Teresita Abiertas sold Lot No. 1001 in favor
of Rufo Distajo.7 On June 2, 1965, Teresita WHEREFORE, the Court decides the case in
Abiertas, for herself and representing her favor of the defendant and dismisses the
sisters and brother, sold Lot Nos. 1048, plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of cause of
1049, and a portion of Lot No. 1047 to Rufo action except with regard to the plaintiffs’
Distajo.8 claim over a 238 sq. m. portion of Lot No.
1018 (the portion adjoining the market site
and measuring seventeen meters and that namely, Justo Abiertas, Jr., whose heirs sold
adjoining the property of E. Rodriguez said parcels of land to Rufo Distajo.
measuring 14 meters). The Court hereby
Orders the partition of Lot No. 1018 to
conform to the following: 238 sq. m. as
above specified to belong to the plaintiffs as Issue: WON the sale transactions are void
prayed for by them while the rest is declared for having been entered into by the
property of the defendant. administrator of the properties.
Upon partition of Lot No. 1018 in accordance Held: NO.

with this Court’s Order, the City Assessor of
Roxas City is hereby Ordered to cancel Tax The petition lacks merit.
Declaration 2813 in the name of Rufo Distajo
(or any subsequent tax declaration/s issued In his petition, Ricardo Distajo assails the
relative to the above-cited Tax Declaration genuineness of the signatures of Iluminada
No. 2813) and forthwith to issue the Abiertas in the deeds of sale of the parcels of
corresponding tax declarations in the names land, and claims that Rufo Distajo forged the
of the respective parties herein. signature of Iluminada Abiertas. However,
no handwriting expert was presented to
corroborate the claim of forgery. Petitioner
even failed to present a witness who was
Contention of Ricardo Distajo: familiar with the signature of Iluminada
Abiertas. Forgery should be proved by clear
Petitioner alleges that Iluminada Abiertas and convincing evidence, and whoever
exclusively owns the seven parcels of land alleges it has the burden of proving the
delineated as Lot Nos. 1001, 1018, 1046, same.20
1047, 1048, 1049, and 1057, all of which
should be partitioned among all her heirs. Petitioner likewise contends that the sale
Furthermore, Rufo Distajo cannot acquire the transactions are void for having been
subject parcels of land owned by Iluminada entered into by the administrator of the
Abiertas because the Civil Code prohibits the properties.
administrator from acquiring properties
under his administration.16 Rufo Distajo We disagree. The pertinent Civil Code
merely employed fraudulent machinations in provision provides:
order to obtain the consent of his mother to
the sale, and may have even forged her "Art. 1491. The following persons cannot
signature on the deeds of sale of the parcels acquire by purchase, even at a public or
of land. judicial auction, either in person or through
the mediation of another:
Answer of Lagrimas Ditajo:
(1) The guardian, the property of the
private respondent Lagrimas S. Distajo person or persons who may be under
contends that Rufo Distajo rightfully owns guardianship;
the subject parcels of land because of
various deeds of sale executed by Iluminada (2) Agents, the property whose
Abiertas selling Lot Nos. 1018-B, 1047 and administration or sale may have been
1046 in favor of Rufo Distajo and Lot No. entrusted to them, unless the consent
1057 in favor of Rhodora Distajo. Private of the principal has been given;
respondent also avers that petitioner cannot
claim any right over Lot Nos. 1001, 1048 (3) Executors and administrators, the
and 1049, considering that such lands property of the estate under
belong to the brother of Iluminada Abiertas, administration;" x x x
Under paragraph (2) of the above article, the
prohibition against agents purchasing
property in their hands for sale or
management is not absolute. It does not
apply if the principal consents to the sale of
the property in the hands of the agent or
administrator. In this case, the deeds of sale
signed by Iluminada Abiertas shows that she
gave consent to the sale of the properties in
favor of her son, Rufo, who was the
administrator of the properties. Thus, the
consent of the principal Iluminada Abiertas
removes the transaction out of the
prohibition contained in Article 1491(2).
Petitioner also alleges that Rufo Distajo

employed fraudulent machinations to obtain
the consent of Iluminada Abiertas to the sale
of the parcels of land. However, petitioner
failed to adduce convincing evidence to
substantiate his allegations.
In the absence of any showing of lack of

basis for the conclusions made by the Court
of Appeals, this Court finds no cogent reason
to reverse the ruling of the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition

and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 30063.

Distajo Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distajo Vs CA

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

Distajo Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

112954 August 25, After purchasing the above-mentioned

During the lifetime of Iluminada Abiertas, Filing of Complaint:

On May 29, 1963, Iluminada Abiertas On September 4, 1986, private respondent

On June 4, 1969, Iluminada Abiertas sold Lot

Upon partition of Lot No. 1018 in accordance Held: NO.

Petitioner also alleges that Rufo Distajo

In the absence of any showing of lack of

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition

You might also like