Aguirre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

AGUIRRE, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122249 January 29, 2004

FACTS:

                Leocadio Medrano and his first wife Emilia owned a piece of land. After the death of Emilia, Leocadio married his second wife Miguela. When Leocadio died, all his heirs agreed that Sixto Medrano, a child of the first marriage, should manage and administer the said property. After Sixto died, his heirs learned that he had executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property in which he falsely stated that he was the only heir of Leocadio. It turned out that while Sixto were still alive, he sold a portion of the subject land tp Tiburcio Balitaan and another portion to Maria Bacong, Maria Bacong later sold the said portion to Rosendo Bacong. Petitioners, all heirs of Leocadio who were affected by the sale demanded reconveyance of the portions sold by Sixto but the 3 vendees refused. Resultantly, petitioners filed a suit against them seeking the nullity of the documents and partition thereof. The vendees contended that they acquired the property under the valid deed of sale and petitioners’ cause of action was barred by laches and prescription. Tiburcio also contended that he is an innocent purchaser for value.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not there was a valid sale between Sixto Medrano and the three purchases considering the fact that it was made without the consent of the co-owners.

HELD:

                Under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, a sale by a co-owner of the whole property as his will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale). The provision clearly provides that the sale or other disposition affects only the seller’s share, and the transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantor’s share in the partition of the property owned in common. Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owner is not null and void; only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property. It is clear therefore that the deed of sale executed by Sixto in favor of Tiburcio Balitaan is a valid conveyance only insofar as the share of Sixto in the co-ownership is concerned. Acts which may be considered adverse to strangers may not be considered adverse in so far as co-owners are concerned. A mere silent possession by a co-owner, his receipts of rentals, fruits or profits from the property, the erection of buildings and fences and planting of trees thereon, and the payment of land taxes, cannot serve as proof of exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out by clear and convincing evidence that he exercised such acts of possession which unequivocally constituted an ouster or deprivation of the rights of the other co-owners.

Thus, in order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or the other co-owners, the following elements must concur:

(1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners;

(2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been known to the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; and

(3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.

Tested against these guidelines, the respondents failed to present competent evidence that the acts of Sixto adversely and clearly repudiate the existing co-ownership among the heirs of Leocadio Medrano. Respondent’s reliance on the tax declaration in the name of Sixto Medrano is unworthy of credit since we have held on several occasions that tax declarations by themselves do not conclusively prove title to land. Further, respondents failed to show that the Affidavit executed by Sixto to the effect that he is the sole owner of the subject property was known or made known to the other co-heirs of Leocadio Medrano.