Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-852 March 19, 1949
LEONIDA MARI and CARIDAD EVANGELISTA, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
ISAAC BONILLA and SILVINA ORDAÑEZ, defendants-appellants.
Ignacio Nabong for appellants.
Agustin Bagasao for appellees.
TUASON, J.:
This action was brought to recover plaintiff's combined 3/4 share in a parcel of land sold to defendant by Deogracias Evangelista plaintiff co-owner. The case was submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts:
1. That Casimiro Evangelista is a registered owner of a parcel of land (homestead) as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 4905, of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija, consisting of 7.0652 hectares more or less situated at Valdefuente, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija;
2. That Casimiro Evangelista was married to Leonida Mari plaintiff herein on February 7, 1920 at Rizal Nueva Ecija and during their marriage and while living together as spouses they begot two children Caridad and Deogracias Evangelista all surnamed Evangelista;
3. That Casimiro Evangelista died intestate on or about 1938 at Platero, Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija;
4. That the property in litigation was acquired on January 23, 1935 as per original certificate of title No. 49055 homestead patent;
5. That on January 10, 1944 Deogracias Evangelista alleging to be the only heir of Casimiro Evangelista executed a declaration of heirship known as Doc. No. 9, Page 30 Book No. 18, of Notary Public Carlos M. Ferrer herein incorporated and made a part of these agreement of facts as Exhibit A for the sum of P2,400 the said Deogracias Evangelista sold on the same date January 10, 1944 the property in question to the defendants spouses, Isaac Bonilla and Silvina Ordañez in Doc. 10, Page No. 31 Book No. 18, series of 1944 of Notary Public Carlos M. Ferrer incorporated and attached herein as Exhibit B, as part of this agreement;
6. That the certificate of marriage of Casimiro Evangelista and Leonida Mari and Herein attached as Exhibit C and made a part of this agreement;
7. That after the said sale on January 10, 1944 original certificate of title No. 4905 was cancelled and in lieu thereof transfer certificate of title No. 19991 was issued in the spouses Isaac Bonilla and Silvina Ordañez;
8. That after the sale the defendant assumed possession of the lands and the harvest for the year 1944-1945 was seventeen cavanes, (17) and at present the land was planted with palay (1 hectare), sugar cane (¹/3 hectare ), and camoting kahoy, (¹/3 hectare included in the ¹/3 planted with sugar cane), now still in the possession of the defendant.
9. That the defendant begun to live in Platero, Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija on March 1938 and that the plaintiff lived in Platero, Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija since the year 1920; up to the present time;
10. That the defendant did not know that Leonida Mari is the mother of Deogracias Evangelista at the time when he bought the land as Deogracias Evangelista was living with his grandfather, Matias Evangelista and that Caridad Evangelista was living with her mother Leonida Mari;
11. That the attorney for the plaintiff reserve the right to present a memorandum discussing the legal point of these agreement of facts within 3 days from date of these agreement and the defendants counsel will answer the same within 3 days, after receipt of the plaintiff's memorandum.
Judge Catalino Buenaventura gave judgment for plaintiff without costs. This is an appeal from that judgment.
The gravamen of appellants contention is good faith. They cite three decisions one of which is Castillo vs. Valdez, 53 Phil., 120 wherein the court said:
A purchaser for value who takes property upon the faith of the certificate so issued acquires a good title. Any other conclusion would be wholly inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the Land Registration Law. Of course so long sa the property remains in the hands of the person who has acquired title irregularly he can be made to surrender the certificate to be cancelled. But it is not so with an innocent purchaser for value. . . .
Appellants citation do not fit into the facts of the present case. Good faith affords protection only to purchaser for value from the registered owner. Deogracias Evangelista, defendants grantor is not a registered owner. The land was and still is registered in the name of Casimiro Evangelista. In no way does the certificate of title state that Deogracias owned the land: consequently defendant cannot summon to their aid the theory of indefeasibility of Torrens title. There is nothing in the certificate and in the circumstances of the transaction which them in supposing that they needed not looked beyond the title. If anything it should have put them on their guard cautioned them to ascertain and verify that vendor was the only heir of his father that there was no debt and that the latter was the sole owner of the parcel.
If as is probably the case defendants relied on the court order adjudicating to Deogracias Evangelista the entire estate in the distribution held under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court their innocence avails them less as against the true owners of the land. That was a summary settlement made on the faith and strength of the distributes self-serving affidavit; section 4 of the above-mentioned rule provides that, "If it shall appear at anything within two year after the settlement and distribution of an estate . . . that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate such heir or other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the court in the manner herein provided for purpose of satisfying such participation." Far from shielding defendants against loss the adjudication and the rule under which it was made gave them a clear warning that they were acting at their peril. "A judicial partition in probate proceeding does not bind the heir who were not parties thereon. No partition judicial or extrajudicial could add one iota or particle to the interest which the partitioner had during the joint possession. Partition is of the nature of a conveyance of ownership and certainly none of the co-owner may convey to the other more than his own true right. A judicial partition in probate proceeding is not final and conclusive and not being of such definitive as to stop all mean of redress for a co-heir who has been deprived of his lawful share such co-heir may still within the prescriptive period bring an action for reivindicacion in the province where any of the real property of the deceased may be situated. Broad perspective of public policy are set out in the opinion of the court in support of the wisdom of allowing a co-heir the benefits of the law of prescription even after a partition judicial or extrajudicial has been had." (Lajom vs. Viola, 73 Phil., 563. )
The judgment is affirmed with cost of this appeal against appellants.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
