Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
GR No.
200274, April 20, 2016
Melecio Domingo (Petitioner) v Sps Genera and Elena Molina (Respondents) Second Division Ponente: Brion, J. Nature of Action: Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership. FACTS: The spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property in Camiling, Tarlac, consisting of a one-half undivided portion over a parcel of land. The sale was annotated on the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering the subject property. During his lifetime, Anastacio borrowed money from the respondent spouses Genaro and Elena Molina. Ten years after Floras death, Anastacio sold his interest over the land to the spouses Molina to answer for his debts. The sale to the spouses Molina was annotated at the OCT of the subject property. Anastacio later died. The sale of Anastacios interest was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 272967 and transferred the entire one-half undivided portion of the land to the spouses Molina. Melecio, one of the children of Anastacio and Flora, learned of the transfer and filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Recovery of Ownership against the spouses Molina. Melecio claims that Anastacio gave the subject property to the spouses Molina to serve as collateral for the money that Anastacio borrowed. Anastacio could not have validly sold the interest over the subject property without Floras consent, as Flora was already dead at the time of the sale. The spouses Molina asserted that Anastacio surrendered the title to the subject property to answer for his debts and told the spouses Molina that they already own half of the land. The spouses Molina have been in possession of the subject property before the title was registered under their names and have religiously paid the propertys real estate taxes. The spouses Molina also asserted that Melecio knew of the disputed sale since he accompanied Anastacio several times to borrow money. The last loan was even used to pay for Melecios wedding. The RTC ruled to dismiss the case for failure of Melecio to establish his claim that Anastacio did not sell the property to the spouses Molina. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of a conjugal property to the spouses Molina without Floras consent is valid and legal.
RULING: Yes. Anastacio, as a co-owner, he had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest. The OCT annotation of the sale to the spouses Molina reads that "only the rights, interests and participation of Anastacio Domingo, married to Flora Dela Cruz, is hereby sold, transferred, and conveyed unto the said vendees for the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) which pertains to an undivided one-half (1/2) portion and subject to all other conditions specified in the document. Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest, but not the interest of his co-owners. Consequently, Anastactios sale to the spouses Molina without the consent of the other co-owners was not totally void, for Anastacios rights or a portion thereof were thereby effectively transferred, making the spouses Molina a co-owner of the subject property to the extent of Anastacios interest. This result conforms with the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest). The spouses Molina would be a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs of Anastacio in respect of any portion that might belong to the co-heirs after liquidation and partition. The observations of Justice Paras cited in the case ofHeirs of Protacio Go, Sr. V. Servacio are instructive:
x x x [I]f it turns out that the property alienated or mortgaged really would pertain to the share of the surviving spouse, then said transaction is valid. If it turns out that there really would be, after liquidation, no more conjugal assets then the whole transaction is null and void. But if it turns out that half of the property thus alienated or mortgaged belongs to the husband as his share in the conjugal partnership, and half should go to the estate of the wife, then that corresponding to the husband is valid, and that corresponding to the other is not. Since all these can be determined only at the time the liquidation is over, it follows logically that a disposal made by the surviving spouse is not void ab initio. Thus, it has been held that the sale of conjugal properties cannot be made by the surviving spouse without the legal requirements. The sale is void as to the share of the deceased spouse (except of course as to that portion of the husbands share inherited by her as the surviving spouse). The buyers of the property that could not be validly sold become trustees of said portion for the benefit of the husbands other heirs, the cestui que trust ent. Said heirs shall not be barred by prescription or by laches.
