Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40416:g-r-no-112954-august-25,-2000-ricardo-distajo,-et-al-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:07:24+00:00

Document:
RICARDO DISTAJO, ERNESTO DISTAJO, RAUL DISTAJO, FEDERICO DISTAJO, ZACARIAS A. DISTAJO, EDUARDO DISTAJO, and PILAR DISTAJO TAPAR, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and LAGRIMAS SORIANO DISTAJO, Respondents.
After purchasing the above-mentioned parcels of land, Rufo Distajo took possession of the property and paid the corresponding real estate taxes thereon. Rhodora Distajo likewise paid for the real estate taxes of Lot No. 1057.
Consequently, on June 5, 1986, Ricardo Distajo, with the other heirs of Iluminada Abiertas, namely, Ernesto Distajo, Raul Distajo, Federico Distajo, Zacarias Distajo, Eduardo Distajo, and Pilar Distajo, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership of Lot No. 1018, partition of Lot Nos. 1001, 1018-B, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1057, and damages.
On September 4, 1986, private respondent Lagrimas Distajo 10 filed an answer with counterclaim.
WHEREFORE, the Court decides the case in favor of the defendant and dismisses the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of cause of action except with regard to the plaintiffs’ claim over a 238 sq. m. portion of Lot No. 1018 (the portion adjoining the market site and measuring seventeen meters and that adjoining the property of E. Rodriguez 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 prayed for by them while the rest is declared property of the defendant.
Petitioner alleges that Iluminada Abiertas exclusively owns the seven parcels of land delineated as Lot Nos. 1001, 1018, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, and 1057, all of which should be partitioned among all her heirs. Furthermore, Rufo Distajo cannot acquire the subject parcels of land owned by Iluminada Abiertas because the Civil Code prohibits the administrator from acquiring properties under his administration. 16 Rufo Distajo merely employed fraudulent machinations in order to obtain the consent of his mother to the sale, and may have even forged her signature on the deeds of sale of the parcels of land.
In her comment dated May 13, 1994, private respondent Lagrimas S. Distajo contends that Rufo Distajo rightfully owns the subject parcels of land because of various deeds of sale executed by Iluminada Abiertas selling Lot Nos. 1018-B, 1047 and 1046 in favor of Rufo Distajo and Lot No. 1057 in favor of Rhodora Distajo. Private respondent also avers that petitioner cannot claim any right over Lot Nos. 1001, 1048 and 1049, considering that such lands belong to the brother of Iluminada Abiertas, namely, Justo Abiertas, Jr., whose heirs sold said parcels of land to Rufo Distajo.
The issues in this case, therefore, are limited to those properties which were owned by Iluminada Abiertas, ascendant of petitioner, consisting of Lot Nos. 1018-A, 1046, 1057, and a portion of 1047.
(3)	Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;." . .
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.
Davide, Jr., C.J. and Ynares-Santiago, J., concur.
Puno and Kapunan, JJ., took no part.
1.	In CA-G. R. CV No. 30063, promulgated on August 21, 1992, Justice Serafin V. C. Guingona, ponente, with Justices Santiago M. Kapunan and Oscar M. Herrera, concurring.
2.	Delineated as Lot Nos. 1001, 1018, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049 and 1057.
3.	Deed of Absolute Sale, Trial Court Record, p. 209.
4.	Deed of Certification of Sale of Unregistered Land, Trial Court Record, pp. 290-292.
5.	Deed of Absolute Sale, Trial Court Record, pp. 293-294.
9.	Petitioner Ricardo Distajo is the son of the late Rizaldo Distajo.
10.	Rufo Distajo died on January 2, 1986.
11.	Docketed as CA-G. R. CV No. 30063.
12.	Decision, Court of Appeals Rollo, pp. 64-75.
13.	Court of Appeals Record, pp. 76-80.
14.	Resolution, Court of Appeals Record, p. 100.
15.	Filed on February 23, 1994, Rollo, pp. 14-39.
16.	Article 1491, Civil Code.
17.	Sumbad v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999, citing Heirs of Felicidad Canque v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 741 (1997).
18.	Ibid., citing Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 433 (1997).
19.	Moomba Mining Exploration Company v. Honorable Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 108846, October 26, 1999.
20.	Sumbad v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999, citing Veloso v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA S93 (1996).

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.