Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83748:58139&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:58:01+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 191090, October 13, 2014 - EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HERMINIA F. SAMSON-BICO AND ELY B. FLESTADO, Respondents.
EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HERMINIA F. SAMSON-BICO AND ELY B. FLESTADO, Respondents.
Apolonio Ballesteros (Apolonio) and Maria Membrebe (Maria) were husband and wife. They begot two (2) children, namely, Juan M. Ballesteros (Juan), who married Leonarda Tambongco (Leonarda) and Irenea Ballesteros (Irenea), who married Santiago Samson (Santiago). Juan and Leonarda begot six (6) children, namely, Leonardo T. Ballesteros (Leonardo), Marcelina T. Ballesteros-Abad (Marcelina), Lydia T. Ballesteros-De Lara (Lydia), Cresencia T. Ballesteros-Lirio (Cresencia), Lourdes T. Ballesteros-Tan (Lourdes), and Juan T. Ballesteros, Jr. (Juan Jr.), while Irenea and Santiago begot two (2) children, namely, Herminia B. Samson-Bico (Herminia) and Merlita Samson Flestado, who married Ely D. Flestado (Ely).
During his lifetime, Apolonio owned a parcel of land consisting of 29,748 square meters situated at Barangay Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal covered by Tax Declaration No. BI-030-1509. When Apolonio and Maria died, the property was inherited by Juan and Irenea. When the latter died, the heirs of Juan and Irenea became co-owners of the property.
1. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 16, 2002 covering a property consisting of 29,748 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. BI-030-1509 is hereby declared null and void to the extent of one half of the property sold or 14,874 square meters.
2. That the Tax Declaration No. 00-BI-030-3512 in the name of [EDC] is hereby declared null and void and the Provincial Assessor of Rizal or defendant Municipal Assessor of Binangonan, Rizal is hereby ordered to cancel the same, and the Tax Declration covering the subject parcel of land be reinstated in the name of the heirs of Apolonio Ballesteros and Maria Membrebe.
3. That the [EDC] is hereby ordered to vacate, surrender or reconvey ownership and possession of the parcel of land subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale to [respondents] or the heirs of Apolonio Ballesteros or that they be reinstated to the lawful ownership of one-half (1/2) of the property sold or 14,874 square meters.
The trial court found that respondents and the heirs of Juan are co-owners of the subject property; that at the time of sale, the heirs of Juan did not have the right to sell the one half share of the heirs of Irenea; that the sale did not bind the heirs of Irenea; that there was fraud in the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale when the heirs of Juan failed to disclose to EDC that one half of the property sold is owned by respondents; and that EDC was not a buyer in good faith because it knew that respondents were co-owners of the subject property because Herminia informed EDC of such fact through a letter dated 9 March 2000.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT ANNULLED THE 16 APRIL 2002 DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND INVALIDATED THE TITLE OF THE APPELLANT CORPORATION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DESPITE THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE APPELLEES’ CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER ONE-HALF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT AWARDED MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES DESPITE THE UTTER ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CAN PROVE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME.
The heirs of Juan and respondents failed to file their brief so the Court of Appeals submitted the case for resolution.
The award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in the amount of P100,000.00 each is hereby DELETED.
The Court of Appeals ruled that respondents were able to establish their co-ownership over one-half of the subject property. The appellate court pointed out that the heirs of Juan categorically admitted in their Answer, as well as during the hearing the existence of co-ownership. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the heirs of Juan, as co-owners, could only alienate or convey to EDC their one-half portion of the subject property which may be allotted to them in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Thus, the sale will affect only their share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. The appellate court disputed the submission of EDC that whatever admissions made by the heirs of Juan regarding the ownership of the subject property is effective only insofar as they are concerned but such do not bind or affect the defenses it raised. The appellate court declared that the execution by the heirs of Juan of the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property which they do not exclusively own but is admittedly co-owned by them together with respondents, was valid only to the extent of the former’s undivided one-half share thereof, as they had no title or interest to transfer the other one-half portion which pertains to the appellees without the latter’s consent. EDC’s invocation of it being a buyer in good faith was not considered by the appellate court because the subject property is an unregistered land and the defense of having purchased the property in good faith may be availed of only where registered land is involved and the buyer had relied in good faith on the clear title of the registered owner. The appellate court sustained the trial court’s finding that there was no denial of due process as EDC was given the opportunity to advocate its cause and defend its interest.
However, the appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court that the Deed of Absolute Sale is null and void. According to the appellate court, the same is valid with respect to the transfer of the rights of the co-owners-sellers heirs of Juan over the one-half portion or 14,874 square meters of the subject property, thereby making EDC a co-owner thereof. Consequently, the appellate court ordered the heirs of Ballesteros to return to EDC the amount of P1,487,400.00 or one-half of the purchase price of P2,974,800.00. The award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, were deleted for lack of legal and factual bases.
43.1 The Court of Appeals committed grave error in ruling that the Respondents are entitled to ½ of the Subject Property despite their utter failure to present evidence which can prove their claim thereto.
Interestingly, it was EDC who pursued this petition and insist that respondents failed to prove co-ownership presumably to validate in its entirety the Deed of Absolute Sale it entered into with the heirs of Juan. EDC reiterates its argument that the testimony of Herminia is insufficient to prove that respondents are entitled to inherit one-half of the subject property from Apolonio. According to EDC, respondents should have established that Irenea is a legitimate child of Apolonio; that Irenea and Juan are the only legitimate compulsory heirs of Apolonio; that Apolonio predeceased Irenea and Juan; that Hermina and Merlita are the legitimate children of Irenea; and that Irenea predeceased Herminia. EDC also maintains that it is a buyer in good faith and that it was respondents who acted in bad faith, thus it prays for damages.
As borne by the records, respondents were able to convincingly establish their co-ownership over one-half of the subject property.
Mrs. Bico, are you the same Herminia Bico, one of the plaintiffs in this case?
Do you know the defendants Ballesteros in this case?
Why do you know them?
Because they are my relatives, sir.
Why did you say that they are your relatives?
[Their] father and my mother are brother and sister, sir.
What is the name of the father of the defendants Ballesteros?
So, you mean that they are brother and sister, what is the name of the mother of Irenea Ballesteros and [Juan] Ballesteros?
What about the father of Irenea Ballesteros and Juan Ballesteros?
So, you are saying that Irenea Ballesteros and Juan Ballesteros being brother and sister they are the children of Maria Membrede and Apolonio Ballesteros?
Do you have proof that your mother is Irenea?
However, Your Honor, the defendant Extra-Ordinary is denying.
As far as the Ballesteros are concerned they are admitting the relationship.
But on the next hearing the counsel for the Extra-Ordinary will appear.
The admission is effective only insofar as the client of Atty. Cervo is concerned.
That is the reason why I am asking these questions.
They are not here. So, if they will question it later on they are not here. I think the objection will be too late. If they do not object right now the objection is waived.
I went over the record of the case, the complainant and the Answer filed by the defendant now when I read the Answer filed by defendant Ballesteros, defendant Ballesteros are practically admitting everything except for a few allegations.
So, if it is not disputed in the Answer, it is considered admitted.
Would counsel for the defendant stipulate that the parents, grandparents as well as the father and the mother are already dead?
How can you deny that they are already dead?
We would like to proceed to the markings, Your Honor of the exhibits.
There being no objections, we would like to mark the Certificate of Baptism of Irenea Ballesteros, child of Apolonio Ballesteros and Maria Membrebe as Exhibit “A”.
The name Apolonio Ballesteros and Maria Membrebe be bracketed and marked as Exhibit “A-1”.
The Death Certificate of Irenea Samson as Exhibit “B”. The name of husband Santiago Samson be bracketed and marked as Exhibit “B-1”. The Certificate of Death of Santiago Samson be marked as Exhibit “C”.
The name Herminia Bico followed by the word daughter be marked as our Exhibit “C-1”.
The certificate of Live Birth of Herminia Samson be marked as Exhibit “D”.
The Certificate of Baptism of Merlita Samson as Exhibit “E”.
The name Santiago Samson and Herminia Ballesteros be bracketed and marked as Exhbit “E-1”.
Will counsel for defendants Ballesteros stipulate that prior to the death of the sister of the witness Merlita Samson she married the other co-plaintiff Ely Flestado?
We would like to mark, Your Honor, the Marriage Contract executed by and between Merlita Samson and Ely Flestado as Exhibit “F”.
The Certificate of Death of Merlita Flestado be marked as Exhbit “G”.
One of the entries in the Certificate of Death, Herminia Bico followed by the name sister be bracketed and marked as Exhbit “G-1”.
He is in court, Your Honor.
Alam mo ba na ang may-ari ng lupa na binenta ninyo ay isa sa may-ari sya?
So, hindi lang kayo ang may-ari ng lupa? Ang ina nya kasama doon sa may-ari at kalahati lang ang sa inyo?
Kahit hindi pa naparte narerecognize ninyo na ang nanay niya ay isa sa may-ari ng lupa kasama ang tatay mo, hindi ba?
So, kalahati ang interest ninyo sa lupa, tama?
Why did you sell all?
Hindi pa po bayad lahat, ang hinahabol nila magkabayaran. Kulang pa po ng isang milyon.
Ang tanong saiyo, kalahati ng lupa may karapatan ka, you have a right [to] only to one of the property?
Bakit sa Deed of Sale ibinenta lahat? Wala silang pirma.
It is apparent that despite numerous resetting of the case for EDC, it failed to appear because of the absence of its counsel. On 3 October 2007, EDC was required by the court to secure a new lawyer for the next hearing but during the two hearings that followed, no counsel appeared for EDC. It is of no moment that on some dates the resetting was on motion of the other parties to the case. The fact remains that EDC’s counsel failed to appear on 25 April, 25 June, 13 August, 5 November and 5 December 2007. Therefore, EDC was not deprived of its day in court and he cannot feign denial of due process.
Having established respondents’ co-ownership rights over the subject property, we find no error in the appellate court’s ruling sustaining the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale but only with respect to the rights of the heirs of Juan over one-half of the property.
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Applying this principle to the instant case, there can be no doubt that the transaction entered into by Salome and Soledad could be legally recognized in its entirety since the object of the sale did not even exceed the ideal shares held by the former in the co-ownership. As a matter of fact, the deed of sale executed between the parties expressly stipulated that the portion of Lot 162 sold to Soledad would be taken from Salome’s 4/16 undivided interest in said lot, which the latter could validly transfer in whole or in part even without the consent of the other co-owners. Salome’s right to sell part of her undivided interest in the co-owned property is absolute in accordance with the well-settled doctrine that a co-owner has full ownership of his pro-indiviso share and has the right to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and substitute another person in its enjoyment. Since Salome’s clear intention was to sell merely part of her aliquot share in Lot 162, in our view no valid objection can be made against it and the sale can be given effect to the full extent.
We are also in full accord with the appellate court’s order for the heirs of Juan to return one-half of the purchase price to EDC. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.30 Therefore, it is correct for the Court of Appeals to order the heirs of Juan to return the amount of P1,487,400.00, representing one-half of the purchase price to prevent unjust enrichment at the expense of EDC.
Lastly, and likewise correctly, the prayer for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees being unsubstantiated had to be denied.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 31 July 2009 and Resolution dated 22 January 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 91358 is AFFIRMED in toto.
Sereno, CJ., (Chairperson) Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, 30-59; Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Antonio L. Villamor concurring.
3 Records, pp. 177-180; Presided by Judge John C. Quirante.
19 TSN, 12 March 2007, pp. 4-10.
22 TSN, 12 March 2007, pp. 19-20.
23Spouses Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., 524 Phil. 361, 365 (2006) citing Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume Two, Seventh Revised Edition at 650.
24Cahilig v. Terencio, G.R. No. 164470, 28 November 2011, 661 SCRA 261, 271 citing Maagad v. Maagad, G.R. No. 171762, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 649.
26 Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, 6 August 2012, 678 SCRA 209, 225 citing Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 165399, 165475, 165404 and 165489, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 142, 155; Estrada v. People, 505 Phil. 339, 353-354 (2005).
27Heirs of Cayetano Pangan and Consuelo Pangan v. Spouses Perreras, G.R. No. 157374, 27 August 2009, 597 SCRA 253, 260.
28 403 Phil. 707 (2001).
30Reyes v. Lim, 456 Phil. 1, 14 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 

Art. 493
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.