BETH CAMPOMANES

BETH CAMPOMANES

Nemo  dat quod non habet

PURITA PAHUD VS. CA
[ G.R. No. 160346, August 25, 2009 ]

FACTS:

Spouses Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil were able to acquire a 246-square meter parcel of land situated in Barangay Anos, Los Baños, Laguna and covered by Original Certificate of Title . Agatona Genil  and  Pedro San Agustin died  ,( both died intestate) survived by their eight (8) children: respondents,  Eufemia, Raul, Ferdinand, Zenaida, Milagros, Minerva, Isabelita and Virgilio.

 Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Undivided Shares conveying in favor of petitioners (the Pahuds, for brevity) their respective shares . Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of her four (4) other co-heirs, namely: Isabelita on the basis of a special power of attorney , and also for Milagros, Minerva, and Zenaida but without their apparent written authority. The deed of sale was also not notarized.

 The Pahuds paid the accounts into the Los Baños Rural Bank where the subject property was mortgaged.  The bank issued a release of mortgage and turned over the owner's copy of the OCT to the Pahuds, the Pahuds made more payments to Eufemia and her siblings.  When Eufemia and her co-heirs drafted an extra-judicial settlement of estate to facilitate the transfer of the title to the Pahuds, Virgilio refused to sign it.

 Virgilio's co-heirs filed a complaint  for judicial partition of the subject property before the RTC of Calamba, Laguna.In the course of the proceedings for judicial partition, a Compromise Agreement was signed with seven (7) of the co-heirs agreeing to sell their undivided shares to Virgilio .. The compromise agreement was, however, not approved by the trial court because Atty. Dimetrio Hilbero, lawyer for Eufemia and her six (6) co-heirs, refused to sign the agreement because he knew of the previous sale made to the Pahuds.

 Eufemia acknowledged having received the payments from Virgilio. Virgilio then sold the entire property to spouses Isagani Belarmino and Leticia Ocampo (Belarminos) . The Belarminos immediately constructed a building on the subject property.

Alarmed and bewildered by the ongoing construction on the lot they purchased, the Pahuds immediately confronted Eufemia who confirmed to them that Virgilio had sold the property to the Belarminos.Then  the Pahuds filed a complaint in intervention in the pending case for judicial partition.

Issue:

1.       Whether or not  the sale of the subject property by Eufemia and her co-heirs to the Pahuds is valid and enforceable.

2.       Whether or not the sale by co-heirs to Virgilio is void.

3.       Whether or not the sale of Virgilio to Belarminos is valid.

Ruling:

1.       The transaction needs for qualification:

           First: the sale made by Eufemia, Isabelita and her two brothers to the Pahuds  should be valid only with respect to the 4/8 portion of the subject property. Second;  the sale with respect to the 3/8 portion, representing the shares of Zenaida, Milagros, and Minerva, is void because Eufemia could not dispose of the interest of her co-heirs in the said lot absent any written authority from the latter, as explicitly required by law. It is true also there is no special power, they can file an annulment of the sale, but the true facts of which the seven admitted that they sold their shares to pahuds, they cannot assail the validity of the transaction. Instead, they just remain silent , because by allowing them to do so would be tantamount  to giving premium to their three (3) sisters” dishonest and fraudulent deed. Thus their silence of the issue bars from a making for a contrary claim and they are stopped from impugning the  validity of the sale.

 While the sale with respect to the 3/8 portion is void by express provision of law and not susceptible to ratification. The validity of the said transaction cannot be corrected on the basis of common law principle of estoppel.

The law provides:

When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.

 a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract by which the ownership of an immovable property is transmitted or acquired, either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.

The authority of an agent to execute a contract of sale of real estate must be conferred in writing and must give him specific authority, either to conduct the general business of the principal or to execute a binding contract containing terms and conditions which are in the contract he did execute. A special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. The express mandate required by law to enable an appointee of an agency  in general terms to sell must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the act mentioned. For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language. When there is any reasonable doubt that the language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given the document.

In  the absence of a written authority to sell a piece of land is, ipso jure, void, precisely to protect the interest of an unsuspecting owner from being prejudiced by the unwarranted act of another.

2.       the subsequent sale made by the seven co-heirs to Virgilio was void because they no longer had any interest over the subject property which they could alienate at the time of the second transaction. Nemo dat quod non habet.  Virgilio, however, could still alienate his 1/8 undivided share to the Belarminos.

3.       The sale to Bilarminos is not valid, they did not purchased the property from Virgilio in good faith.  the Belarminos were fully aware that the property was registered not in the name of the immediate transferor, Virgilio, but remained in the name of the mother title.  This fact alone is sufficient impetus to make further inquiry and, thus, negate their claim that they are purchasers for value in good faith.

 They knew that the property was still subject of partition proceedings before the trial court, and that the compromise agreement signed by the heirs was not approved by the RTC following the opposition of the counsel for Eufemia and her six other co-heirs.

 As a general rule, a purchaser of a real property is not required to make any further inquiry beyond what the certificate of title indicates on its face. But the rule excludes those who purchase with knowledge of the defect in the title of the vendor or of facts sufficient to induce a reasonable and prudent person to inquire into the status of the property.  Such purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard, and later claim that he acted in good faith on the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor.  His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his obvious neglect by closing his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards it turns out that the title was, in fact, defective.  In such a case, he is deemed to have bought the property at his own risk, and any injury or prejudice occasioned by such transaction must be borne by him.

 The Belarminos, being transferees pendente lite, are deemed buyers in mala fide, and they stand exactly in the shoes of the transferor and are bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against the transferor. Furthermore, had they verified the status of the property by asking the neighboring residents, they would have been able to talk to the Pahuds who occupy an adjoining business establishment and would have known that a portion of the property had already been sold.

              The supreme court reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA and reinstated of the RTC with modification.

Nemo dat quod non habet

[ G.R. No. 187056, September 20, 2010 ]

JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO,  VS. ASUNCION G. FERRER

Facts:
 Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a document entitled "Donation Mortis Causa" in favor of their two children, Asuncion and Emiliano, and their granddaughter, Jarabini (daughter of their predeceased son, Zoilo)126 sq.metter lot and house in Manila in equal shares,the deed of donation Stated:

“ It is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the surviving spouse .It is our will that Jarabini Gonzales-del Rosario and Emiliano Gonzales will continue to occupy the portions now occupied by them.
It is further our will that this DONATION MORTIS CAUSA shall not in any way affect any other distribution of other properties belonging to any of us donors whether testate or intestate and where ever situated.
It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right, ownership, possession and administration of this property herein donated and accepted and this Disposition and Donation shall be operative and effective upon the death of the DONORS.”

 The deed had no attestation clause and was witnessed by only two persons.  The named donees, however, signified their acceptance of the donation on the face of the document.

Guadalupe, the donor wife died ; later , Leopoldo, the donor husband, executed a deed of assignment of his rights and interests in subject property to their daughter Asuncion.  Leopoldo then also  died .

Jarabini filed a "petition for the probate of the  deed of donation mortis causa" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.  Asuncion opposed the petition, invoking his father Leopoldo's assignment of his rights and interests in the property .

Issue:

1.        Whether or not the assignment of rights and interest of the property is valid.

2.       Whether or not the donation is mortis causa or intervivos.

Ruling:

1.        Leopoldo's subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the property to Asuncion should be regarded as void for, by then, he had no more rights to assign.  He could not give what he no longer had.  Nemo dat quod non habet. , because Leopoldo is no longer the owner of the property by way of donation to his heirs (as donation inter vivos).

  a donation inter vivos made effective upon its execution by the donors and acceptance thereof by the donees, and immediately transmitting ownership of the donated property to the latter, thus precluding a subsequent assignment thereof by one of the donors.

2.       the validity of the document as a donation inter vivos. Since the donation is irrevocable made the document as  donation inter vivos, it was immediately operative and final. , such kind of donation is deemed perfected from the moment the donor learned of the donee's acceptance of the donation.  The acceptance makes the donee the absolute owner of the property donated. Even it was stated donation mortis causa refers only to the donor s style but  the intention of the donor shall be respected as to the face of  the  donation is irrevocable.

However the donors reserved the "right, ownership, possession, and administration of the property" and made the donation operative upon their death.,by   such reservation (reddendum) even  it is irrevocable donation simply means that the donors parted with their naked title, maintaining only beneficial ownership of the donated property while they lived.