MANUEL T. GUIA VS. CA AND JOSE B. ABEJO GR NO. 120864 October 8, 2003

Facts: Two parcels of land covering a fishpond equally owned by PrimitivaLejano and LorenzaAraniego.  The one half undivided portion owned by Araniego was later purchased by plaintiff from his father TeofiloAbejo, the only heir of the original owner (husband of Araniego). Prior to this sale, the whole fishpond was leased by the heirs of Primitiva Lejano with the knowledge and consent of Teofilo A. Abejo in favor of De Guia.  De Guia continues to possess the entire fishpond and derived income therein despite the expiration of the lease contract and several demands to vacate by TeofiloAbejo and by his successor-in-interest, Jose Abejo.Abejo filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against De Guia. However, Abejo failed to present evidence of the judicial or extrajudicial partition of the fishpond.

Issue: Whether a co-owner can file ejectment case against a co-owner?Whether Abejo was entitled to rent?

Held: Under Article 484, “there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract. Article 487 also provides that ‘anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment”. This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property. However, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of the defendant from the property because as a co-owner he has a right of possession.

If one co-owner alone occupies the property without opposition from the other co-owners, and there is no lease agreement, the other co-owners cannot demand the payment of rent.  Conversely, if there is an agreement to lease the house, the co-owners can demand rent from the co-owner who dwells in the house.

The Lejano Heirs and TeofiloAbejo agreed to lease the entire FISHPOND to DE GUIA.  After DE GUIA’s lease expired in 1979, he could no longer use the entire FISHPOND without paying rent.  

         

SARILI VS. LAGROSA G.R. No. 193517 January 15, 2014

Facts: Respondent is the owner of a certain parcel of land which he has been religiously paying the real estate taxes for since its acquisition. Respondent is a resident of California, USA, and during his vacation in the Philippines, he discovered that a new certificate of title to the subject property was issued by the RD in the name of Victorino married to Isabel Amparoby virtue of a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 16, 1978 (February 16, 1978 deed of sale) purportedly executed by him and his wife, Amelia U. Lagrosa.

In their answer, Sps. Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for value, having purchased the subject property from Ramon B. Rodriguez, who possessed and presented a Special Power of Attorney to sell/dispose of the same, and, in such capacity, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 20, 1992 conveying the said property in their favor. In this relation, they denied any participation in the preparation of the February 16, 1978 deed of sale, which may have been merely devised by the "fixer" they hired to facilitate the issuance of the title in their names.

Issue: Whether there is a valid conveyance of the property?

Ruling: The strength of the buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a special power of attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is provided or there is one but there appears to be flaws in its notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its execution.

Settled is the rule that a defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence.

Since Sps. Sarili’s claim over the subject property is based on forged documents, no valid title had been transferred to them.

SPOUSES AMADO & MILAGROS TINIO AND ROLANDO TINIO VS. NELLIE MANZANO GR No. 132102 May 19, 1999

Facts: Private respondent Nellie A. Manzano is a co-owner, together with her brothers and sisters of a lot. While private respondent was abroad, her brothers and sisters sold the aforesaid property to petitioner Rolando Tinio, the son of the other petitioners, spouses Amado and Milagros Tinio, for the price of P100,000.00.  In a forged “Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, Claim and Interest”, private respondent was made to appear as having waived her rights over lot in favor of Rolando Tinio. Upon private respondent’s return to the Philippines in 1994, the plaintiff-appellee offered to redeem the shares of her co-owners pursuant to Articles 1620 and 1621 of the New Civil Code. Receiving no reply, private respondent filed an action for legal redemption before the trial court.

Issue:  Whether Nellie Manzano had actual knowledge of the sale estopping her from asserting her alleged right of legal redemption.

Held: It is clear that the plaintiff was not apprised of the consummated sale.  In fact, she did not even know the actual vendee until after she filed the complaint.  Concededly, the plaintiff was aware of the negotiations for the sale of the properties by her co-owners for which reason she asked the prospective vendees to wait for her arrival in order that they could talk about the sale.  But her awareness of the intention to sell by her co-owners cannot take the place of actual knowledge because it was not shown that she had anything to do with the negotiations and the consummation of the sale.  

VILLA SI VS. GARCIA G.R. No. 190106 January 15, 2014

Facts: Villasi engaged the services of respondent Fil-Garcia Construction, Inc. (FGCI) to construct a seven-storey condominium building located Cubao, Quezon City. For failure of Villasi to fully pay the contract price despite several demands, FGCI initiated a suit for collection of sum of money. Villasi filed an answer specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint. Contending that FGCI has no cause of action against her, Villasi averred that she delivered the total amount of P7,490,325.10 to FGCI but the latter accomplished only 28% of the project.To enforce her right as prevailing party, Villasi filed a Motion for Execution. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied on a building located Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City. While the building was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI, the lots in which it was erected were registered in the names of the Spouses Garcia. The Spouses Garcia argued that the building covered by the levy was mistakenly assessed by the City Assessor in the name of FGCI and that it could not be levied upon not being owned by the judgment debtor.

Issue: Whether the general rule on accession can be applied in the case at bar

Ruling: While it is a horn-book doctrine that the accessory follows the principal, that is, the ownership of the property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially, such rule is not without exception. In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the presumption shall not be applied and the actual ownership shall be upheld.

When there are factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the lot on which it stands are owned by different persons, they shall be treated separately. As such, the building or the lot, as the case may be, can be made liable to answer for the obligation of its respective owner.

SPOUSES AMADO & MILAGROS TINIO AND ROLANDO TINIO VS. NELLIE MANZANO GR No. 132102 May 19, 1999

Facts: Private respondent Nellie A. Manzano is a co-owner, together with her brothers and sisters of a lot. While private respondent was abroad, her brothers and sisters sold the aforesaid property to petitioner Rolando Tinio, the son of the other petitioners, spouses Amado and Milagros Tinio, for the price of P100,000.00.  In a forged “Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, Claim and Interest”, private respondent was made to appear as having waived her rights over lot in favor of Rolando Tinio. Upon private respondent’s return to the Philippines in 1994, the plaintiff-appellee offered to redeem the shares of her co-owners pursuant to Articles 1620 and 1621 of the New Civil Code. Receiving no reply, private respondent filed an action for legal redemption before the trial court.

Issue:  Whether Nellie Manzano had actual knowledge of the sale estopping her from asserting her alleged right of legal redemption.

Held: It is clear that the plaintiff was not apprised of the consummated sale.  In fact, she did not even know the actual vendee until after she filed the complaint.  Concededly, the plaintiff was aware of the negotiations for the sale of the properties by her co-owners for which reason she asked the prospective vendees to wait for her arrival in order that they could talk about the sale.  But her awareness of the intention to sell by her co-owners cannot take the place of actual knowledge because it was not shown that she had anything to do with the negotiations and the consummation of the sale.