G.R. No. L-4415

PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

February 13, 1909

—

FACTS:

Martino Depiño and Fructuosa Disolong owned thirty-six parcels of land, which upon their death, were inherited by their six children/descendants. One of the heirs, Santos Depiño, incurred a debt to Ildefonso Doronila. Doronila subsequently attached these thirty-six parcels of land and sold them at public auction on February 8, 1905, with a one-year right of redemption.

On February 28, 1905, Doronila sold the lands to Ruperto Montinola under a pacto de retro, with the period for redemption expiring on February 24, 1906, for Doronila and the Depiño-Disolong heirs. The periods for both the judicial sale and the pacto de retro redemption expired, and Santos Depiño failed to redeem his share. Consequently, Montinola’s ownership of Santos Depiño’s one-sixth share was consolidated, and he was in possession of all thirty-six parcels.

Paulino Doliendo (husband of one of the co-heirs), Bruno Paredes, and Fermin Desa (the plaintiffs) alleged that on June 15, 1906, some of the co-heirs, including defendants Santos Depiño, Dionisio Depiño, and Bernabe Belandres, met and agreed that Doliendo would secure P800 to purchase the lands from Montinola to prevent them from falling into outside hands. Under this agreement, the plaintiffs would possess and work the land, reimburse themselves, and then divide the land among all the co-heirs.

On June 28, 1906, Montinola sold the thirty-six parcels of land to Paulino Doliendo, Bruno Paredes, and Fermin Liza (plaintiffs) for P800, explicitly stating that his acquisition from Doronila had become irrevocable.

The plaintiffs then filed a complaint against Santos Depiño, Dionisio Depiño, and Bernabe Belandres, seeking possession of the lands based on the aforementioned agreement. The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that the lands belonged pro indiviso to all six heirs and, therefore, the attachment and subsequent sales were null and void. They also denied having assented to the alleged agreement, stating they had no reason to buy what already belonged to them.

The Court of First Instance of Iloilo ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them possession of the thirty-six parcels against the defendants present in court, in conformity with the terms of the agreement (Exhibit No. 5). The trial court clarified that Doronila’s attachment and sale were only valid as to Santos Depiño’s one-sixth share, which became final due to his failure to redeem. The judgment was explicitly stated not to bind any person not present or a party to the suit. The defendants appealed this decision.

—

ISSUE:

1. Was the attachment levied by Doronila and the subsequent sales valid as to all thirty-six parcels of land, or only as to the share of Santos Depiño?
2. Did a valid and binding agreement exist between the plaintiffs and some of the co-heirs (including the defendants) for the plaintiffs to purchase the lands from Montinola on behalf of the heirs, granting the plaintiffs the right to possession under the terms thereof?

—

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

1. The Court reiterated that the attachment and subsequent sales resulting from Doronila’s claim were only valid with respect to the one-sixth share of Santos Depiño. The property of other co-heirs could not be sold for the debts of another. Since Santos Depiño failed to exercise his right of legal redemption, his one-sixth share became absolutely acquired by Montinola (and subsequently by the plaintiffs). The rights of the other co-heirs were not prejudiced by these sales.

2. The Court found no error in the lower court’s determination of the existence and validity of the agreement (Exhibit No. 5).
The Court held that the provision of Article 1280 of the Civil Code, which requires acts and contracts concerning real property rights to appear in a public instrument, does not affect the validity of the act or contract but rather its efficacy. Once the existence of such an agreement is admitted or proven, the party bound may be compelled to execute the public document.
The lower court was convinced by the preponderance of evidence that the agreement existed, even if Exhibit No. 5 was not signed by the defendants. The evidence showed that some heirs met, urged Doliendo to secure money to buy the lands to revert them to the family, and the plaintiffs would not have undertaken the risk without such an understanding.
* The agreement’s terms, which included the plaintiffs acquiring possession of the lands from Montinola, possessing them under antichresis (where they would work the land and reimburse themselves from its products), and then dividing the property among all co-heirs after reimbursement, were deemed valid.

Therefore, the Supreme Court confirmed the plaintiffs’ right to the possession of the thirty-six parcels of land as against the defendants who appeared in court, in conformity with the terms of the agreement. The judgment explicitly maintained that it did not bind any person not present in court or a party to the suit.