G.R. No. L-2588; July 25, 1950
BERNARDA COPON and CECILIO COPON, petitioners, vs. FERNANDO UMALI and PURIFICACION ORBETA, respondents.

FACTS

Crispulo Armando died intestate, leaving as his only heirs his widow, Bernarda Copon, and his brother, Doroteo Armando. His estate consisted of a parcel of land. Without judicial settlement of the estate, Bernarda sold the land and its improvements (a house she built with her own funds and five lanzon trees she planted) to her brother, Cecilio Copon, in 1942. Later, in 1945, Doroteo Armando sold the same land to the spouses Fernando Umali and Purificacion Orbeta. A dispute arose between the two vendees. The spouses filed an action to quiet title. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the spouses, and the Court of Appeals partly affirmed, awarding ownership of the land and lanzon trees to the spouses and the house to Cecilio Copon. Bernarda and Cecilio appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding oral evidence on the alleged authority of Bernarda to sell the land.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings regarding the sale and authority.
3. Whether Bernarda is entitled to compensation for the lanzon trees she planted.
4. The proper determination of the widow’s share in the estate.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals did not err. Under the Statute of Frauds (Rule 123, sec. 21[e]), authority to sell real property must be in writing. Bernarda’s oral testimony on such authority was incompetent evidence. Moreover, the finding that she lacked authority was a factual conclusion binding on the Supreme Court.
2. The Court of Appeals’ decision was not contradictory; it merely recited Bernarda’s admission of authority but found no proof thereof. Credibility of witnesses is within the appellate court’s exclusive domain.
3. No compensation for the lanzon trees is due. While expenses for improvements are generally reimbursable to the conjugal partnership, there was no showing that any expenses were actually incurred in planting the trees.
4. Modifying the appealed judgment: Under Article 837 of the Civil Code, the widow is entitled to a usufruct over one-half of the estate. This usufruct is alienable. Since Bernarda conveyed her rights to Cecilio Copon, he is entitled to the usufruct over one-half of the land until extinguished by law. The land is adjudicated to the spouses Umali and Orbeta, subject to this usufruct in favor of Cecilio Copon.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with this modification. Costs against petitioners.

AI Generated by Armztrong.