G.R. No. 75257 -58 February 15, 1995
POTENCIANA CALAHAT and SUPREMA CALAHAT, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and BLAS CALAHAT, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Segundo Calahat and Norberta Prontes had five legitimate children: Juana, Suprema, Potenciana, Maura, and Blas Calahat. On July 3, 1937, Segundo Calahat acquired a parcel of land (Lot No. 204) from spouses Francisco Codia and Tomasa Bugo through a private document of sale. Due to difficulty in transferring the lot to the heirs, private respondent Blas Calahat acquired a notarized Deed of Sale dated September 11, 1954, from Francisco Codia, ratifying and confirming the sale. In a prior case (Civil Case No. OZ-248), the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals upheld that the 1954 sale was a confirmation of the 1937 sale to the Calahat spouses. On October 22, 1973, the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of the intestate estate of Segundo Calahat and Norberta Prontes, which included Lot No. 204. Subsequently, Original Certificate of Title No. P-653 was issued in the name of Blas Calahat. Petitioners Suprema and Potenciana Calahat filed a petition for subdivision of the lot. Blas Calahat filed an amended complaint for reformation of the extrajudicial settlement, claiming he was the true owner of Lot No. 204 by virtue of the 1954 deed and that he only included it in the settlement under certain conditions, including that his sisters reimburse him or sell their rights to him. He alleged that two sisters, Juana and Maura, sold their shares to him. The trial court declared Blas Calahat the owner and nullified the extrajudicial settlement with respect to Lot No. 204, which the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed.

ISSUE

Does Lot No. 204 belong to respondent Blas Calahat by virtue of the notarized Deed of Sale dated September 11, 1954, or to the conjugal partnership of Segundo Calahat and Norberta Prontes by virtue of the unnotarized Deed of Sale executed on July 3, 1937?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled for the petitioners, reversing the Court of Appeals. The ownership of Lot No. 204 was already resolved in the prior case (Civil Case No. OZ-248), where the courts held that the 1954 deed was merely a confirmation of the 1937 sale to Segundo Calahat and Norberta Prontes. Therefore, the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership and formed part of their estate subject to partition among the heirs. The extrajudicial settlement, a public document, was valid, and Blas Calahat failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence his claim of being pressured to include the lot. His allegations in his complaint, including giving his sisters options regarding the lot and buying the shares of Juana and Maura, impliedly admitted that his sisters had interests in the property. Consequently, Blas Calahat, having bought the shares of Juana and Maura, owned three-fifths, while Potenciana and Suprema Calahat each owned one-fifth of Lot No. 204 as co-owners. The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of the title in Blas Calahat’s name and the issuance of a new one in the names of the co-owners.