GR 21577; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21577 December 26, 1967
REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and POLICARPIO MAMON, respondents.
FACTS
On August 18, 1951, Benigno Labrador sold his and his wife Marcelina J. Labrador’s share in Lot No. 9403 to Policarpio Mamon under a pacto de retro sale, reserving a right to repurchase within two years after three years from the sale. The deed was not signed by Marcelina nor registered. Mamon took possession and cultivated the land until 1959. Marcelina executed a power of attorney authorizing Benigno to encumber her share for a loan. Benigno failed to repurchase.
In a separate case (Civil Case No. 2932), the Municipal Court of Iloilo City rendered a money judgment against Marcelina J. Labrador in favor of Remedios C. Ledesma. After the judgment became executory, the sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction on April 9, 1956, Marcelina’s 1/3 share in Lot No. 9403 to Ledesma as the highest bidder. The certificates of sale were registered. After the redemption period, Ledesma sought possession but found Mamon cultivating the land. Demands to vacate were unheeded.
Ledesma then instituted an action for partition (Civil Case No. 4562) against Jose Labrador, Magdalena Labrador (heir of Felix Labrador), and Policarpio Mamon, praying to be declared a co-owner of a 1/3 share, for partition, and for Mamon to deliver possession and pay damages. The defendants claimed the property was already subdivided among them and Mamon as lawful owners. The trial court declared Ledesma the absolute owner of a 1/3 share and ordered partition. Only Mamon appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the decision, declaring Ledesma and Mamon owners pro-indiviso of a 1/6 portion each of the lot. Ledesma appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by deciding the validity of the public auction sale, which was not raised in the trial court.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Mamon an owner of a 1/6 share despite his not pleading a counterclaim and the unregistered pacto de retro sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. The Court of Appeals did not exceed its jurisdiction. The action was for partition, which necessarily involved determining whether Ledesma or Mamon was a co-owner. The validity of the auction sale, from which Ledesma derived her claim, was directly and necessarily involved. The defendants’ answers put in issue the ownership of the property, alleging Mamon’s acquisition and possession since 1951 and a prior subdivision.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err. Mamon’s answer, though not specific, involved a claim of ownership to a 1/3 share as a defense. Considering the nature of the action and the evidence, the declaration that he owned a 1/6 portion (representing Benigno’s half of the conjugal share) was justified. The averments did not mislead Ledesma in the conduct of her case. The Court deemed it unnecessary to decide the last assignment of error regarding the modification of the trial court’s decision.