GR 112954; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112954; August 25, 2000
RICARDO DISTAJO, ERNESTO DISTAJO, RAUL DISTAJO, FEDERICO DISTAJO, ZACARIAS A. DISTAJO, EDUARDO DISTAJO, and PILAR DISTAJO TAPAR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LAGRIMAS SORIANO DISTAJO, respondents.
FACTS
Iluminada Abiertas owned several parcels of land in Capiz and designated her son, Rufo Distajo, as their administrator. During her lifetime, Iluminada executed deeds of sale covering portions of her property: she sold a portion of Lot 1018 to some of her other children in 1954; she certified the sale of Lots 1046 and 1047 to Rufo in 1963; she sold Lot 1057 to Rufo’s daughter in 1969; and she sold the remainder of Lot 1018 to Rufo in 1969. Separately, the heirs of Iluminada’s brother, Justo Abiertas, Jr., sold Lots 1001, 1048, and 1049 to Rufo. Upon Iluminada’s death in 1971, her other heirs, the petitioners, demanded possession of all seven lots from Rufo and his wife, Lagrimas. Upon refusal, they filed a complaint for recovery of possession, ownership, and partition.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the sales of the subject properties by Iluminada Abiertas to her son-administrator, Rufo Distajo, are valid and effective, thereby precluding partition among her heirs.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court upheld the validity of the sales executed by Iluminada in favor of Rufo. Petitioners challenged the sales on two grounds: first, that Rufo, as administrator, was prohibited from acquiring the property under his administration pursuant to Article 1491 of the Civil Code; and second, that the signatures on the deeds were forged or obtained through fraud. On the legal prohibition, the Court explained that Article 1491(2), which bars agents from acquiring property under their administration, is not absolute. The prohibition does not apply if the principal consents to the sale. The deeds of sale, duly signed by Iluminada, constituted clear and convincing evidence of her consent, thereby removing the transactions from the scope of the prohibition.
Regarding the allegation of forgery and fraud, the Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are binding and conclusive in the absence of a showing that they were grounded entirely on speculation. The petitioners failed to present a handwriting expert or any competent witness to substantiate the claim of forgery. Similarly, they provided no convincing evidence to prove that Iluminada’s consent was vitiated by fraud or machinations. Consequently, the sales were declared valid, and Rufo’s ownership was upheld. The Court also affirmed the appellate court’s finding that Lots 1001, 1048, and 1049 were not part of Iluminada’s estate, having been validly sold to Rufo by the heirs of Justo Abiertas, Jr.