G.R. No. 142441. November 10, 2004.
PEDRO BONGALON (substituted by FILIPINA BONGALON), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CECILIO BONGALON and AMPARO BONGALON, respondents.

FACTS

Rosalia Buenaflor owned Lot No. 525-A. Upon her intestate death in 1940, the lot was inherited in equal shares by her five children: Cirila, Trinidad, Jacoba, Emilio, and Benito. On July 26, 1943, two deeds were executed. First, Trinidad and the heirs of Jacoba and Emilio (Conchita and Teodora) sold their undivided shares to their co-heir, Cirila (Exhibit 2). Second, on the same day, Cirila, Trinidad, Conchita, and Teodora sold a part of the same lot to Pedro Bongalon, Cirila’s son (Exhibit B). Later, on February 22, 1971, Cirila executed another deed selling the entire Lot No. 525-A to her daughter, Amparo Bongalon. Amparo occupied a portion and paid taxes. In 1979, Pedro executed an Extrajudicial Settlement falsely declaring Cirila as Rosalia’s sole heir and himself as Cirila’s sole heir, based on which he obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in his name. Pedro then filed an action to quiet title against his siblings Cecilio and Amparo.

ISSUE

The core issue is who has a better right of ownership over Lot No. 525-A, based on the validity and effects of the conflicting deeds of sale and the fraudulent extrajudicial settlement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of co-ownership. Upon Rosalia’s death, her five children became co-owners of the lot, each with a 1/5 undivided share. The 1943 sale (Exhibit 2) to Cirila was valid only as to the specific undivided shares sold by her co-heirs (Trinidad, Conchita, and Teodora). Consequently, after this sale, Cirila owned her original 1/5 share plus the purchased shares, but she did not become the sole owner as Benito’s 1/5 share was never conveyed to her. Therefore, the subsequent 1943 sale by Cirila and the others to Pedro (Exhibit B) could only cover the aggregate of their undivided interests, not the entire lot. Cirila’s 1971 sale of the entire lot to Amparo was invalid insofar as it included Benito’s share. Pedro’s title, derived from a fraudulent extrajudicial settlement that excluded the other heirs, was void. A Torrens title procured through fraud does not become indefeasible. Since neither Pedro nor Amparo could claim ownership over the entire lot, the action to quiet title failed. The proper remedy is partition among all the co-owners, the heirs of Rosalia. The Court ordered the cancellation of Pedro’s TCT and remanded the case for partition proceedings.