G.R. No. 149542 . July 20, 2006.
Aberto Herbon, Margarito Herbon and Gabino Herbon, petitioners, vs. Leopoldo T. Palad and Helen P. Cayetano, respondents.

FACTS

Gonzalo Palad was a co-owner of an agricultural lot. Upon his death, his children from his first marriage, including respondents’ father Ignacio, became his heirs. Gonzalo later married Remedios Torres, who had children from a previous marriage, the petitioners. After both Gonzalo and Remedios died, petitioners occupied a portion of the lot. Respondents, as grandchildren and successors of Gonzalo, filed a complaint for recovery of possession.
Petitioners claimed a right to the property as heirs of their mother, Remedios. They presented two deeds of absolute sale purportedly executed in 1957, wherein other co-owners sold their shares to Gonzalo, Adelaida, and Ignacio. They argued these shares, acquired during Gonzalo’s marriage to Remedios, became conjugal property, giving Remedios a share. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling petitioners were co-owners who could not be ejected.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners have a legal right to possess the subject property, thereby precluding an action for recovery of possession by the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision ordering petitioners to vacate. The legal logic is anchored on property rights and succession. First, the purported 1957 deed involving Concordia Nojadera was correctly declared void by the CA due to forgery, as Concordia herself disowned her signature. Second, regarding the other deed, the CA correctly found an implied trust was created for Benjamin Palad, Gonzalo’s son, who allegedly paid the purchase price, meaning the legal title did not inure to the conjugal partnership.
Critically, Gonzalo’s original co-ownership share in the lot was his separate property, acquired before his marriage to Remedios. Upon his death, this passed by intestate succession to his compulsory heirs: his legitimate children from his first marriage. Remedios, as the surviving spouse, was not a compulsory heir under the governing Old Civil Code rules, as legitimate descendants survived. She had only a usufructuary right. Therefore, petitioners, as Remedios’s heirs, could not inherit any ownership interest in Gonzalo’s separate property from her. Having no established ownership or possessory right superior to the respondents, who are the lawful successors-in-interest, petitioners are mere possessors without title who may be lawfully ejected.