GR 152652; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152652, August 31, 2006
TEODORO STA. ANA, Petitioner, vs. LOURDES PANLASIGUE, JULIETA P. SANTIAGO and SPOUSES IRENEO STA. ANA and CANDIDA JARMIN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petronilo Sta. Ana died in 1980, leaving two parcels of land (Lots 13-A and 13-B) registered under his name and his surviving spouse, Anatolia dela Rosa, and ten children. One child, Nicolas, predeceased Anatolia in 1984, leaving two children, Annaliza and Andrea. On April 8, 1988, Anatolia, eight of her living children, and Fe Sta. Ana (wife of petitioner Teodoro, who was abroad) executed a Deed of Sale covering Lot 13-A in favor of respondents Lourdes Panlasigue and Julieta Santiago. On the same date, the same group executed a “Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Donation” covering Lot 13-B in favor of respondent Ireneo Sta. Ana (another child). These documents were annotated on the title. In 1996, Teodoro filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and damages, alleging his signature on the documents was unauthorized and a forgery, and prayed for reconveyance of his 1/18 share in each lot. Later, intervenors Annaliza and Andrea (Nicolas’s children) also filed a complaint, alleging they did not participate in or were informed of the transactions and sought reconveyance of their rightful shares. The Regional Trial Court nullified the extrajudicial partition, deed of sale, and deed of donation for lack of conformity of all compulsory heirs (Teodoro, Annaliza, and Andrea) and ordered reconveyance of the properties to the estate of Petronilo. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It held the lots were in co-ownership among the heirs, applying Article 493 of the Civil Code, and that the sale and donation were valid only to the extent of the sellers’/donors’ respective shares. It ordered the respondents to reconvey to Teodoro his 1/20 share in each lot and to the intervenors their 1/40 share each (representing their father Nicolas’s 1/20 share).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Donation null and void in their entirety, and in ordering merely the reconveyance of the specific fractional shares of the petitioner and intervenors instead of returning the entire properties to the estate.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held:
1. The assailed deeds are not void in their entirety. The lots were in a state of co-ownership among the heirs of Petronilo. Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of his ideal share and may alienate it. The sale of Lot 13-A and the donation of Lot 13-B were valid insofar as the shares of the heirs who consented to and participated in the transactions (Anatolia and the eight signing children) were concerned. The effect of the alienation is limited only to the portions that may be allotted to the consenting co-owners upon termination of the co-ownership.
2. The proper remedy is reconveyance of the unconsented shares, not nullity of the entire deeds. Since the petitioner (Teodoro) and the intervenors (Annaliza and Andrea) did not give their consent, the sale and donation did not bind their respective hereditary shares. The transferees (respondents) acquired only the shares of the consenting co-owners. Therefore, the respondents are obligated to reconvey the specific shares belonging to Teodoro and the intervenors.
3. The hereditary shares were correctly computed. The estate was conjugal. Anatolia was entitled to one-half (1/2) as her conjugal share. The other half belonged to the decedent Petronilo, to be divided among his ten children and his spouse (Anatolia) as compulsory heir, resulting in eleven heirs each receiving 1/2 multiplied by 1/11, or a 1/22 share of the whole. Thus, each child (including Nicolas) was entitled to a 1/22 share, and Anatolia’s total share was 1/2 (conjugal) + 1/22 (hereditary) = 12/22 or 6/11. The intervenors, representing their father Nicolas, succeeded to his 1/22 share by right of representation, to be divided equally between them (1/44 each). The Court of Appeals’ computation of 1/20 and 1/40 shares was a minor inaccuracy that did not affect the disposition.
4. The action had not prescribed. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. The titles were issued in 1988, and the complaint was filed in 1996, well within the prescriptive period.
The Court modified the appellate decision’s arithmetic, ordering respondents to reconvey to Teodoro his 1/22 share in each lot, and to the intervenors their 1/44 share each in each lot.