GR 188417; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188417; September 24, 2012
MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. SPS. RENATO TABU and DOLORES LAXAMANA, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
The dispute involves a 9,000-square-meter lot originally part of an estate registered under Faustina Maslum. Upon her death in 1941, she left a holographic will naming her nephews and nieces, including Benjamin Laxamana, as heirs. The will was never probated. Benjamin’s son, Domingo Laxamana, allegedly executed a Deed of Sale in 1975, selling his prospective 9,000-square-meter share to Laureano Cabalu, the petitioners’ predecessor. In 1994, Faustina’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition, formally allotting 9,000 square meters to Domingo. He then sold half of this to another party in 1995. The remaining 4,500 square meters was titled under his name (TCT No. 281353) in 1996. Domingo died in August 1996. Two months later, a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 8, 1996, purportedly executed by Domingo, conveyed this titled property to respondent Renato Tabu.
ISSUE
The core issue was the validity of the two deeds of sale executed by Domingo Laxamana: the 1975 sale to Laureano Cabalu and the 1996 posthumous sale to Renato Tabu.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the nullity of both deeds. Regarding the 1975 sale, the Court ruled it was void. At the time of its execution, Domingo had no valid title to convey. Ownership of Faustina’s estate remained with her estate until the legal settlement of her succession. The 1994 Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition was the operative act that first vested ownership in Domingo. A person cannot sell property they do not own; the 1975 sale was a void contract under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. Petitioners’ claim that Domingo inherited from his father, Benjamin, failed because Benjamin’s own inheritance from Faustina was inchoate until the will was given effect, which only occurred in 1994.
Concerning the 1996 sale, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s finding of nullity. The deed was dated and notarized on October 8, 1996, but Domingo had died on August 4, 1996. A contract requires a meeting of minds between living parties. A sale executed by a deceased person is a patent nullity, as a dead person cannot perform a juridical act. Consequently, TCT No. 286484 issued to Tabu and its derivative titles (TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339) were also declared void. The Court ordered the restoration of TCT No. 281353 in Domingo Laxamana’s name, subject to partition by his lawful heirs, placing the parties back to the status prior to the void 1996 transaction.