G.R. No. 246096 , January 13, 2021
Spouses Benny and Normita Rol, Petitioners, vs. Isabel Urdas Racho, Respondent.

FACTS

Loreto Urdas died intestate in 1963, leaving his siblings Fausto Urdas, Sr., Chita Urdas, Maria Urdas Baclig, and Isabel Urdas Racho as his heirs to Lot No. 1559. Respondent Isabel discovered that the lot had been subdivided into Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B and that petitioners Spouses Rol had acquired titles to both lots. Isabel alleged the deeds of sale were forgeries as they were purportedly executed by the deceased Loreto in 2006 and 2012. Petitioners claimed they purchased Lot No. 1559-A in 1993 through an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale (EJSS) executed by Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Allan (Fausto’s son), which adjudicated Lot No. 1559-A to Fausto, Chita, and Maria who then sold it to petitioners, and Lot No. 1559-B to Allan. Petitioners later purchased Lot No. 1559-B from Allan in 2011. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the EJSS and all subsequent deeds void, finding the 2006 and 2012 deeds to be forgeries and the EJSS executed without Isabel’s knowledge and consent. The RTC ordered petitioners to reconvey 312.25 square meters to Isabel but found them to be purchasers in good faith. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, declaring the EJSS void for excluding Isabel, rendering the adjudication to Allan and his subsequent sale void. The CA held the sale of Lot No. 1559-A valid only insofar as the undivided interests of Fausto, Chita, and Maria were concerned, and found petitioners to be buyers in bad faith.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the conveyance of Lot No. 1559 to petitioners is null and void, except as to the portion in Lot No. 1559-A pertaining to the undivided interests of Fausto, Chita, and Maria.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals’ ruling is affirmed. The forged deeds of sale purportedly executed by the deceased Loreto are null and void. The Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale (EJSS) is likewise null and void because it was executed without the knowledge and consent of co-heir Isabel, making it a fraudulent and total nullity. Consequently, the subdivision of the lot and the adjudication of Lot No. 1559-B to Allan, a non-heir, are void. The principle of co-ownership governs prior to partition; thus, a co-owner can only sell his or her undivided, aliquot share. The sale of Lot No. 1559-A to petitioners is valid only insofar as it pertains to the aggregate undivided interests of Fausto, Chita, and Maria (totaling half of the lot, or 624.5 square meters, with Isabel retaining her one-fourth share in the whole). The subsequent sale of Lot No. 1559-B by Allan to petitioners is void under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what one does not have). Petitioners were found to be buyers in bad faith for failing to investigate the capacity of the sellers and the status of the registered owner. Isabel is not barred by laches as she was deprived of her hereditary share without her knowledge. The award of actual damages was correctly deleted for lack of proof, but attorney’s fees and costs were upheld.