G.R. No. 4177

AGATON ARANETA, executor of the estate of Hermenegildo Araneta, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BRAULIO MONTELIBANO, as tutor of the minor children of Aniceto Montelibano, deceased, defendant-appellee.

September 15, 1909

—

FACTS:

On April 13, 1887, Aniceto Montelibano sold a parcel of land to Hermenegildo Araneta for P6,000, with a right to repurchase within four years. The contract stipulated that if Aniceto failed to repurchase, he would execute an absolute deed of sale to Araneta. Aniceto remained in possession as Araneta’s tenant, paying one-third of the crops.

Hermenegildo Araneta died sometime before February 10, 1892. On December 20, 1898, Aniceto Montelibano died intestate, leaving four minor children: Bibiana, Maria, Rosario, and Raymundo. Braulio Montelibano was appointed tutor of Aniceto’s minor children on June 7, 1899.

Aniceto failed to repurchase the land within the stipulated four years. On February 10, 1895, Felix Araneta, as administrator of Hermenegildo’s estate (later substituted by Agaton Araneta), commenced an action against Braulio Montelibano to compel him (1) to execute and deliver an absolute deed for the land, and (2) to deliver possession of the said property.

Braulio Montelibano, the defendant, alleged that he did not possess the land and never did. He claimed that Aniceto Montelibano, with Hermenegildo Araneta’s knowledge and consent, sold the land to Leon Lopez, who was then in possession. The land was also not included in Aniceto’s estate inventory.

During the trial, the plaintiff presented the original contract and a letter from Felix Araneta to Aniceto Montelibano dated February 10, 1892, demanding payment of “money drawn from papa,” which Aniceto acknowledged as a debt. However, it was not definitively proven that this demand related to the P6,000 repurchase price of the land. The defendant offered “meager” and “doubtful” proof of the alleged sale to Leon Lopez, who was not called as a witness.

Notably, only three of Aniceto’s four minor children (Rosario, Raymundo, and Bibiana) were named as parties defendant, omitting Maria.

—

ISSUE:

1. Can an action for specific performance (to execute an absolute deed) and recovery of possession of land be sustained against the tutor of some of the deceased vendor’s minor children, when not all heirs are made parties defendant?
2. Is the mere possession of the original contract by the plaintiff conclusive proof that the repurchase price has not been paid?

—

RULING:

The Supreme Court revoked the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case, granting the plaintiff permission to amend his complaint.

1. Regarding the parties: The Court held that an action to compel the execution of a public instrument for the conveyance of land cannot proceed without all interested heirs being made parties defendant. Under Article 661 of the Civil Code, heirs are subrogated to all rights and obligations of the deceased. While heirs can be compelled to execute the necessary public instrument under Articles 1279 and 1280 of the Civil Code, all of them must be made parties to the action as they are all equally interested. Since Maria, one of Aniceto Montelibano’s minor children and an heir, was not made a party defendant, the action could not be concluded.

As to the claim for possession, an action for specific recovery of real property must be brought against the one actually or constructively in possession. The defendant tutor denied possession, and the proof showed he never possessed the land.

2. Regarding proof of non-payment: The Court stated that the mere possession of a document calling for the payment of money is not conclusive proof that the amount has not been paid. The plaintiff failed to offer proof that the original indebtedness had not been paid, and did not rebut the defendant’s evidence, albeit meager, that part of the obligation had been satisfied by Leon Lopez.

The Court did not rule on whether Leon Lopez, as the alleged possessor, should be made a party defendant, but emphasized that the heirs, once made parties, would be permitted to present evidence regarding the alleged substitution of Lopez in the contract.