G.R. No. L-14835; August 31, 1960
PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This case involves two parcels of land (one on Suter Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, and another in Mandaluyong, Rizal) left by the deceased Telesforo Calasanz, who died on October 24, 1939, without issue. His surviving next of kin were his widow, Marciana Bernardo, and his nephews and nieces: Julian, Primitiva, and Isabel Calasanz (children of his deceased brother Cecilio); Leoncia Trinidad (daughter of his deceased sister Irene); and Hilaria Bibiano (granddaughter of his deceased sister Engracia). Respondents Julian Calasanz, Primitiva Calasanz, Leoncia Trinidad, and Hilaria Bibiano filed a complaint against petitioners Ponciano Medel (husband of Isabel Calasanz), their children Francisco Medel and Teodora C. Medel, and the widow Marciana Bernardo. They alleged that since Telesforo’s death, the defendants had been in illegal possession of the properties, excluding the plaintiffs who are, with Isabel Calasanz, the nearest surviving relatives. They prayed for an accounting and delivery of the lots and their income.
Petitioners Ponciano Medel and his family claimed ownership of the Suter property by virtue of an alleged sale from Telesforo Calasanz to Francisco Medel on March 18, 1939, subsequent sales to Demetrio Rosales, and finally to Teodora C. Medel. They claimed the Mandaluyong property was purchased by Francisco Medel from the widow Marciana Bernardo, who allegedly inherited it from her husband. They also filed a counterclaim for alleged loans. The widow Marciana Bernardo initially filed an answer claiming the Mandaluyong property was conjugal and that the Medels took possession, but she later withdrew this answer with court approval.
The trial court adjudicated the two lots in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents), subject to the usufruct of the widow, denied the accounting, and dismissed the counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court found that the alleged sale of the Suter property was not proven, as Ponciano Medel admitted he sold it in Telesforo’s name due to the latter’s illness but failed to produce the deed of sale or a power of attorney. The court concluded the sale was a forgery and that Teodora C. Medel was used as a dummy. The court also found that Ponciano Medel had merely been entrusted with the properties for administration until partition among the heirs.

ISSUE

The core legal issue is whether the petitioners have validly acquired ownership of the subject properties through alleged purchases, thereby defeating the rights of the respondents as intestate heirs of Telesforo Calasanz.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving the validity of the alleged sales that would divest the heirs of their inheritance. Regarding the Suter property, the petitioners could not prove the alleged sale from Telesforo Calasanz to Francisco Medel, as they failed to present the deed of sale or the power of attorney. The subsequent document (Exhibit 6) showing a sale from Demetrio Rosales to Teodora C. Medel was of no legal value without proof that Rosales ever legitimately acquired the property. The Court of Appeals’ finding that the transaction was a forgery and that Teodora was a dummy was upheld. As the respondents (and Isabel Calasanz) are the intestate heirs, ownership vested in them from the moment of Telesforo’s death. The petitioners’ claim of ownership, being an affirmative allegation, required them to prove the genuineness and regularity of the sales, which they failed to do.
The Supreme Court also rejected the petitioners’ new arguments on appeal. First, it held that the issue of whether the Mandaluyong property was conjugal could not be raised for the first time on appeal, as it was not part of the theory adopted in the lower courts. Second, the issue of prescription regarding the Suter property was likewise not raised in the trial court or properly in the Court of Appeals and was therefore unavailing. The decision adjudicating the properties to the respondents was affirmed.