GR L 4831; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4831; April 24, 1953
NATIVIDAD SIDECO, assisted by her husband JOSE TALENS, MILAGROS SIDECO, assisted by her husband FLORENTINO CHIOCO, MARIANO SIDECO, CESAR SIDECO, GONZALO SIDECO, and the minor CRISPULO, EDGARDO, CHITA, and ANASTACIO, surnamed SIDECCO, represented by their mother and guardian ad litem FELISA DE LA CRUZ, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANGELA AZNAR, as administratrix of the testate estate of the deceased CRISPULO SIDECO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants are the children and grandchildren of Crispulo Sideco by his second wife, Matilde Jimenez, who died in 1906. The defendant-appellee is the administratrix of Crispulo Sideco’s estate; she is his widow from his third marriage. The action is for partition and recovery of shares in the produce of a 134.6671-hectare riceland in Cabanatuan, originally registered solely in Crispulo Sideco’s name in 1909. The land was declared for tax purposes in 1906. During cadastral proceedings in 1917, Crispulo Sideco petitioned the court to have the land adjudicated in his name and in the names of his children (the plaintiffs-appellants). The court ordered a new certificate of title to be issued, one-half in favor of Crispulo Sideco and the other half in the names of his said children. However, this new title was never issued. Crispulo Sideco remained in possession and administered the land until his death in 1942, using its produce for the support and education of the plaintiffs-appellants and for land improvements. The land was also under mortgage for extended periods. The trial court ruled the land was Crispulo Sideco’s exclusive property, not conjugal property with Matilde Jimenez, and that the plaintiffs-appellants were guilty of laches for not securing the new title.
ISSUE
1. Whether the subject land is the exclusive property of Crispulo Sideco or conjugal property of Crispulo Sideco and Matilde Jimenez, thereby belonging jointly to his estate and his children by the second marriage.
2. Whether the cadastral court’s order for issuance of a new title including the children as co-owners was valid or an ultra vires readjudication.
3. Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are guilty of laches for not securing the new title.
4. Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to a share of the land’s produce during the period of administration.
RULING
1. The land is conjugal property of Crispulo Sideco and Matilde Jimenez, and thus joint property of his estate and his children by that marriage. The tax declaration from before 1906 (the year Matilde died) gives rise to the presumption it is conjugal property. Crispulo Sideco’s petition in the cadastral case to include his children as co-owners constitutes a judicial admission or declaration against interest that the land was jointly owned. His will did not characterize the land as his exclusive property. The failure to issue the new title was due to the impracticability caused by existing mortgages on the land, not a lack of right or interest by the plaintiffs-appellants.
2. The cadastral court’s order was valid and within its jurisdiction. It was not a prohibited readjudication divesting the registered owner of title, but a proper amendment to include co-owners with the consent of the registered owner (Crispulo Sideco), which does not impair substantial rights. The cited cases (Manalo v. Lukban, Garcia v. Reyes) are distinguishable.
3. The plaintiffs-appellants are not guilty of laches. The decree of registration, not the certificate of title, creates rights. The court’s 1918 decree establishing their co-ownership is conclusive.
4. The plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to payment for a share of the produce. They were supported and educated by their father from the property’s income, and the land’s improvements were financed from its produce. The portion of produce, if any, still due to them was not substantiated.
The judgment is REVERSED. The land is declared joint property, with one-half undivided share pertaining to Crispulo Sideco’s estate and the other half to the plaintiffs-appellants. The case is remanded for partition. The claim for damages (share of produce) is denied. No costs.