G.R. No. L-5238 October 22, 1953
Margarita Benito and Juliana Benito, petitioners, vs. Samuel Enero, respondent.

FACTS

Estefanio Benito, married to Apolonia Corpuz, was the holder of a homestead patent issued on August 8, 1930, covering a tract of land identified as cadastral lot No. 1108. Shortly after the patent issuance, Estefanio Benito donated one-fourth of the lot to his brother Saturnino Benito and one-fourth to another brother, Eugenio Benito. These donations were void as they were made verbally or by private documents within the five-year prohibition period. After Estefanio Benito’s death in 1934 and after the expiration of the prohibition period, his widow, Apolonia Corpuz, executed notarized deeds (Exhibits 3 and 5) on November 3, 1935, in favor of Saturnino and Eugenio Benito. The deeds stated they were formalizing the prior donations made by her deceased husband, but the operative clauses conveyed and transferred the northernmost portions of the land to the donees, who accepted the donations. Saturnino and Eugenio Benito later sold their respective holdings to Toribia Castriciones, who in turn donated both portions to her grandson, Samuel Enero, on October 12, 1938. Enero has been in actual possession since. None of the deeds were registered. Enero instituted case No. 68 in the Court of First Instance to have his title confirmed and the donations annotated. Apolonia Corpuz filed an affidavit (Exhibit 7) in that case, withdrawing her opposition and consenting to the approval of Enero’s petition. The present action was commenced by Margarita and Juliana Benito, daughters of Estefanio and Apolonia, to revindicate the land and recover damages from Enero. The trial court declared the plaintiffs absolute owners with the right to possession. The Court of Appeals reversed, absolving Enero. The plaintiffs now petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting or construing the deeds (Exhibits 3 and 5) executed by Apolonia Corpuz, and whether the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action to recover the entire land in question.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with reservations. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ sole exception regarding the interpretation of the deeds was without merit. The variance between the defendant’s position and the Appellate Court’s reasoning was not a substantial departure from the pleadings but a divergence in legal conclusions drawn from the facts, which is permissible. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Exhibits 3 and 5, standing alone, were sufficient in form and intent to pass title, as they were executed after the five-year prohibition period, were notarized, and were duly accepted. The Court noted a fundamental defect in the plaintiffs’ action: they had no valid cause of action to recover the entire land. Their father’s one-half interest in the lot, which they inherited, was not impaired by the Court of Appeals’ decision or by their mother’s conveyance. At most, they are co-owners with their mother of the entire lot. Their proper remedy is not revindication of the whole property but partition of the commonly owned lot. This right may be pursued in the pending case No. 68. The Court refrained from deciding the extent of the estate conveyed by Apolonia Corpuz’s deeds, as she is not a party to the instant proceedings, leaving that question open for determination in case No. 68. The action was dismissed, with costs against the petitioners.