G.R. No. L-5504
ANTONIO CONSUNJI, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARIA D. TISON, opponent-appellant.
January 24, 1910

FACTS:
Antonio Consunji (applicant-appellee) sought the adjudication and registration of a parcel of land. Maria D. Tison (opponent-appellant) opposed the application, claiming an interest in the land as an heir of her deceased father, Domiciano Tison, who died in 1885. A composition title to the land had been issued in Domiciano Tison’s name on March 19, 1883, and duly registered in the old land registry.

Consunji based his claim on a notarial instrument dated April 12, 1904, by which Dolores Singian, Domiciano Tison’s widow, sold the land to him with a right to repurchase. Consunji contended that the land was the separate property (bienes propios) of Dolores Singian, inherited from her father, and that Domiciano Tison, despite obtaining the composition title in his own name, never had true ownership.

Evidence presented showed that Domiciano Tison owned no real estate in the vicinity prior to securing the title. An instrument executed by Domiciano Tison in 1882, before the title issuance, acknowledged the land as his wife Dolores’s bienes propios. Other documents, including an apportionment instrument (hijuela) from Dolores Singian’s father’s estate, indicated that the greater part of the land was inherited by Dolores or purchased with her separate funds. Any discrepancies in land area were attributed to the inaccuracy of ancient land descriptions. Dolores Singian, after her husband’s death, asserted her separate rights, exercised ownership, and sold the property to Consunji. She had not consented to the title being in her husband’s name.

ISSUE:
Did Maria D. Tison, as an heir of Domiciano Tison, have a real interest or right of ownership in the land, which was proven to be her mother’s bienes propios, sufficient to sustain her opposition to its adjudication and registration in favor of Antonio Consunji?

RULING:
No. The Court ruled that Maria D. Tison, as an heir of Domiciano Tison, had no real interest or right of ownership in the land that could sustain her opposition.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the land was the separate property (bienes propios) of Dolores Singian, acquired partly by inheritance from her father and partly purchased with her separate funds. Domiciano Tison’s act of securing the composition title in his own name, for property that was his wife’s bienes propios and without her consent, was held to have been done either as a preliminary step to transferring title to his wife, by mistake, or in fraud of his wife’s rights, taking advantage of his position as administrator of conjugal property.

Regardless of Domiciano’s exact intent, the Court held that Dolores Singian and her assigns (Antonio Consunji) had a perfect right to compel Domiciano during his lifetime, or his heirs after his death, to make the necessary conveyance to place the property in her name. Heirs of a deceased person are not considered “third persons” under Article 27 of the Mortgage Law regarding their decedent’s real estate; they take such property subject to all obligations resting upon it in the hands of the decedent.

Therefore, since Domiciano Tison had no actual right of ownership in the land, his heirs likewise inherited no such right. The lower court’s judgment adjudicating the land in favor of Antonio Consunji and directing its registry in his name was affirmed.