property full july 25

8/12/2019 Property Full July 25

1/58

G.R. No. L-4656 November 18, 1912

RICARDO PARDELL Y CRUZ !"#ICEN$A OR$IZ Y %ELIN DE PARDELL,plaintifs-appellees,vs.GA&PAR DE 'AR$OLO(E Y E&CRI'ANO !"(A$ILDE OR$IZ Y %ELIN DE 'AR$OLO(E,deendants-appellants.

$ORRE&,J.:

This is an appeal by bill o exceptions, rom the judgment o October 5, 1!", #hereby the$onorable %ionisio &hanco, judge, absolved the deendants rom the complaint, and the plaintifrom a counterclaim, #ithout special 'nding as to costs.

&ounsel or the spouses (icardo y &ru) and *icente Orti) y +elin de ardell, the 'rst o #hom,absent in pain by reason o his employment, conerred upon the second sucient and amplepo#ers to appear beore the courts o justice, on /une 0, 1!5, in his #ritten complaint, allegedthat the plaintif, *icente Orti), and the deendant, atilde Orti), are the duly recogni)ed naturaldaughters o the spouses iguel Orti) and &alixta +elin y aula #ho died in *igan, 2locos ur, in10"5 and 1003, respectively4 that &alixta +elin, prior to her death, executed on ugust 1", 10"6,

a nuncupative #ill in *igan #hereby she made her our children, named anuel, +rancisca,*icenta, and atilde, surnamed Orti) y +elin, her sole and universal heirs o all her property4 that,o the persons enumerated, anuel died beore his mother and +rancisca a e# years ater herdeath, leaving no heirs by orce o la#, and thereore the only existing heirs o the said testatrixare the plaintif *icenta Orti) and the deendant atilde Orti)4 that, aside rom some personalproperty and je#elry already divided among the heirs, the testatrix possessed, at the time o theexecution o her #ill, and let at her death the real properties #hich, #ith their respective cashvalues, are as ollo#s7

1. house o strong material, #ith the lot on #hich it is built, situated on 8scoltatreet, *igan, and valued at

6,!!!.!!

3. house o mixed material, #ith the lot on #hich it stands, at 9o. 00:ashington treet, *igan4 valued at

1,5!!.!!

;. lot on agallanes treet, *igan4 valued at 1!!.!!


2/58

account o the extraordinary delay in the delivery o one-hal o said properties, or their value incash, as the case might be, had sufered losses and damages in the sum o 0,!!!. aid counselor the plaintifs thereore as>ed that judgment be rendered by sentencing the deendants,@aspar de Aartolome, and atilde Orti) +elin de Aartolome, to restore and deliver to the plaintifsone-hal o the total value in cash, according to appraisal, o the undivided property speci'ed,#hich one-hal amounted approximately to ;,e the latter?s share 1,3.!04 that, as sho#n by thepapers >ept by the plaintifs, in the year 101 the deendant Aartolome presented to theplaintifs a statement in settlements o accounts, and delivered to the person duly authori)ed by

the latter or the purpose, the sum o 3,6!6.3, #hich the said settlement sho#ed #as o#inghis principals, rom various sources4 that, the deendant Aartolome having been theadministrator o the undivided property claimed by the plaintifs, the latter #ere o#ing theormer legal remuneration o the percentage allo#ed by la# or administration4 and that thedeendants #ere #illing to pay the sum o ;,edthat judgment be rendered in their avor to enable them to recover rom the latter that amount,together #ith the costs and expenses o the suit.

The deendants, in their counter claim, repeated each and all o the allegations contained in eacho the paragraphs o section 1! o their ans#er4 that the plaintifs #ere obliged to pay to the


3/58

administrator o the said property the remuneration allo#ed him by la#4 that, as the revenuescollected by the deendants amounted to no more than ;,65ed that judgment be thereore rendered in their behal to enable them to collect this sumrom the plaintifs, (icardo ardell and *icenta Orti), #ith legal interest thereon rom %ecember", 1!no#n as La Quinta, the lot on#hich it stands and the #arehouses and other improvements comprised #ithin the inclosed land,and the seeds lands situated in the pueblos o *igan and anta =ucia4 and that the deendants#ere li>e#ise entitled to acBuire the house on &alle 8scolta, the lot on &alle agallanes, and thethree parcels o land situated in the pueblo o &andon.

ter this partition had been made counsel or the deendants, by a #riting o arch 0, 1!6, setorth7 That, having petitioned or the appraisement o the properties in Buestion or the purposeo their partition, it #as not to be understood that he desired rom the exception duly entered tothe ruling made in the matter o the amendment to the complaint4 that the properties retained

by the deendants #ere valued at ,;1!, and those retained by the plaintifs, at 3,005, one-hal o #hich amounts each party had to deliver to the other, as they #erepro indivisopropertiesthat, thereore, the deendants had to pay the plaintifs the sum o ;,313.5!, ater deductingthe amount #hich the plaintifs #ere obliged to deliver to the deendants, as one-hal o the priceo the properties retained by the ormer4 that, not#ithstanding that the amount o thecounterclaim or the expenses incurred in the reconstruction o the pro indiviso property shouldbe deducted rom the sum #hich the deendants had to pay the plaintifs, the ormer, or thepurpose o bringing the matter o the partition to a close, #ould deliver to the latter, immediatelyupon the signing o the instrument o purchase and sale, the sum o ;,313.5!, #hich #as one-hal o the value o the properties alloted to the deendants4 such delivery, ho#ever, #as not to


4/58

be understood as a renouncement o the said counterclaim, but only as a means or the 'naltermination o thepro indiviso status o the property.

The case having been heard, the court on October 5, 1!", rendered judgment holding that therevenues and the expenses #ere compensated by the residence enjoyed by the deendant party,that no losses or damages #ere either caused or sufered, nor li>e#ise any other expensebesides those aorementioned, and absolved the deendants rom the complaint and theplaintifs rom the counterclaim, #ith no special 'nding as to costs. n exception #as ta>en tothis judgment by counsel or the deendants #ho moved or a ne# trial on the grounds that theevidence presented did not #arrant the judgment rendered and that the latter #as contrary tola#. This motion #as denied, exception #hereto #as ta>en by said counsel, #ho 'led the properbill o exceptions, and the same #as approved and or#arded to the cler> o this court, #ith atranscript o the evidence.

Aoth o the litigating sisters assented to a partition by halves o the property let in her #ill bytheir mother at her death4 in act, during the course o this suit, proceedings #ere had, inaccordance #ith the agreement made, or the division bet#een them o the said hereditaryproperty o common o#nership, #hich division #as recogni)ed and approved in the 'ndings othe trial court, as sho#n by the judgment appealed rom.

The issues raised by the parties, aside rom said division made during the trial, and #hich havebeen submitted to this court or decision, concern7 D1E The indemnity claimed or losses anddamages, #hich the plaintifs allege amount to 0,!!!, in addition to the rents #hich shouldhave been derived rom the house on &alle 8scolta, *igan4 D3E the payment by the plaintifs tothe deendants o the sum o 1,3.!0, demanded by #ay o counterclaim, together #ith legalinterest thereon rom %ecember ", 1!


5/58

rticle ;< o the &ivil &ode prescribes7

8ach coo#ner may use the things o#ned in common, provided he uses them inaccordance #ith their object and in such manner as not to injure the interests o thecommunity nor prevent the coo#ners rom utili)ing them according to their rights.

atilde Orti) and her husband occupied the upper story, designed or use as a d#elling, in thehouse o joint o#nership4 but the record sho#s no proo that, by so doing, the said atilde

occasioned any detriment to the interest o the community property, nor that she prevented hersister *icenta rom utili)ing the said upper story according to her rights. 2t is to be noted that thestores o the lo#er Foor #ere rented and accounting o the rents #as duly made to the plaintifs.

8ach coo#ner o realty heldpro indiviso exercises his rights over the #hole property and mayuse and enjoy the same #ith no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests o hiscoo#ners, or the reason that, until a division be made, the respective part o each holder cannot be determined and every one o the coo#ners exercises, together #ith his othercoparticipants, joint o#nership over thepro indiviso property, in addition to his use andenjoyment o the same.

s the hereditary properties o the joint o#nership o the t#o sisters, *icenta Orti), plaintif, and

atilde Orti), deendant, #ere situated in the rovince o 2locos ur, and #ere in the care o thelast named, assisted by her husband, #hile the plaintif *icenta #ith her husband #as residingoutside o the said province the greater part o the time bet#een 1005 and 1!5, #hen she letthese 2slands or pain, it is not at all strange that delays and diculties should have attendedthe eforts made to collect the rents and proceeds rom the property held in common and toobtain a partition o the latter, especially during several years #hen, o#ing to the insurrectionthe country #as in a turmoil4 and or this reason, aside rom that ounded on the right ocoo#nership o the deendants, #ho too> upon themselves the administration and care o theproperties o joint tenancy or purposes o their preservation and improvement, these latter arenot obliged to pay to the plaintif *icenta one-hal o the rents #hich might have been derivedrom the upper o the story o the said house on &alle 8scolta, and, much less, because one othe living rooms and the storeroom thereo #ere used or the storage o some belongings and

efects o common o#nership bet#een the litigants. The deendant atilde, thereore, inoccupying #ith her husband the upper Foor o the said house, did not injure the interests o hercoo#ner, her sister *icenta, nor did she prevent the latter rom living therein, but merelyexercised a legitimate right pertaining to her as coo#ner o the property.

9ot#ithstanding the above statements relative to the joint-o#nership rights #hich entitled thedeendants to live in the upper story o the said house, yet in vie# o the act that the recordsho#s it to have been proved that the deendant atilde?s husband, @aspar de Aartolome,occupied or our years a room or a part o the lo#er Foor o the same house on &alle 8scolta,using it as an oce or the justice o the peace, a position #hich he held in the capital o thatprovince, strict justice, reBuires that he pay his sister-in-la#, the plaintif, one hal o the monthlyrent #hich the said Buarters could have produced, had they been leased to another person. The

amount o such monthly rental is 'xed at 16 in accordance #ith the evidence sho#n in therecord. This conclusion as to Aartolome?s liability results rom the act that, even as the husbando the deendant coo#ner o the property, he had no right to occupy and use gratuitously thesaid part o the lo#er Foor o the house in Buestion, #here he lived #ith his #ie, to thedetriment o the plaintif *icenta #ho did not receive one-hal o the rent #hich those Buarterscould and should have produced, had they been occupied by a stranger, in the same mannerthat rent #as obtained rom the rooms on the lo#er Foor that #ere used as stores. Thereore, thedeendant Aartolome must pay to the plaintif *icenta ;0


6/58

:ith respect to the second Buestion submitted or decision to this court, relative to the paymento the sum demanded as a counterclaim, it #as admitted and proved in the present case that, asa result o a serious earthBua>e on ugust 15, 10", the said house on &alle 8scolta #as let inruins and uninhabitable, and that, or its reconstruction or repair, the deendants had to expendthe sum o 6,353.;3. This expenditure, not#ithstanding that it #as impugned, during the trialby the plaintifs, #as duly proved by the evidence presented by the deendants. 8videnceunsuccessully rebutted, #as also introduced #hich proved that the rents produced by all therural and urban properties o common o#nership amounted, up to ugust 1, 1!5, to the sum o;,65 on the said house, leaves abalance o 3,50.1", the amount actually advanced by the deendants, or the rents collectedby them #ere not sucient or the termination o all the #or> underta>en on the said building,necessary or its complete repair and to replace it in a habitable condition. 2t is thereore la#uland just that the plaintif *icenta Orti), #ho #as #illing to sell to her sister atilde or 1,5!!,her share in the house in Buestion, #hen it #as in a ruinous state, should pay the deendantsone-hal o the amount expanded in the said repair #or>, since the building ater reconstruction#as #orth ,!!!, according to expert appraisal. &onseBuently, the counterclaim made by thedeendants or the payment to them o the sum o 1,3.!0, is a proper demand, though romthis sum a reduction must be made o ;0


7/58

that the allegation made by the plaintif *icenta is not true, to the efect that the deceasedmother o the litigant sisters disposed o this je#elry during her lietime, because, had she notdone so, the #ill made by the said deceased #ould have been exhibited in #hich the said je#elry#ould have been mentioned, at least it #ould have been proved that the articles in Buestioncame into the possession o the plaintif *icenta #ithout the expressed desire and the consent othe deceased mother o the said sisters, or the git o this je#elry #as previously assailed in thecourts, #ithout success4 thereore, and in vie# o its inconsiderable value, there is no reason orholding that the said git #as not made.

s regards the collection o the sum o 1!.5!, #hich is the diference bet#een the assessedvalue o the undivided real properties and the price o the same as determined by the judicialexpert appraiser, it is sho#n by the record that the ruling o the trial judge admitting theamendment to the original complaint, is in accord #ith the la# and principles o justice, or thereason that any o the coo#ners o a pro indiviso property, subject to division or sale, is entitledto petition or its valuation by competent expert appraisers. uch valuation is not prejudicial toany o the joint o#ners, but is bene'cial to their interests, considering that, as a general rule, theassessed value o a building or a parcel o realty is less than the actual real value o the property,and this being appraiser to determine, in conjunction #ith the one selected by the plaintifs, thevalue o the properties o joint o#nership. These t#o experts too> part in the latter proceedingso the suit until 'nally, and during the course o the latter, the litigating parties agreed to anamicable division o the

pro indivisohereditary property, in accordance #ith the price 'xed by

the judicial expert appraiser appointed as a third party, in vie# o the disagreement bet#een andnonconormity o the appraisers chosen by the litigants. Thereore it is improper no# to claim aright to the collection o the said sum, the diference bet#een the assessed value and that 'xedby the judicial expert appraiser, or the reason that the increase in price, as determined by thislatter appraisal, redounded to the bene't o both parties.

2n consideration o the oregoing, #hereby the errors assigned to the lo#er court have been dulyreuted, it is our opinion that, #ith a partial reversal o the judgment appealed rom, in so ar as itabsolves the plaintifs rom the counterclaim presented by the deendants, #e should and herebydo sentence the plaintifs to the payment o the sum o 15.!0, the balance o the sum claimedby the deendants as a balance o the one-hal o the amount #hich the deendants advanced or

the reconstruction or repair o the &alle 8scolta house, ater deducting rom the total o such sumclaimed by the latter the amount o ;0< #hich @aspar de Aartolome, the husband o thedeendant atilde, should have paid as one-hal o the rents due or his occupation o theBuarters on the lo#er Foor o the said house as an oce or the justice o the peace court o*igan4 and #e urther 'nd7 D1E That the deendants are not obliged to pay one-hal o the rents#hich could have been obtained rom the upper story o the said house4 D3E that the plaintifs cannot be compelled to pay the legal interest rom %ecember ", 1!


8/58

O&E GA$CALIAN, E$ AL.,plaintifs-appellants,vs.$E COLLEC$OR O% IN$ERNAL RE#ENUE,deendant-appellee.

The plaintif brought this action to recover rom the deendant &ollector o 2nternal (evenue thesum o 1,06;.et valued at t#o pesos D3E, subscribed and paid thereor the amounts as

ollo#s7

1. /ose@atchalian ....................................................................................................

!.10

3. @regoria&ristobal ...............................................................................................

.10

;. aturninailva ....................................................................................................

.!0


9/58

1!. aria &.=egaspi ...............................................................................................

.16

11. +rancisco&abral ...............................................................................................

.1;

13. @on)alo

/avier ....................................................................................................

.1s #hich had been let in the

house o aharaja Autu, or sae>eeping, and a document D8xhibit E to this efect #as executed

by =im &hiat and &heong Tong, on the one hand, and Tamsi, 2mam =umuyod, and 2mam sa>il, on

the other. Thereupon they #ent to &a#it-&a#it on board the launch %hin$+-an$to get the amber

so sold.

2t appears that there #ere other people in Mamboanga #ho >ne# o the existence o this

ambergris in the house o aharaja Autu. :hile the above related events #ere ta>ing place, r.

$enry 8. Tec>, #ho #as one o those having >no#ledge o the existence o this amber in &a#it-&a#it and o the act that the launch %hin$+-an$had let or &a#it-&a#it, proposed to the master

o the revenue cutter 'indoroto go to &a#it-&a#it to sei)e some supposedly contraband opium.

ter transmitting this inormation to the &ollector o &ustoms, he, the master o the 'indoro

immediately proceeded to &a#it-&a#it. There #ere on board the vessel r. Tec>, some

&hinamen, among #hom #ere &. Aoon =iat, Ong &hua, and @o Tong, and some oros #ho,

according to r. Tec>, #ere to assist in the arrest o the smugglers. Gpon the arrival o

the 'indoroat &a#it-&a#it, the master, accompanied by r. Tec> and some oros, #ent to the

house o aharaja Autu. s is to be presumed, this inormation about the supposed contraband

opium #as but a tric> to have the 'indoroat their disposal. The master proceeded to search the

house, stating that he had inormation to the efect that there #as contraband opium and as a

result o the search, he ound three large trun>s containing a blac> substance #hich had a bad

odor. $e then as>ed the o#ner o the house to #hom those three trun>s belonged, and the latter

pointed to hamad #ho #as present and #ho stated that the contents came rom the abdomen

o a large 'sh. The master, ho#ever, said that it #as opium and told hamad that he #ould ta>e

the three trun>s on board the ship. Then hamad and other oros as>ed permission o the

master to accompany him on the voyage to Mamboanga, to #hich the master consented. :hen

already on board and during the voyage the master became convinced that the contents o the

three trun>s #ere not opium.

%uring the voyage, r. Tec> ofered to purchase the amber contained in the three trun>s, but

hamad reused to sell it or the reason that he #as not the sole o#ner thereo, but o#ned it in

common #ith other persons #ho #ere in Mamboanga. $o#ever r. Tec>, aided by his

companions #ho #ielded some inFuence in Mamboanga, insisted that hamad should sell them


16/58

the amber, telling him not to be araid o his companions, as he #ould ans#er or #hatever

might happen. :ith this promise o protection, hamad decided to sell the amber or ",5!! and

received 3,5!! as part payment on account o this price, a bill o sale having been signed by

hamad, aharaja Autu and three oros more. The balance o this price #as paid later.

:hen &heong Tong, =im &hiat, and the oros #ho had gone to &a#it-&a#it on board the

launch %hin$+-an$arrived at the house o aharaja Autu, they ound that the amber they had

purchased rom Tamsi and his companions #as no longer there.

The plaintifs are t#enty-one o the t#enty-t#o oros #ho had caught the #hale, and =im &hiat

and &heong Tong, #ho had purchased rom Tamsi and his companions the amber contained in

the three trun>s deposited in the house o aharaja Autu or sae>eeping. They claim the 0!-N

>ilos o ambergris contained in three trun>s, or its value in the amount o 6!,!!!, and damages

in the sum o 3!,!!!. This action is brought against &. Aoon =iat, Ong &hua, @o Tong, $enry 8.

Tec>, and the oro, hamad, the 'rst our being the persons #ho purchased this same amber

rom the one last named #hile on board the revenue cutter 'indoro.

2t appears rom the oregoing that the amber in Buestion #as the undivided common property o

the plaintifs D#ith the exception o =im &hiat and &heong TongE and the deendant hamad. This

common o#nership #as acBuired by occupancy Darts. 6! and 61! o the &ivil &odeE, so that

neither Tamsi, 2mam =umuyod, or 2mam sa>il had any right to sell it, as they did, to =im &hiat

and &heong Tong, nor had the oro hamad any right to sell this same amber, as he did, to &.

Aoon =iat, Ong &hua, @o Tong, and $enry 8. Tec>. There #as an agreement bet#een the

coo#ners not to sell this amber #ithout the consent o all. Aoth sales having been made #ithoutthe consent o all the o#ners, the same have no efect, except as to the portion pertaining to

those #ho made them Dart. ;, &ivil &odeE.

lthough the original complaint 'led in this case #as entitled as one or replevin, in reality, rom

its allegations, the action herein brought is the ordinary one or the recovery o the title to, and

possession o, this amber. 2t is no bar to the bringing o this action that the deendant hamad is

one o the coo#ners. The action or recovery #hich each coo#ner has, derived rom the right o

o#nership inherent in the coo#nership, may be exercised not only against strangers but againstthe coo#ners themselves, #hen the latter perorm, #ith respect to the thing held in common,

acts or their exclusive bene't, or o exclusive o#nership, or #hich are prejudicial to, and in

violation o, the right o the community. D%ecision o the supreme court o pain o /une 33,

103.E 2n this case the selling o the amber by the deendant hamad as his exclusive property

and his attitude in representing himsel to be the sole o#ner thereo place him in the same

position as the stranger #ho violates any right o the community. $e is not sued in this case as a


17/58

coo#ner, or the cause o action is predicated upon the act that he has acted not as a coo#ner,

but as an exclusive o#ner o the amber sold by him.

s to the sale made by hamad, it is urged that the purchaser acted in good aith. 2t is

contended that the latter did not >no# that the amber belonged to some others besides hamad.

Aut the evidence sho#s other#ise. $enry 8. Tec> himsel admitted that on the occasion o the

sale o the amber he really had promised hamad to protect him, and although he said that the

promise made by him had reerence to the contingency o the amber proving to be opium, as the

master o the revenue cutter 'indorobelieved, this is incredible, because he could not ma>e

hamad such a promise, nor could such a promise, i made, have any inFuence on the mind o

hamad, inasmuch as the latter >ne# that the amber #as not opium. 2, as $enry 8. Tec> admits,

he made hamad this promise o protection, it should have been only on account o hamad?s

reusal to sell the amber due to the act that he #as not the sole o#ner thereo.

:ith regard to the action o the trial court in not admitting 8xhibits 1 and 3 ofered by the

deendants, #e believed that it #as no error. These documents are adavits signed by

aslangan, and the best evidence o their contents #as the testimony o aslangan himsel

#hom the plaintifs had the right to cross-examine. oreover, they are substantially the same as

the statements made by aslangan at the trial #hen testiying as #itness or the deendants, and

or this reason the ruling o the trial court excluding these documents #ould not, at all events,

afect the merits o the case.

2n the complaint it is alleged that the value o the amber is 6!,!!!. Gpon the evidence adducedon this point, and ta>ing into account that the deendant, $enry 8. Tec>, himsel, testiying as

#itness, has stated that this amber #as #orth 1,3!! per >ilo, #e accept this estimated value

set orth in the complaint.

The decision o the court belo# contains the ollo#ing order or judgment7

:hereore, it is the judgment and order o the court that the deendants &. Aoon =iat, $enry 8.

Tec>, hamad Ong &hua, and @o Tong deliver to the plaintifs, 8milio unsalan, Aayrula, %aring

@umuntol, ohamad, 2nsael, %un>aland, Tahil, %ambul, %agan, abay, ahibul, ingay, ujahad,

milol, Aaraula, araban, =im &hiat, and &heong Tong t#enty-t#enty-'rst D3!31E o the amber in

Buestion, or, in deault thereo, to pay them its value o t#elve thousand pesos D13,!!!E, less

one-t#enty-'rst o said amount.


18/58

Thereore, the judgment appealed rom is armed, #ith the only modi'cation that the value o

the amber #hich is the subject-matter o this action shall be 6!,!!!, #ithout special 'nding as

to the costs o this instance. o ordered.

G.R. No. 12552 %ebr0r 2, 2//

$7IN $O7ER& CONDO(INIU( CORPORA$ION, petitioner,vs.$E COUR$ O% APPEAL&, AL& (ANAGE(EN$ DE#ELOP(EN$ CORPORA$ION,AN$ONIO LI$ONUA !" &ECURI$IE& AND ECANGE CO((I&&ION,respondents.

% 8 & 2 2 O 9

CARPIO,J.:

The &ase

Aeore us is a petition or revie# on certiorari1to nulliy the %ecision3dated ugust ;1, 15 othe &ourt o ppeals and its (esolution;dated /anuary 16, 16 denying petitionerPs motion orreconsideration. The &ourt o ppeals dismissed petitionerPs appeal rom the %ecision enbanc o merit and or non-compliance #iththe reBuirement on certi'cation o non-orum shopping.6

The ntecedent +acts

On /une ;!, 100, petitioner T#in To#ers &ondominium &orporation DCpetitionerC or brevityE 'leda complaint"#ith the ecurities and 8xchange &ommission DC8&C or brevityE against

respondents = anagement H %evelopment &orporation DC=C or brevityE and ntonio=itonjua DC=itonjuaC or brevityE. The complaint prayed that = and =itonjua be ordered to paysolidarily the unpaid condominium assessments and dues #ith interests and penalties coveringthe our Buarters o 106 and 10" and the 'rst Buarter o 100.

The complaint alleged, among others, that petitioner, a non-stoc> corporation, is organi)ed orthe sole purpose o holding title to and managing the common areas o T#in To#ers&ondominium DC&ondominiumC or brevityE. embership in petitioner corporation is compulsoryand limited to all registered o#ners o units in the &ondominium. =, as registered o#ner o Gnit9o.


19/58

rom any liability to petitioner. :hile = is a juridical person that cannot by itsel physicallyoccupy the Gnit, the natural person #ho physically occupies the Gnit does not assume theliability o = to petitioner. 9either does the agent #ho acts or the corporation becomepersonally liable or the corporationPs obligation.

s counterclaim, = claimed damages against petitioner arising rom petitionerPs act orepeatedly preventing =, its agents and guests rom using the par>ing space, s#imming pool,gym, and other acilities o the &ondominium. 2n addition, =itonjua claimed damages againstpetitioner or the latterPs act o including =itonjuaPs name in the list o delinBuent unit o#ners#hich #as posted on petitionerPs bulletin board.

On %ecember 11, 11, the 8& $earing Ocer ordered petitioner to pay =itonjua moral andexemplary damages or maliciously including =itonjuaPs name in the list o delinBuent unito#ners and or impleading him as a respondent. On the other hand, the 8& $earing Ocerordered = to pay the assessments and dues to petitioner.1!$o#ever, the $earing Ocer didnot determine the exact amount to be paid by = because petitioner ailed to lay do#n thebasis or computing the unpaid assessments and dues.11The dispositive portion o the decisionreads thus7

C:$8(8+O(8, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as ollo#s7

1. Ordering respondent = to pay the legal assessmentsdues due the complainant #ithinthirty D;!E days rom 'nality o this %ecision4 and

3. Ordering the complainant to pay respondent ntonio =itonjua the sum o T$(88$G9%(8% T$OG9% 8O D;!!,!!!.!!E as moral damages, +2+TK T$OG9% 8OD5!,!!!.!!E as exemplary damages, and T:O $G9%(8% T$OG9% 8OD3!!,!!!.!!E as and by #ay o attorneyPs ees.

O O(%8(8%.C13

9ot satis'ed #ith the 8& $earing OcerPs decision, both parties 'led their respective appeals to

the 8& en banc.1;etitioner assailed the a#ard o moral and exemplary damages as #ell asattorneyPs ees in avor o =itonjua. On the other hand, = appealed that portion o the decisionordering it to pay to petitioner the assessments and dues.

2n a decision dated /uly ;!, 1;, the 8& en banc nulli'ed the a#ard o damages and attorneyPsees to =itonjua on the ground that the 8& had no jurisdiction over =itonjua. The 8& enbanc held that there is no intra-corporate relationship bet#een petitioner and =itonjua #ho is notthe registered o#ner o the Gnit and thus, not a member o petitioner. The 8& en banc statedthat petitioner could not invo>e the doctrine o piercing the veil o =P corporate 'ction sincedisregarding the corporate entity is a unction o the regular courts.

+urthermore, the 8& en banc remanded the case to the $earing Ocer to determine the valueo the services petitioner ailed to render to = because o the latterPs non-use o the&ondominium acilities. The 8& en bancruled that the value o these services could be deductedrom the unpaid assessments and dues that = o#es petitioner.

Thus, the 8& en banc declared7

C:$8(8+O(8, in vie# o the oregoing, the order appealed rom is hereby reversed insoar as ita#ards moral and exemplary damages and attorneyPs ees to respondent =itonjua as the same isnull and void or lac> o jurisdiction o this &ommission over the said party.1


20/58

s regards that portion o the appealed Order directing respondent = to pay the legaassessmentdues to the complainant TT& #ithin thirty D;!E QdaysR rom 'nality o the saiddecision, the same is hereby modi'ed by remanding the case to the hearing oceror "eerm*!*o! o: 3e v+0e o: 3e erv*;e


21/58

2n its emorandum, petitioner assigns the ollo#ing errors in the decision o the &ourt oppeals7

1. C29 %2229@ T$8 8T2T2O9 ==8@8%=K A8&G8 O+ 8T2T2O98(P +2=G(8 TO&O=K :2T$ T$8 8(T2989T (O*22O9 O+ G(88 &OG(T &2(&G=( 9O. 1-5 9%30-1 O9 T$8 &8(T2+2&T2O9 @29T +O(G $O29@4C

3. C29 O(%8(29@ (89% O+ T$8 &8 A&I TO T$8 $8(29@ O++2&8( +O( T$8

(8&8T2O9 O+ 8*2%89&8 +O( 8(*2&8 GO8%=K 9OT (89%8(8% AK 8T2T2O98(4C

;. C29 %8&=(29@ $OG8 (G=8 9O. 36.; G=T( *2(84C

efect on /anuary 1, 13, reBuired a s#orn certi'cation o non-orum shopping in cases 'led #ith the &ourt o ppeals and the upreme &ourt. &ircular 9o. 30-1 speci'cally provides or summary dismissal o petitions #hich do not contain a s#orncerti'cation o non-orum shopping. ections 3 and ; o &ircular 9o. 30-1 state7

C3. %ertifcation - The party must certiy under oath that he has not commenced any other actionor proceeding involving the same issues in the upreme &ourt, the &ourt o ppeals, or diferent%ivisions thereo, or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best o his >no#ledge, no suchaction or proceeding is pending in the upreme &ourt, the &ourt o ppeals, or diferent %ivisionsthereo, or any other tribunal or agency. 2 there is any action pending, he must state the status
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt20


22/58

o the same./awphi/.n8t2 he should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been 'led or ispending beore the upreme &ourt, the &ourt o ppeals, or diferent %ivisions thereo, or anyother tribunal or agency, he should notiy the court, tribunal or agency #ithin 've D5E days romsuch notice.

;. Penalties -

a. ny violation o this &ircular shall be a cause or the summary dismissal o the multiple

petition or complaint.

x x x.C

&learly, petitioner cannot claim that at the time o the 'ling o its petitions #ith the &ourt oppeals, it #as not reBuired under any existing upreme &ourt &ircular to include in its petitionsa s#orn certi'cation o non-orum shopping. &ircular 9o. 30-1 applies in the instant case, beingthe &ircular in orce at the time. etitioner cannot even eign ignorance o &ircular 9o. 30-1 asits petitions #ere 'led more than one year ater the &ircularPs efectivity. The rule against orumshopping has long been established and &ircular 9o. 30-1 merely ormali)ed the prohibition andprovided the appropriate penalties against violators.31

The &ourt o ppeals did not err in dismissing the petition or this procedural lapse. $o#ever,special circumstances or compelling reasons may justiy relaxing the rule reBuiring certi'cationon non-orum shopping.33Technical rules o procedure should be used to promote, not rustrate

justice. :hile the s#it unclogging o court doc>ets is a laudable objective, granting substantiajustice is an even more urgent ideal.3;The certi'cate o non-orum shopping is a mandatoryreBuirement. 9onetheless, this reBuirement must not be interpreted too literally to deeat theends o justice.3no#n as theCcondominium corporationCE in #hich the holders o separate interests shall automatically bemembers or shareholders, to the exclusion o others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest otheir respective units in the common areas. xxxC35

The &ondominium ct provides that the aster %eed may authori)e the condominiumcorporation to collect Creasonable assessments to meet authori)ed expenditures.C36+or thispurpose, each unit o#ner Cmay be assessed separately or its share o such expenditures inproportion Dunless other#ise providedE to its o#nerPs ractional interest in the commonareas.C3"lso, ection 3! o the &ondominium ct declares7

Cection 3!. n assessment upon any condominium made in accordance with a dulyregistered declaration of restrictions shall be an obligation of the ownerthereo at theStime the assessment is made. xxxC D8mphasis suppliedE

etitioner is expressly authori)ed by its aster %eed to impose reasonable assessments on itsmembers to maintain the common areas and acilities o the &ondominium. ection


24/58

%eed,3= became a regular member o petitioner upon its acBuisition o a unit in the&ondominium.

s a member o petitioner, = assumed the compulsory obligation to share in the commonexpenses o the &ondominium. This compulsory obligation is urther emphasi)ed in ection 0,paragraph c, art 2 o the aster %eed, to #it7

C8ach member o the &ondominium &orporation shall share in the common expenseso the

condominium project in the same sharing or percentage stated xxxC

;!

D8mphasis suppliedE

Gndoubtedly, as a member o petitioner, = is legally bound to pay petitioner assessments anddues =O maintain the common areas and acilities o the &ondominium. =P obligation arisesrom both the la# and its contract #ith the &ondominium developer and other unit o#ners.

etitionerPs aster %eed provides that a member o the &ondominium corporation shall share inthe common expenses o the condominium project.;1This obligation does not depend on the useor non-use by the member o the common areas and acilities o the &ondominium. :hether ornot a member uses the common areas or acilities, these areas and acilities #ill have to bemaintained. 8xpenditures must be made to maintain the common areas and acilities #hether amember uses them reBuently, inreBuently or never at all.

= asserts that the denial by petitioner to = and =itonjua o the use o the &ondominiumacilities deprived petitioner o any right to demand rom = payment o any condominiumassessments and dues. = contends that the right to demand payment o assessments anddues carries #ith it the correlative obligation to allo# the use o the &ondominium acilities. =is correct i it had not deaulted on its assessment and dues beore the denial o the use o theacilities. $o#ever, the records clearly sho# that petitioner denied = and =itonjua the use othe acilities only a)ter = had deaulted on its obligation to pay the assessments and dues. Thedenial o the use o the acilities #as the sanction or the prior deault incurred by =.

2n essence, #hat = #ants is to use its o#n prior non-payment as a justi'cation or its uturenon-payment o its assessments and dues. tated another #ay, = advances the argument that

a contracting party #ho is guilty o 'rst breaching his obligation is excused rom such breach ithe other party retaliates by reusing to comply #ith his o#n obligation.

This obviously is not the la#. 2n reciprocal obligations, #hen one partyP ul'lls his obligation, andthe other does not, delay by the other begins. oreover, #hen one party does not comply #ithhis obligation, the other party does not incur delay i he does not perorm his o#n reciprocaobligation because o the 'rst partyPs non-compliance. This is embodied in rticle 116 o the&ivil &ode, the relevant provision o #hich reads7

C2n reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay i the other does not comply or is notready to comply in a proper manner #ith #hat is incumbent upon him. +rom the moment one othe parties ul'lls his obligation, delay by the other begins.C

Thus, beore = incurred its arrearages, petitioner allo#ed = to use the acilities. $o#ever,= subseBuently deaulted and thus incurred delay. 2t #as only then that petitioner disallo#ed= and =itonjua rom using the acilities. &learly, petitionerPs denial to = o the &ondominiumacilities, ater = had deaulted, does not constitute a valid ground on the part o = to reusepaying its assessments and dues.

.?.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt31


25/58

etitionerPs $ouse (ules and (egulations DC$ouse (ulesC or brevityE expressly authori)e denial othe use o condominium acilities to delinBuent members. peci'cally, $ouse (ule 36.; providesthat7

C36. 889T7

x x x

36.; 9ames o unit o#ners #ith delinBuent accounts #ho ail to pay t#o consecutive Buartersshall be posted in the bulletin board. !nit owners with delin"uent accounts, their tenants,guests#visitors and relatives shall not be allowed the use of all facilities of thecondominium such as the swimming pool, gym, social hall, etc.$ D8mphasis suppliedE

The issue on the validity o $ouse (ule 36.; #as raised or the 'rst time on appeal. 2t is settledthat an issue not raised during trial could not be raised or the 'rst time on appeal as to do so#ould be ofensive to the basic rules o air play, justice, and due process. ;39onetheless, the&ourt o ppeals opted to address this issue.

etitioner justi'es $ouse (ule 36.; by invo>ing ection ;6, paragraph 11 o the &orporation &ode#hich grants every corporation the po#er Cto exercise such po#ers as may be essential or

necessary to carry out its purpose or purposes as stated in its rticles o 2ncorporation.Cetitioner #as organi)ed or the main purpose o holding title to and managing the commonareas o the &ondominium. etitioner claims that there is here implied the po#er to enact suchmeasures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions o the rticles o 2ncorporation, Ay-=a#s and aster %eed to deal #ith delinBuent members. This, asserts petitioner, includes thepo#er to enact $ouse (ule 36.; to protect and saeguard the interests not only o petitioner butalso o its members.

+or their part, = and =itonjua assail the validity o $ouse (ule 36.; alleging that it is ultravires. = and =itonjua maintain that neither the aster %eed nor the Ay-=a#s o petitionerexpressly authori)es petitioner to prohibit delinBuent members rom using the &ondominiumacilities. Aeing ultra vires" $ouse (ule 36.; binds no one. 8ven assuming that $ouse (ule 36.;

is intra vires" the same is iniBuitous, unconscionable, and contrary to morals, good customs andpublic policy. Thus, = claims it can validly deduct the value o the services #ithheld rom theassessments and dues since it #as barred rom using the &ondominium acilities or #hich theassessments and dues #ere being collected.

The &ourt o ppeals sustained respondentsP argument and declared $ouse (ule 36.; ultravires on the ground that petitioner is not expressly authori)ed by its aster %eed or its Ay-=a#sto promulgate $ouse (ule 36.;.

$ouse (ule 36.; clearly restricts delinBuent members rom the use and enjoyment o the&ondominium acilities. The Buestion is #hether petitioner can validly adopt such a sanction toenorce the collection o &ondominium assessments and dues.

:e rule that $ouse (ule 36.; is valid.

ection


26/58

The term ultra vires reers to an act outside or beyond corporate po#ers, including those thatmay ostensibly be #ithin such po#ers but are, by general or special la#s, prohibited or declaredillegal.;;The &orporation &ode de'nes an ultra vires act as one outside the po#ers conerred bythe &ode or by the rticles o 2ncorporation, or beyond #hat is necessary or incidental to theexercise o the po#ers so conerred. oreover, special la#s governing certain classes ocorporations, li>e the &ondominium ct, also grant speci'c corporate po#ers to corporationsalling under such special la#s.

The &ondominium ct, petitionerPs Ay-=a#s and the aster %eed expresslyempo#er petitionerto promulgate $ouse (ule 36.;. ection o the &ondominium ct provides7

Cection . The o#ner o a project shall, prior to the conveyance o any condominium therein,register a declaration o restrictions relating to such project, #hich restrictions xxx shall inure toand bind all condominium o#ners in the project. xxx The (egister o %eeds shall enter andannotate the declaration o restrictions upon the certi'cate o title covering the land included#ithin the project, i the land is patented or registered under the =and (egistration or &adastralacts.

xxx

uch declaration o restrictions, among other things, may also provide7

%a& 's to any management body(

). *or the powers thereof, +ncluding power to enforce the provisions of thedeclaration of restrictions

x x x

;. rovisions or maintenance xxx andother services beneting the commonareas,xxxC D8mphasis suppliedE

The &ondominium ct clearly provides that the aster %eed may expressly empo#er themanagement body, petitioner in the instant case, to enorce all provisions in the aster %eedand %eclaration o (estrictions.

ursuant to ection DaE D1E and D;E o the &ondominium ct, the aster %eed expresslyauthori)es petitioner to exercise all the po#ers granted to the management body by the&ondominium ct, petitionerPs rticles o 2ncorporation and Ay-=a#s, the aster %eed, and the&orporation &ode. ection ;, art 22 o the aster %eed reads7

Cection ;. 9@889T AO%K. - The &ondominium &orporation to be ormed and organi)edpursuant to ection " o art 2, above, shall constitute the management body o the project.'s

such management body, the powers of the Condominium Corporation shall be such asare provided by the Condominium 'ct, by the 'rticles of +ncorporation and the y(-aws of the Corporation, by this instrument and by the applicable provisions of theCorporation Code as are not inconsistent with the Condominium 'ct. mong suchpo#ers but not by #ay o limitation, it shall have thepower to enforce the provisionsthereof in accordance with the y(-aws of the corporation.$D8mphasis suppliedE

Thus, the aster %eed clearly empo#ers petitioner to enorce the provisions o the aster %eedin accordance #ith petitionerPs Ay-=a#s.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt33


27/58

etitionerPs Ay-=a#s expressly authori)e petitionerPs Aoard o %irectors to promulgate rules andregulations on the use and enjoyment o the common areas. Thus, paragraph 3, ection 3 opetitionerPs Ay-=a#s states7

C:ithout limiting the general nature o the oregoing po#ers, the Aoard o %irectors shall havethe po#er to enorce the limitations, restrictions, and conditions contained in the aster %eedand %eclaration o (estrictions o the project=promulgate rules and regulations concerningthe use, enjoyment and occupancy of the units, common areas and other properties inthe condominium project,to ma>e and collect assessments against members as unit o#nersto deray the costs and expenses o the condominium project and the corporation and to secureby legal means the observance o the provisions o the &ondominium ct, the aster %eed, therticles o 2ncorporation, these Ay-=a#s, and the rules and regulations promulgated by it inaccordance here#ith. The members o the corporation bind themselves to comply aithully #ithall these provisions.C;no#n as T$8 T:29 TO:8(&O9%O292G Dhereinater reerred to as the C&ondominium &orporationCE, shall be ormed andorgani)ed pursuant to the &ondominium ct and the &orporation &ode to hold title to all theaorestated common areas o the condominium project including the land, to manage T$8 T:29

TO:8( &O9%O292G and to do such other things as may be necessary, incidental andconvenient to the accomplishment of said purposesxxxC;5D8mphasis suppliedE

etitioner #ould be unable to carry out its main purpose o maintaining the &ondominiumcommon areas and acilities i members reuse to pay their dues and yet continue to use theseareas and acilities. To impose a temporary ban on the use o the common areas and acilitiesuntil the assessments and dues in arrears are paid is a reasonable measure that petitioner mayunderta>e to compel the prompt payment o assessments and dues.

&econd ssue: *settin$ the value o) services withheld a$ainst AL&; unpaid assessments anddues.

AL&; claim )or reduction o) its assessments and dues because o) its non+use o) the %ondominium)acilities.

:e rule that = has no right to a reduction o its assessments and dues to the extent o its non-use o the &ondominium acilities. = also cannot ofset damages against its assessments anddues because = is not entitled to damages or alleged injury arising rom its o#n violation o itscontract. uch a breach o contract cannot be the source o rights or the basis o a cause oaction.;6To recogni)e the validity o such claim #ould be to legali)e =P breach o its contract.

AL&; claim )or unrendered repair services barred by estoppel.

= also justi'es its non-payment o dues on the ground o the alleged ailure o petitioner torepair the deects in =P Gnit. $o#ever, this claim or unrendered repairs #as never raised
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_123552_2003.html#fnt36


28/58

beore the 8& $earing Ocer or the 8&en banc.The issue on these alleged unrenderedrepairs, #hich supposedly caused =P Gnit to deteriorate, #as raised or the 'rst time on appeal.

The &ourt o ppeals did not pass upon the same.

9either in the proceedings in the 8& nor in the appellate court did = present evidence tosubstantiate its allegation that petitioner ailed to render the repair services. lso, = ailed toestablish #hether it claimed or the costs o the repair because = advanced these expenses, oror the value o damages caused to the Gnit by the #ater lea>age.

= is thereore barred at this late stage to interpose this claim. I! el Rosario v. onga";"the&ourt held7

Cs a rule, no Buestion #ill be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court belo#.oints o la#, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention o the lo#er court neednot be, and ordinarily #ill not be, considered by a revie#ing court, as they cannot be raised orthe 'rst time at that late stage. Aasic considerations o due process impel this rule.C

s this claim #as a separate cause o action #hich should have been raised in =P ns#er #ith&ounterclaim, =P ailure to raise this claim is deemed a #aiver o the claim.

Third ssue: 2emand o) the case to the proper trial court.

Question o) )act.

The &ourt o ppeals ruled that there is a need to remand the case considering that there is nosucient evidence on record to establish the amount o petitionerPs claim against = or unpaidassessments and dues.

The Buestion o #hether petitionerPs claim o


29/58

or #here the acts set orth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or #here the'ndings o act o the &ourt o ppeals are premised on the absence o evidence and arecontradicted by the evidence on record.C


30/58

To reiterate, the &ondominium ct expressly provides that the aster %eed may empo#er themanagement body o the &ondominium Cto enorce the provisions o the declaration orestrictions.C


31/58

This is a (ule


32/58

On appeal, the (T& reversed the Becisiono the T&. 2t held that rticle


33/58

estopped respondent rom claiming the portion. Aasilisa aneja and her husband allegedly reliedon this agreement #hen the spouses assigned the upper portion o =ot 9o. 350" to petitioners.oreover, petitioners claim that their occupation o the upper portion o =ot 9o. 350" hadconsummated the verbal agreement bet#een respondent and Aasilisa aneja and broughtagreement beyond the purvie# o the tatute o +rauds.

careul perusal o the oregoing issues reveals that petitioners assumed the ollo#ing as provenacts7 D1E respondent had indicated to Aasilisa aneja the portions they #ere to occupy in =ot 9o.350"4 and D3E the pouses Aascon assigned to petitioners their portions o =ot 9o. 350". Ayclaiming these as the bases or their assignment o errors, petitioners in essence are raisingBuestions o act.11

The issues raised by petitioners on the application o estoppel, statute o rauds, and theassignment o properties o#ned in common in their avor, #hile ostensibly raising Buestions ola#, invite this &ourt to rule on Buestions o act. This runs counter to the settled rule that onlyBuestions o la# may be raised in a petition or revie# beore the &ourt and the same must bedistinctly set orth.13

2t is not the unction o this &ourt to #eigh ane# the evidence already passed upon by the &ourto ppeals or such evidence is deemed 'nal and conclusive and may not be revie#ed on appeal.

departure rom the general rule may be #arranted, among others, #here the 'ndings o act othe &ourt o ppeals are contrary to the 'ndings and conclusions o the trial court, or #hen thesame is unsupported by the evidence on record.1;

2n the instant case, the (T& and the &ourt o ppeals rendered judgment merely on Buestions ola# as applied to the acts as determined by the T&. &onseBuently this &ourt must proceed onthe same set o acts #ithout assuming, as petitioners have done, the veracity o claims #hichhave been considered, but not accepted as acts, by the courts belo#.

@uided by the oregoing, this &ourt 'nds in this case that 'ltered o the muddle rom petitionersPassignment o errors, it is unmista>able that respondent has a right to eject the petitioners rom=ot 9o. 350".

rticle


34/58

is irrelevant to the case at bar, as it does nothing to strengthen the claim o petitioners that theyhad a right to occupy the properties. This testimony merely indicates that there might have beenan agreement bet#een the pouses Aascon and Aorromeo as to #hich o them #ould occupy#hat portion o =ot 9o. 350". Ket this averment hardly establishes a de'nitive partition, ormoreover, any right o petitioners to d#ell in any portion o =ot 9o. 350". Aesides, CQeRstoppel isefective only as bet#een the parties thereto or their successors in interest4C thus, only thespouses Aascon or their successors in interest may invo>e such Cestoppel.C stranger to atransaction is neither bound by, nor in a position to ta>e advantage o, an estoppel arisingthererom.10

+or the same reason, it is o no moment #hether indeed, as petitioners claim, there #as a verbalcontract bet#een Aasilisa aneja and Aorromeo #hen the latter indicated the portions they each#ere to occupy in =ot 9o. 350". uch verbal contract, assuming there #as one, does not detractrom the act that the common o#nership over =ot 9o. 350" remained inchoate and undivided,thus casting doubt and rendering purely speculative any claim that the pouses Aasconsomeho# had the capacity to assign or transmit determinate portions o the property topetitioners.

Thus, in order that the petition may acBuire any #hif o merit, petitioners are obliged toestablish a legal basis or their continued occupancy o the properties. The mere tolerance o one

o the co-o#ners, assuming that there #as such, does not suce to establish such right.Tolerance in itsel does not bear any legal ruit, and it can easily be supplanted by a suddenchange o heart on the part o the o#ner. etitioners have not adduced any convincing evidencethat they have someho# become successors-in-interest o the pouses Aascon, or any o theo#ners o =ot 9o. 350".

2ndeed, there is no #riting presented to evidence any claim o o#nership or right to occupancy tothe subject properties. There is no lease contract that #ould vest on petitioners the right to stayon the property. s discussed by the &ourt o ppeals, 1rticle 1;50 o the &ivil &ode providesthat acts #hich have or their object the creation, transmission, modi'cation or extinguishmento real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument. $o# then can this&ourt accept the claim o petitioners that they have a right to stay on the subject properties,

absent any document #hich indubitably establishes such rightV ssuming that there #as anyverbal agreement bet#een petitioners and any o the o#ners o the subject lots, rticle 1;50grants a coercive po#er to the parties by #hich they can reciprocally compel the documentationo the agreement.3!

Thus, the appellate court correctly appreciated the absence o any document or any occupancyright o petitioners as a negation o their claim that they #ere allo#ed by the pouses Aascon toconstruct their houses thereon and to stay thereon until urther notice. On this note, this &ourt#ill no longer belabor petitionersP allegation that their occupation o =ot 9o. 350" is justi'edpursuant to the alleged but unproven permission o the pouses Aascon.

ll six D6E petitioners claim the right to be reimbursed Cnecessary expensesC or the cost o

constructing their houses in accordance #ith rticle 5


35/58

7ERE%ORE, premises considered, the etition is %8928% and the Becisiono the &ourt oppeals ++2(8%. &osts against petitioners.

&O ORDERED.

G.R. No. 1486. (r;3 1, 2//5

LEONARDO ACA'AL !" RA(ON NICOLA&,etitioners,vs.#ILLANER ACA'AL, EDUARDO ACA'AL, &OLO(ON ACA'AL, GRACE ACA'AL, (EL'AACA'AL, E#ELYN ACA'AL, AR(IN ACA'AL, RA(IL ACA'AL, !" 'YRONACA'AL,(espondents.

% 8 & 2 2 O 9

CARPIO (ORALE&,.7

Aeore this &ourt is a etition or (evie# on %ertiorario the +ebruary 15, 3!!1 %ecision1o the

&ourt o ppeals reversing that o the (egional Trial &ourt D(T&E o %umaguete &ity, Aranch ;5. 3

2n dispute is the exact nature o the document;#hich respondent *illaner cabal D*illanerEexecuted in avor o his godson-nephe#-petitioner =eonardo cabal D=eonardoE on pril 1, 1!.

*illanerPs parents, lejandro cabal and +elicidad Aalasabas, o#ned a parcel o land situated inAarrio Tanglad, anjuyod, 9egros Oriental, containing an area o 10.15 hectares more or less,described in Tax %eclaration 9o. 15056. &armelo&adalin and his #ie =acorte, #hat he signed #as a document captioned C=ease&ontractCDmodeled ater a /uly 1"6 lease agreement1!he had previously executed #ithprevious lessee, aria =uisa ontenegro11E #herein he leased or ; years the property to=eonardo at 1,!!!.!! per hectare13and #hich #as #itnessed by t#o #omen employees o one

/udge *illegas o Aais &ity.

*illaner thus 'led on October 11, 1; a complaint1;beore the %umaguete (T& against=eonardo and (amon 9icolas to #hom =eonardo in turn conveyed the property, or annulment othe deeds o sale.

t the #itness stand, *illaner declared7

U7 2t appears, r. cabal, that you have signed a document o sale #ith the deendant =eonardocabal on pril 1, 1!, please tell the court #hether you have really agreed to sell thisproperty to the deendant on or beore pril 1, 1!V
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt13


36/58

7 :e had some agreement but not about the selling o this property.

U7 :hat #as your agreement #ith the deendant =eonardo cabalV

7 Our agreement Q#asR that he #ill just rent.1no# #hy 2 signed that, that is #hy 2 am pu))led.

U7 73, "*" o0 !o re" 3e ;o!e! o: 3* "o;0me!@

7 I 3ve !o re" 3. I o!+ 3))e!e" o re" 3e *+e o: 3e Lee Co!r;.

U7 A!" "o o0 re;++


37/58

U7 ' 3e


38/58

On the other hand, =eonardo asserts that #hat *illaner executed #as a %eed o bsolute ale ora consideration o 1!,!!!.!! #hich he had already paid, 1and as he had become the absoluteo#ner o the property, he validly transerred it to (amon 9icolas on ay 1, 1!.3!

&armelo &adalin #ho admittedly prepared the deed o absolute sale and #ho appears as a#itness, along #ith his #ie, to the execution o the document corroborated =eonardoPs claim7

U7 r. &adalin, do you >no# the plaintif *illaner cabalV

7 Kes, 2 >no#.31

x x x

U7 A!" I


39/58

U7 A+o e" *! 3e "o;0me! * 3e )3re &*!e" *! 3e )ree!;e o: !" 3ere * !0mber !" 3e!


40/58

2*.

T$8 &OG(T O+ 8= &O2TT8% (8*8(2A=8 8((O( 29 =: :$89 2T +2=8% TO %8&=(88T2T2O98( (O9 92&O= AGK8( 29 @OO% +2T$ T$8 =TT8( TOOI T$8 98&8(KT8 9 O(%29(K 9% (G%89T 9 :OG=% $*8 TI89 A8+O(8 AGK29@ T$8UG8T2O98% (O8(TK.

*.

T$8 &OG(T O+ 8= 8((8% 29 (G=29@ 29 +*O( O+ (8O9%89T *2==98( &A= :$89T$8 =TT8( %2% 9OT (889T 29@=8 :2T98 TO T8T2+K O9 T$8 ==8@8% &O9T(&T O+=88 :$2&$ $8 ==8@8%=K 2@98% 9% :2T988% AK T$8 8=OK88 O+ /G%@8 *2==8@.

*2.

T$8 &OG(T O+ 8= &O2TT8% (8*8(2A=8 8((O( 29 =: :$89 2T (G=8% T$T (G=80, 8&T2O9 0 O+ T$8 10" DsicE (G=8 DsicE O+ &2*2= (O&8%G(8 2 9OT =2&A=8 29 T$8 &8T A(, &O9T((K TO T$8 (G=29@ O+ T$8 =O:8( &OG(T.

*22.

T$8 &OG(T O+ 8= 8((8% :$89 2T O(%8(8% 8T2T2O98( TO K (8O9%89T C/O29T=K9% 8*8(==K AK :K O+ (89T= T$8 G O+ 1!,!!!.!! 8( K8( +(O 1! G TO T$8

T28 T$8K *&T8 T$8 (828.C;!

rocedurally, petitioners contend that the &ourt o ppeals erred #hen it ailed to apply ection0, (ule 0 o the (ules o &ourt, respondent *illaner having ailed to deny under oath thegenuineness and due execution o the pril 1, 1! %eed o bsolute ale.

etitionersP contention does not persuade. The ailure to deny the genuineness and dueexecution o an actionable document does not preclude a party rom arguing against it byevidence o raud, mista>e, compromise, payment, statute o limitations, estoppel, and #ant oconsideration.;1

On the merits, this &ourt rules in petitionersP avor.

2t is a basic rule in evidence that the burden o proo lies on the party #ho ma>es theallegations;3X ei incumbit probatio" Cui dicit" non Cui ne$at cum per rerum naturam )actumne$antis probatio nulla sit.;;2 he claims a right granted by la#, he must prove it by competentevidence, relying on the strength o his o#n evidence and not upon the #ea>ness o that o hisopponent.

ore speci'cally, allegations o a deect in or lac> o valid consent to a contract by reason o

raud or undue inFuence are never presumed but must be established not by merepreponderance o evidence but by clear and convincing evidence.;


41/58

ttempting to see> corroboration o his account, *illaner presented tty. *icente (eal #honotari)ed the document. :hile on direct examination, tty. (eal virtually corroborated *illanerPsclaim that he did not bring the document to him or notari)ation,;"on cross-examination, tty(eal conceded that it #as impossible to remember every person #ho #ould as> him to notari)edocuments7

U7 A!" *! 3e ;o0re o: o0r !or**o!, ;! o0 remember e;3 !" ever :;e 3;ome Fsic o o0 :or !or**o!@

7 No, * * *m)o*b+e.

U7 I! 3e ;e o: #*++!er A;b+

2t bears noting, ho#ever, that *illaner ailed to present evidence on the air mar>et value o theproperty as o pril 1, 1!, the date o execution o the disputed deed. bsent any evidence othe air mar>et value o a land as o the time o its sale, it cannot be concluded that the price at#hich it #as sold #as inadeBuate.


42/58

*ictor (agay, #ho #as appointed by the trial court to conduct an ocular inspection 5!o theproperty and to investigate matters relative to the case,51gave an instructive report dated%ecember ;, 1enly to be o#ned by thedeendant 9icolasE #ere planted to sugar cane by the o#ners X Iadusales4

E the road going to the land in Buestion Das claimed to be the roadE is no longer passablebecause it has been abandoned and not maintained by anyone, thus it ma>es everythingimpossible or anybody to get and haul the sugar cane rom the area4

gE the &ommissioner has discovered some stoc>piles o abandoned harvested sugar canes let torot, along the side o the road, undelivered to the milling site because o the diculty in bringingup truc>s to the scene o the harvest4

hE the sugarcanes presently planted on the land in Buestion at the time o the ocular inspection#ere three D;E eet in height and their structural built #as thin or lean4

iE ost o the part o the 10 hectares is not planted or cultivated because the same is too roc>yand not suitable or planting to sugarcane.5;

dditionally, (agay reported that one natolio &abusog recently purchased a 6-hectare propertyadjoining that o the subject property or only 1,6!!.!!5no#n as the &omprehensive grarian (eorm =a#, the same ails. Thepertinent provisions o said la# read7

8&T2O9 6. 2etention Limits. X 8xcept as other#ise provided in this ct, no person may retain,directly or indirectly, any public or agricultural land, the si)e o #hich may vary according to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt56


43/58

actors governing a viable amily-si)ed arm, such as commodity produced, terraininrastructure, and soil ertility as determined by the residential grarian (eorm &ouncil D(&Ecreated hereunder, b0 *! !o ;e 3++ ree!*o! b 3e +!"oeep the areas originally retained bythem thereunder75"rovided urther, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs#ho still o#n the original homestead at the time o the approval o this ct shall retain the sameareas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

x x x

U)o! 3e ee;*v* o: 3* A;, ! +e, "*)o**o!, +ee, m!eme!, ;o!r; orr!:er o: )oe*o! o: )r*ve +!" ee;0e" b 3e or**!+ +!"os eBuity and justice must come to court #ith clean hands. n

pari delicto potior est conditio de)endentis.63
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_148376_2005.html#fnt62


44/58

$3e )ro)o**o! * 0!*ver+ 3 !o ;*o! r*e, *! eJ0* or +ind #ill be given to oneagainst the other.6;D8mphasis and underscoring suppliedE

The principle opari delictois grounded on t#o premises7 'rst, that courts should not lend theirgood oces to mediating disputes among #rongdoers46


45/58

(T. 16!. ll property o the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unlessit be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the #ie."ed, thereore, the property must be sho#n to have been acBuired duringthe marriage."5

2n the case at bar, the property #as acBuired on /uly 6, 1"1 during *illanerPs marriage #ith

/ustiniana =ipajan. 2t cannot be seriously contended that simply because the tax declarationscovering the property #as solely in the name o *illaner it is his personal and exclusive property.

2n Ducoy v. Paulino"6and 'endo!a v. 2eyes""#hich both apply by analogy, this &ourt held thatregistration alone o the properties in the name o the husband does not destroy the conjugalnature o the properties."0:hat is material is the time #hen the land #as acBuired by *illaner,and that #as during the la#ul existence o his marriage to /ustiniana.

ince the property #as acBuired during the existence o the marriage o *illaner and /ustiniana,the presumption under rticle 16! o the &ivil &ode is that it is the couplePs conjugal property.

The burden is on petitioners then to prove that it is not. This they ailed to do.

The property being conjugal, upon the death o /ustiniana =ipajan, the conjugal partnership #asterminated.":ith the dissolution o the conjugal partnership, *illanerPs interest in the conjugapartnership became actual and vested #ith respect to an undivided one-halportion.0!/ustiniana?s rights to the other hal, in turn, vested upon her death to herheirs01including *illaner #ho is entitled to the same share as that o each o their eightlegitimate children.03s a result then o the death o /ustiniana, a regime o co-o#nership arosebet#een *illaner and his co-heirs in relation to the property.0;

:ith respect to /ustinianaPs one-hal share in the conjugal partnership #hich her heirs inheritedapplying the provisions on the la# o succession, her eight children and *illaner each receivesone-ninth D1E thereo. $aving inherited one-ninth D1E o his #iePs share in the conjugapartnership or one eighteenth D110E0


46/58

potest0"X the disposition afects only *illanerPs sharepro indiviso, and the transeree gets only#hat corresponds to his grantorPs share in the partition o the property o#ned in common.00

s early as 13;, this &ourt has ruled that even i a co-o#ner sells the #hole property as his, thesale #ill afect only his o#n share but not those o the other co-o#ners #ho did not consent tothe sale. This is because under the aorementioned codal provision, the sale or other dispositionafects only his undivided share and the transeree gets only #hat #ould correspond to thisgrantor in the partition o the thing o#ned in common. &onseBuently, by virtue o the sales madeby (osalia and @audencio Aailon #hich are valid #ith respect to their proportionate shares, andthe subseBuent transers #hich culminated in the sale to private respondent &elestino able,the said able thereby became a co-o#ner o the disputed parcel o land as correctly held by thelo#er court since the sales produced the efect o substitutin$ the buyers in the enjoymentthereo.

+rom the oregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-o#ner is entitled to sell his undividedshare, a sale o the entire property by one co-o#ner #ithout the consent o the other co-o#nersis not null and void. $o#ever, only the rights o the co-o#ner-seller are transerred., therebyma>ing the buyer a co-o#ner o the property.

The proper action in cases li-e this is not )or the nullifcation o) the sale or the recovery o)

possession o) the thin$ owned in common )rom the third person who substituted the co+owner orco+owners who alienated their shares" but the B


47/58

7ERE%ORE, the petition is @(9T8%. The &ourt o ppeals +ebruary 15, 3!!1 %ecision in &-@.(. &* 9o. 561


48/58

The object o the causes are the je#els o the image o the *irgin o Our =ady o@uadalupe, in the to#n o agsanjan, =aguna, and consist o a golden cro#n encrusted#ith diamonds and bright, a nec>lace o diamonds and bright, also a belt embedded #ithspar>ling diamonds and a gold nec>lace also completely encrusted #ith brilliant, a goldbracelet encrusted #ith brilliant diamonds in a gilded silver plate #here the je#els areplaced above, and other pieces o gold or *airas silver gold or the decoration o thecostumes o the image o Our =ady o @uadalupe. ll these gems are currently loc>eddeposited in the Aan> o the hilippine 2slands because there the deendant had deposited(osario &osme endo)a.

The cro#n and je#els described above #ere made in the 100!s at the expense o sixresidents o the municipality o agsanjan ladies, =aguna. They #ere sisters and ia aula=avadia =avadia, sisters artina and atea =avadia =avadia and sisters 2sabel and8ngracia =avadia =avadia. These ladies je#elry that they had contributed to the &onecioncro#n and je#els ellasse concocted described above, also contributing money to the&onecion is costing them. ll these ladies and have died, except or the applicant, #ido#%oLa 8ngracia =avadia. +ernande). The other plaintifs are the legal heirs o 2sabe=avadia, atea =avadia and artina =avadia #hile the deendant (osario &osme deendo)a and his co-deendants are legitimate heirs and descendants o aula =avadia.

The cro#n je#els #ere sent to ma>e use o the titular patron agasanjan To#nship,9tra.ra. @uadalupe.:hen he had 'nished and ma>e her duenas agreed that these je#els#ould be let #ith the taxpayer =avadia ia. This had such gems custody until his death in1003, #hen his sister aula =avadia happened to him in the custody o the same. On thedeath o paula =avadia o happened in the care, custody and preservation o these je#elssumarido edro (osales, and died this, her daughter a) (osales turn it happened in&ustody, preservation and care. (osales a)?s death, the cro#n je#els passed to thecustody o her husband Aaldomero &osme. ter Aaldomero &osme, these je#els becameanuel oriano, #ho in turn #as succeeded in the custody, preservation and managementby the deendant here &osme endo)a (osario. 8very year since 100! to date, the je#elsin Buestion #ere used to decorate the image o Our =ady o @uadalupe in agsanjan, andnone o those #ho have been >eeping or guarding possess these je#els had intended as

the exclusive o#ner. The deendant (osario &osme de endo)a and his co-deendants donot claim to be o#ners o the said je#elry. 2ndeed, in the intestacy o the deceasedAaldomero &osme, pecial tarring 9o. 5


49/58

=avadia 'rst, and then aula =avadia and the descendants o the latter being one o them theappellant (osario &osme endo)a, received and possessed, one ater the other, the said, onlyor purposes o custody4 or, as the &ourt emphasi)es in his decision, nor the last nor those usedthe same or his o#n bene't. 2 it #as under a deposit agreement as received je#els subjectmatter, 'rst by ia and aula, and then by the descendants o the last including the appellant(osario &osme endo)a, it is clear that there is an obligation to share this to return them to theiro#ners as soon as the claim.The article also eatures 1"66 o the &ivil &ode #hich states7

The depositary is obliged to >eep the thing and restuirla #hen he is reBuested, thedepositor or his successors cause, or a person #ho has been designated in thecontract. $is responsibility or the care and the loss o the thing, shall be governed by theprovisions o tit. 2 o this boo>.

The reund must be made #ith all the ruits and accessions o the thing deposited, i any, not tobe given to the depositary #ithhold, as commented anche) (oman, D2* anche) (oman, 005E,even under the prexto to obtain compensation or other credits or compensated or expensesincurred or preservation.

The primitavas o#ners o the vessels in Buestion, agreed to entrust the custody o the same toalgunasde them, reserving or himsel experesamente property. This goes to sho# that the

theory o the appellants that the contract had not those that deposit ater all, as they say, cannot be considered as the je#els belonging to other persons #ith respect to (osario &osmeendo)a because she descends one o o#ners susprimitivas has no orce, because even amongcommoners o one thing, one o them can be depositary, and #hen it is, is subject to the sameobligations imposed by la# on all depository #ith respect to the conservation o thing #ith thecare, diligence and interest o a good ather.

oint owner.The act That the depositary is a joint o#ner o the res does not alter thedegree o diligence reBuired o him. D&/ 10, 5"!E.

The appellees are descendants and legal heirs o 2sabel =avadia, atea =avadia =avadia andartina4 =avadia and 8ngracia, #ho #as appointed to ta>e over par custody o the je#els subject

matter is one o the early o#ners o the same4 and the appellants are themselves thedescendants and heirs o ia =avadia and aula=avadia. 9o record any#here dueprimitivasdueLas not contibuyeron six in the ma>ing or acBuisition o the vessels so otenmentioned in the same proportion, the most reasonable conclusion is - and this supported by apresumption o la# Drt. ;;, &ivil &ode E - #hich all apportioned the cost o paying them each aiBual ee. 2 this is true, then #e must accept the conclusion o the &ourt that appellees areo#ners our sixths o the je#elry, and Buelos appellants are not but only t#o partesrestantessixths. Ay consiBuiente, having decided that the most are the appellees, entrusting the custodyand administration o those je#els to aithully comply #ith the #ill o their primitive o#ners,appealed to =avadia 8ngracia, the only survivor o them, his decision must respected, becausethe administration and better enjoyment o the thing common, according to article ;0 o the&ivil &ode, are mandatory agreements most o the parta>ers.

The argument that (osario &osme endo)a and its predecessors have been serving aithully histrustees cometidocomo not argues or the proposition that #e should not #ithdra# the depositbecause the deposit agreement is such that allo#s the depositor to #ithdra# the depositary othe thing deposited, any time he #anted, above all, #hen the last, as in the case o (osario&osme endo)a, has executed an act contrary to the order received, commending or trying toinstruct another, custody and administration the thing deposited, on their o#n and #ithout theconsent o depositors or their heirs.

9ot having ound no error in the appealed decision o the court a Cuo"hereby, con'rm itsentencing the appellants to pay the costs. o is ordered.


50/58

G.R. No. L-2/4 November 1, 19/

(ANUEL (ELENCIO, (ARIANO (ELENCIO, PURA (ELENCIO, !" CARIDAD(ELENCIO,plaintifs-appellants,vs.DY $IAO LAY,deendant-appellee.

O&$RAND,J.:

On ugust 1,13", the plaintifs, anuel, ariano, ura and &aridad elencio, brought thepresent action against the deendant-appellee, %y Tiao =ay or the recovery o the possession oa parcel o land situated in the to#n o &abanatuan, 9ueva 8cija, and containing an area o oconsent, concurrence, and rati'cation by the o#ners thereo.

2n his ans#er, the deendant pleaded the general issue, and as special deenses, he alleged insubstance that he #as occupying the said tract o land by virtue o a contract o lease executed

on /uly 3


51/58

2t appears rom the evidence that the land in Buestion #as originally o#ned by one /ulianelencio. $e died prior to the year 1!5 leaving his #ido#, (uperta @arcia, and his 've children,

/uliana, (amon, (uperta, edro (., and 8milio elencio. 8milio elencio also died beore 1!5,his son /ose . elencio, then a minor, succeeding to his interest in the said parcel o land byrepresentation. Buestion has been raised as to #hether the land #as community property othe marriage o /ulian elencio and (uperta @arcia, but the evidence is practically undisputedthat (uperta @arcia in reality held nothing but a #ido#?s usuruct in the land.

On /uly 3e period at the option o the lessee. The purpose o the lessee #as to establisha rice mill on the land, #ith the necessary buildings or #arehouses and or Buarters or theemployees, and it #as urther stipulated that at the termination o the original period o thelease, or the extension thero, the lessors might purchase all the buildings and improvements onthe land at a price to be 'xed by experts appointed by the parties, but that i the lessors shouldail to ta>e advantage o that privilege, the lease #ould continue or another and urther periodo t#enty years. The document #as duly ac>no#ledged but #as never recorded #ith the registero deeds. The original rent agreed upon #as 35 per month, but by reason o the construction oa street through the land, the monthly rent #as reduced o 3!.3!.

hortly ater the execution o the lease, the lessee too> possession o the parcel in Buestion anderected the mill as #ell as the necessary buildings, and it appears that in matters pertaining tothe lease, he dealt #ith edro (. elencio, #ho rom 1!5 until his death in 13!, acted asmanager o the property held in common by the heirs o /ulian elencio and (uperta @arcia. Theoriginal lessee, Kap Iui &hin, died in 113, and the lease, as #ell as the other property, #astranserred to Gy 8ng /ui #ho again transerred it to Gy 8ng /ui H &o., an unregisteredpartnership. +inally the lease came into the hands o %y Tiao =ay, the herein deendant-appellee.

(amon elencio died in 11


52/58

3. That the validity and ul'llment o the said agreement o lease #ere made to dependupon the #ill o the lessee exclusively.

;. That the said contract o lease being or a term o over six years, the same is null andvoid pursuant to the provision o article 15


53/58

part nor consented to the lease4 that the decision o the majority o part o#ners reerredto in article ;0 o the &ode, implies a common deliberation on the step to be ta>en , orto do #ithout it, #ould, even more than to do #ithout the minority, be nothing less thanplunder4 and that, even i this deliberation #ere not absolutely necessary, the po#er o themajority #ould still be con'ned to decisions touching the management and enjoyment othe common property, and #ould not include acts o o#nership, such as a lease or t#elveyears, #hich according to the ortgage =a# gives rise to a real right, #hich must berecorded, and #hich can be perormed only by the o#ners o the property leased.

The part o#ners #ho had executed the contract prayed in reconvention that it held validor all the o#ners in common, and i this could not be, then or all those #ho had signed it,and or the rest, or the period o six years4 and theAudiencia o) %acereshaving rendered

judgment holding the contract null and void, and ordering the sale o the realty and thedistribution o the price, the deendants appealed alleging under the third and ourthassignments o error, that the judgment #as a violation o article ;0 o the &ivil &ode,#hich is absolute and sets no limit o time or the ecacy o the decisions arrived at bythe majority o the part o#ners or the enjoyment o the common property, citing thedecisions o /une ;!th, 10", o /uly 0th,1!3, and o October ;!th, 1!"4 under the 'thassignments o error the appellants contended that in including joint o#ners among thosereerred to in said article, #hich sets certain limits to the po#er o leasing, in the course othe management o another?s property, the court applied article 15ed upon as managers or agents exercising limitedpo#ers, it must at least be conceded that in so ar as the act in Buestion lies #ithin thescope o their po#ers, it is valid4 the contract cannot be annulled intoto.

The upreme &ourt held that the appeal rom the decision o theAudiencia o) %aceres #as not#ell ta>en and expressed the ollo#ing consideranda7

&onsidering that, although as a rule the contract o lease constitutes an act o

management, as this court has several times held, cases may yet arise, either o#ing tothe nature o the subject matter, or to the period o duration, #hich may render itimperative to record the contract in the registry o property, in pursuance o the ortgage=a#, #here the contract o lease may give rise to a real right in avor o the lessee, and it#ould then constitute such a sundering o the o#nership as transcends meremanagement4 in such cases it must o necessity be recogni)ed that the part o#nersrepresenting the greater portion o the property held in common have no po#er to leasesaid property or a longer period than six years #ithout the consent o all the coo#ners,#hose propriety rights, expressly recogni)ed by the la#, #ould by contracts o longduration be restricted or annulled4 and as under article 15


54/58

upon by the majority o the part o#ners, touching the management and enjoyment o thecommon property, and does not contradict #hat #e have stated in the oregoingparagraph4 secondly because although the cases cit

property full july 25

Documents