Lindain vs. CA

VOL.212,AUGUST20,1992 725

Lindain vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No.95305.August20,1992.*

ELENA,OSCAR,CELIA,TERESITAandVIRGILIO, allsurnamed LINDAIN, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURTOF APPEALS, SPOUSES APOLINIA VALIENTE andFEDERICOILA,respondents.

Civil Law; Guardianship over property of minor; Power ofGuardian; Capacity to sell; Widow mere legal administrator ofminor children’s property hence requires judicial approval to sellminors’ property.—Under the law, a parent, acting merely as thelegal (as distinguished from judicial) administrator of thepropertyofhis/herminorchildren,doesnothavethepowertodisposeof,oralienate,thepropertyofsaidchildrenwithoutjudicialapproval.Thepowersanddutiesofthewidowaslegaladministratorofherminorchildren’s property as provided in Rule 84 of the Rules of Courtentitled, “General Powers and Duties of Executors andAdministrators” are only powers of possession and management.Herpower to sell,mortgage, encumber or otherwisedispose of theproperty of her minor children must proceed from the court, asprovidedinRule89whichrequirescourtauthorityandapproval.

Same; Property; Buyer in Good Gaith; Good faith negated byknowledge of lack of judicial authority to enter intotransaction.—The private respondents’ allegation that they arepurchasersingoodfaithisnotcrediblefortheyknewfromtheverybeginningthat theirvendor, thepetitioners’mother,withoutcourtapproval,couldnotvalidlyconveytothemthepropertyofherminorchildren. Knowing her lack of judicial authority to enter into thetransaction, theprivate respondents acted in bad faithwhen theywentaheadandboughtthelandfromheranyway.

Same; Same; Reconveyance; Prescription of Action;Reconveyance being real action over immovable prescribes after 30years.—Theminors’action forreconveyancehasnotyetprescribedfor“realactionsover immovablesprescribeafterthirtyyears” (Art.1141,Civil Code). Since the sale took place in 1966, the action torecover the property had not yet prescribed when the petitionerssuedin1987.

________________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

726

726 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED


PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Maria Rosario B. Ragasa andOscar L. Lindain for

petitioners.Jose C. Felimonforprivaterespondents.

GRIÑOAQUINO,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decisiondated August 8, 1990 of the Court of Appeals whichdismissed the complaint for annulment of a sale ofregistered land, thereby reversing the decision of theRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity.

Thefactsofthecaseinanutshellareasfollows:

When the plaintiffs were still minors, they were already theregisteredownersofaparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateof Title No. NT63540 (Exh. D1). On November 7, 1966, theirmother, Dolores Luluquisin, then already a widow and acting asguardian of herminor children, sold the land for P2,000 under aDeedofAbsoluteSaleofRegisteredLand(Exh.2)tothedefendantsspousesApoloniaValiente andFederico Ila. TheDeed ofAbsoluteSale was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds for theProvince of Nueva Ecija. TCT No. NT66311 was issued to thevendees,ApoloniaValienteandFedericoIla.

ThedefendantsadmittedthatthepropertyinquestionwassoldtothembythemotheroftheminorsasevidencedbyaDeedofSale(Exh. B for the plaintiffs and Exh. 2 for the defendants) andalthoughatfirsttheywerereluctanttobuythepropertyasthesalewouldnotbe legal, theregisteredownersthereofbeingallminors,uponadviceof theircounsel, the lateAtty.ArturoB.Pascual,andthe counsel of Dolores Luluquisin, Atty. Eustaquio Ramos, whonotarized the documents, that the property could be sold withoutthe written authority of the court, considering that its value waslessthanP2,000,theyboughtthepropertyandhaditregisteredintheirnamesunderCertificateofTitleNo.66311(ExhibitCfortheplaintiffs).

Plaintiffs contend, however, that the sale of the lot by theirmother to the defendants is null and void because it was madewithoutjudicialauthorityand/orcourtapproval.

Thedefendants,ontheotherhand,contendthatthesalewas

727

VOL.212,AUGUST20,1992 727


valid, as the value of the property was less than P2,000, and,consideringtheagesofplaintiffsnow,theyoungestbeing31yearsoldat the timeof the filingof thecomplaint, their right to rescindthecontractwhichshouldhavebeenexercisedfour (4)yearsafterreachingtheageofmajority,hasalreadyprescribed.

OnMay25,1989,theRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCityrenderedadecision for theplaintiffs (nowpetitioners), thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

“(1)

“(2)

“(3)

“(4)

“(5)

“(6)

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering thefollowing:

Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by the guardianDolores Luluquisin in favor of the defendants spousesApoloniaValienteandFedericoIlaoverthepropertyoftheminors covered by the TCT No. NT66311 to be null andvoid;

Ordering defendants Spouses Apolonia Valiente andFederico Ila to surrender to the Register of Deeds of SanJoseCityTransferCertificateofTitleNo.66311;

Ordering theRegister ofDeeds of San JoseCity to cancelTransfer Certificate of Title No. 66311 in the names ofSpousesApoloniaValienteandFedericoIla;

Ordering the Register of Deeds to issue a new TransferCertificateofTitle in lieuofwhatwasorderedcancelled inthe names of plaintiffs, namely: Elena, Oscar, Celia,TeresitaandVirgilio,allsurnamedLindain;

Ordering the defendants to vacate the lot covered byTCTNo.NT66311anddeliverthepossessionofthesametotheplaintiffssubjecthowevertotherightsofthedefendantsasbuyers,possessorsandbuildersingoodfaith;

Withoutcost.”(pp.41,42,Rollo.)

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision wasreversed and another one was entered dismissing thecomplaintwithoutpronouncementastocosts.TheCourtofAppealsappliedtherulingofthisCourtinOrtañezvs.DelaCruz,O.G.,Vol.60,No.24,pp.3434,34383439,that:

“A father or mother acting as legal administratorofthepropertyofthechildunderparentalauthoritycannot, therefore, dispose of thechild’s property without judicial authority if it is worth more thanP2,000.00, notwithstanding the bond that he has filed for theprotec

728



tionofthechild’sproperty.But when the value of such property isless than P2,000.00, the permission of the court for its alienation ordisposition may be dispensed with. The father or mother, as thecasemay be, is allowed by law to alienate or dispose of the samefreely, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the scruples ofconscience.”(p.64,Rollo.)

Itupheldthesaleanddismissedthecomplaintoftheheirswho thereupon filed this petition for review alleging thattheCourtofAppealserredinreversingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt and in ordering the dismissal of thepetitioners’ complaint in total disregard of the findings offactsofthetrialcourtandcontrarytotheprovisionsoflawoncontractsandguardianship.

Theprincipalissuebeforeusiswhetherjudicialapprovalwasnecessaryforthesaleoftheminors’propertybytheirmother.

Wefindmeritinthepetitionforreview.Art. 320 of the New Civil Code, which was already in

forcewhentheassailedtransactionoccurred,provides:

“Art. 320.—The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legaladministratorofthepropertypertainingtothechildunderparentalauthority. If theproperty isworthmore than two thousandpesos,thefatherormothershallgiveabondsubjecttotheapprovaloftheCourtofFirstInstance.”

Under the law, a parent, acting merely as the legal (asdistinguishedfromjudicial)administratorofthepropertyofhis/herminorchildren,doesnothavethepowertodisposeof,oralienate,thepropertyofsaidchildrenwithoutjudicialapproval. The powers and duties of the widow as legaladministratorofherminorchildren’spropertyasprovidedinRule84oftheRulesofCourtentitled,“GeneralPowersand Duties of Executors and Administrators” are onlypowers of possession andmanagement. Her power to sell,mortgage,encumberorotherwisedisposeofthepropertyofherminorchildrenmustproceedfromthecourt,asprovidedinRule89whichrequirescourtauthorityandapproval.

InthecaseofVisaya,etal.vs.Suguitan,etal.,G.R.No.L8300,November18,1955,weheldthat:

729

VOL.212,AUGUST20,1992 729


“It is true that under Art. 320 of the newCivil Code themother,Juana Visaya, was the legal administrator of the property of herminorchildren.Butas such legal administrator she had no powerto compromise their claims, for a compromise has always beendeemedequivalenttoanalienation(transigereestalienare),andisan act of strict ownership that goes beyond mere administration.Hence,Art.2032ofthenewCivilCodeprovides:

“‘TheCourt’s approval isnecessary in compromises entered intoby guardians, parents, absentee’s representatives andadministrators or executors of decedent’s estates.’ (Emphasissupplied.)

“This restriction on the power of parents to compromise claimsaffectingtheirchildrenisincontrasttothetermsofArt.1810oftheold Civil Code that empowered parents to enter into suchcompromises, without requiring court approval unless the amountinvolved was in excess of 2000 pesetas. At present, the Court[‘s]approval is indispensable regardless of the amount involved.”(Italicsours.)

IntherecentcaseofBadillovs.Ferrer,152SCRA407,409,thisCourtstated:

“Surviving widow has no authorityorhasactedbeyondherpowersin conveying to the vendees the undivided share of her minorchildren in the property, as her powers as the natural guardiancoversonlymattersofadministrationandcannotincludethepowerof disposition, and she should have first secured court approvalbefore alienation of the property.”

TheaboverulingwasareiterationofIntonvs.Quintana,81Phil.97.

The private respondents’ allegation that they arepurchasersingoodfaithisnotcrediblefortheyknewfromthe very beginning that their vendor, the petitioners’mother,withoutcourtapproval,couldnotvalidlyconveytothemthepropertyofherminorchildren.Knowingherlackof judicial authority to enter into the transaction, theprivate respondents acted in bad faith when they wentaheadandboughtthelandfromheranyway.

One who acquires or purchases real property withknowledgeofadefectinthetitleofhisvendorcannotclaimthatheacquired title thereto in good faithas against theownerofthepropertyorofaninteresttherein(Gatioanvs.Gaffud,27SCRA706).

730


People vs. Gonzaga

Theminors’actionforreconveyancehasnotyetprescribedfor “real actions over immovables prescribe after thirtyyears” (Art.1141,CivilCode).Since thesale tookplace in1966, the action to recover the property had not yetprescribedwhenthepetitionerssuedin1987.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsissetasideandthatoftheRegionalTrial Court of San Jose City dated May 25, 1989, beingcorrect,isherebyREINSTATED.Costsagainsttheprivaterespondents.

SOORDERED.

Cruz (Chairman), Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ.,concur.

Petition granted; decision set aside.

Note.—Actionforreconveyanceisproperwheredisputedpropertywrongfullyregisteredinthenameofanotherhadnot yet passed into the hands of third parties (CaragaySayno vs. Court of Appeals,133SCRA718).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

Lindain vs. CA