Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. L-66075-76 July 5, 1990

EULOGIO AGUSTIN, HEIRS OF BALDOMERO LANGCAY, ARTURO BALISI & JUAN LANGCAY, petitioners, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MARIA MELAD, TIMOTEO MELAD, PABLO BINAYUG & GERONIMA UBINA, respondents.

Antonio N. Laggui for petitioners.

Pedro R. Perez, Jr. for private respondents.

 

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

The Cagayan River separates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in the province of Cagayan. According to the unrebutted testimony of Romeo Rigor, Geodetic Engineer of the Bureau of Lands, in 1919 the lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre. In 1925, Original Certificate of Title No. 5472 was issued for land east of the Cagayan River owned by defendant-petitioner Eulogio Agustin (Exh. 2-Agustin).

As the years went by, the Cagayan River moved gradually eastward, depositing silt on the western bank. The shifting of the river and the siltation continued until 1968.

In 1950, all lands west of the river were included in the Solana Cadastre. Among these occupying lands covered by the Solana Cadastre were plaintiffs-private respondents, namely, Pablo Binayug, who has been in possession of Lots 3349, 7876, 7877, 7878, 7879, 7875, 7881, 7882, 7883, 7884, 7885, 7891 and 7892, and Maria Melad, who owns Lot 3351 (Exh. 3-Binayug; Exh. B-Melad). Pablo Binayug began his possession in 1947. An area of eight (8) hectares was planted to tobacco and corn while 12 hectares were overgrown with talahib (Exh. C-1 Binayug.) Binayug's Homestead Application No. W-79055 over this land was approved in 1959 (Exh. B-Binayug). Binayug's possession was recognized in the decision in Civil Case No. 101 (Exh. F-Binayug). On the other hand, as a result of Civil Case No. 343-T, Macario Melad, the predecessor-in-interest of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad, was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-5026 for Lot 3351 of Cad. 293 on June 1, 1956.

Through the years, the Cagayan River eroded lands of the Tuguegarao Cadastre on its eastern bank among which was defendant-petitioner Eulogio Agustin's Lot 8457

(Exh. E-Melad), depositing the alluvium as accretion on the land possessed by Pablo Binayug on the western bank.

However, in 1968, after a big flood, the Cagayan River changed its course, returned to its 1919 bed, and, in the process, cut across the lands of Maria Melad, Timoteo Melad, and the spouses Pablo Binayug and Geronima Ubina whose lands were transferred on the eastern, or Tuguegarao, side of the river. To cultivate those lots they had to cross the river.

In April, 1969, while the private respondents and their tenants were planting corn on their lots located on the eastern side of the Cagayan River, the petitioners, accompanied by the mayor and some policemen of Tuguegarao, claimed the same lands as their own and drove away the private respondents from the premises.

On April 21, 1970, private respondents Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 343-T) to recover Lot No. 3351 with an area of 5 hectares and its 6.6-hectare accretion. On April 24, 1970, private respondent Pablo Binayug filed a separate complaint (Civil Case No. 344-T) to recover his lots and their accretions.

On June 16, 1975, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby made:

In Civil Case No. 343-T, commanding Eulogio Agustin, Gregorio Tuliao, Jacinto Buquel and Octavio Bancud, or anybody acting as their representative[s] or agents to vacate Lot No. 3351 of Solana Cadastre together with its accretion consisting of portions of Lots 9463, 9462 and 9461 of Tuguegarao Cadastre and for these defendants to restore ownership in favor of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad who are the only interested heirs of Macario Melad.

In Civil Case No. 344-T, commanding defendants Justo Adduru, Andres Pastor, Teofilo Tagacay, Vicente Camilan, Nicanor Mora, Baldomero Cagurangan, Domingo Quilang, Cesar Cabalza, Elias Macababbad, Titong Macababbad, Arturo Balisi, Jose Allabun, Eulogio Agustin, Banong Aquino, Junior Cambri and Juan Langoay, or any of their agents or representatives to vacate the Lots 3349, 7876, 7877, 7878, 7879, 7875, 7881, 7882, 7883, 7884, 7885, 7891 and 7892, together with its accretion and to restore possession to plaintiffs Pablo Binayug and Geronima Ubina. Without pronouncement as to damages which were not properly proven and to costs.

SO ORDERED. (As amended by the order dated August 15, 1975.) (pp. 24-25, Rollo.)

Only defendant-petitioner Eulogio Agustin appealed in Civil Case No. 343-T, while in Civil Case No. 344-T, only defendants-petitioners Eulogio Agustin, Baldomero Cagurangan (substituted by his heir), Arturo Balisi and Juan Langcay appealed. But upon motion of plaintiffs-private respondents, the trial court ordered the execution pending appeal of the judgment in Civil Case No. 344-T against Cagurangan, Balisi and Langcay on the ground that their appeal was dilatory as they had not presented evidence at the trial (Order dated August 15, 1975).

On November 29, 1983, the Intermediate Appellate Court rendered a decision affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the defendants-appellants.

In their petition for review of that decision, the petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. in declaring that the land in question had become part of private respondents' estate as a result of accretion;

2. in declaring that the accretion to private respondents' estate which used to pertain to petitioners' estate cannot preclude the private respondents from being the owners thereof; and

3. in declaring that the ownership of private respondents over the accretion is not affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed

The petition is unmeritorious and must be denied.

The finding of the Court of Appeals that there had been accretions to the lots of the private respondents who did not lose the ownership of such accretions even after they were separated from the principal lots by the sudden change of course of the river, is a finding of fact which is conclusive on this Court. That finding is supported by Art. 457 of the New Civil Code which provides:

Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (366)

Accretion benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites are present: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of a river (Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA 514).

All these requisites of accretion are present in this case for, as the trial court found:

. . . Cagayan River did move year by year from 1919 to 1968 or for a period of 49 years. Within this period, the alluvium (sic) deposited on the other side has become greater in area than the original

lands of the plaintiffs in both cases. Still the addition in every year is imperceptible in nature, one could not discern it but can be measured after the lapse of a certain time. The testimonial evidence in these cases that said Cagayan River moved eastward year by year is overwhelming as against the denial of defendant Eulogio Agustin alone. Cesar Caronan, one time mayor of Solana, Cagayan, said so. Arturo Taguian said so. Timoteo Melad said so. Francisco Ubina said so. Geodetic Engineer Rigor impliedly said so when he testified that when Solana Cadastre was executed in 1950 it overlapped portions of Tuguegarao Cadastre executed in 1919. This could not have happened if that part of Tuguegarao Cadastre was not eroded by the overflow of the Cagayan River. These testimonies cannot be destroyed by the denials of Vicente Cauilan, Marcelo Agustin and Eulogio Agustin alone . . . . (p. 27, Rollo.)

The appellate court confirmed that the accretion on the western bank of the Cagayan River had been going on from 1919 up to 1968 or for a period of 49 years. It was gradual and imperceptible. Only when Lot No. 3351, with an original area of 5 hectares described in the free patent that was issued to Macario Melad in June 1956, was resurveyed in 1968 did it become known that 6.6 hectares had been added to it. Lot No. 3351, covered by a homestead patent issued in June, 1950 to Pablo Binayug, grew from its original area of 18 hectares, by an additional 50 hectares through alluvium as the Cagayan River gradually moved to the east. These accretions belong to riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made (Roxas vs. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; Director of Lands vs. Rizal, 87 Phil. 806). The reason for this principle is because, if lands bordering on streams are exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the owners thereof should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion (Cortes vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567).i•t•c-aüsl

The private respondents' ownership of the accretion to their lands was not lost upon the sudden and abrupt change of the course of the Cagayan River in 1968 or 1969 when it reverted to its old 1919 bed, and separated or transferred said accretions to the other side (or eastern bank) of the river. Articles 459 and 463 of the New Civil Code apply to this situation.

Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years.

Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. (Emphasis supplied).

In the case at bar, the sudden change of course of the Cagayan River as a result of a strong typhoon in 1968 caused a portion of the lands of the private respondents to be "separated from the estate by the current." The private respondents have retained the ownership of the portion that was transferred by avulsion to the other side of the river.

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur

AGUSTIN VS IAC DIGEST

FACTS:

Private respondents, Maria Melad and Pablo Binuyag are among those who are occupying the western bank of the Cagayan River while on the eastern bank is owned by petitioner Eulogio Agustin. From 1919 to 1968, the Cagayan river has eroded the lands on the eastern bank including Agustin’s Lot depositing alluvium on the land possessed by Pablo Binuyag. In 1968, after a typhoon which caused a big flood, the Cagayan River changed its course and returned it to its 1919 bed and it cut through the lands of respondents whose lands were transferred on the eastern side. To cultivate the lands they had to cross the river. When they were cultivating said lands, (they were planting corn) Agustin accompanied by the mayor and some policemen claimed the land and drove them away. So Melad and Binuyag filed separate complaints for recovery of their lots and its accretions. The Trial Court held ordered Agustin et. al to vacate the lands and return them to respondents. On appeal, the IAC affirmed in toto the judgment thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents own the accretion and such ownership is not affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed

HELD: YES

Art. 457 states that the owner of the lands adjoining river banks own the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the currents of the waters. Accretion

benefits a riparian owner provided that these elements are present: 1) deposit be gradual and imperceptible 2) it resulted from the effects of the current of the water and 3) the land is adjacent to the river bank. When the River moved from 1919 to 1968, there was alluvium deposited and it was gradual and imperceptible.

Accretion benefits the riparian owner because these lands are exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion. Also, respondent’s ownership over said lots was not removed when due to the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the river; their accretions were transferred to the other side. Art. 459 states when the current of a river x x x segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same w/in 2 years. And Art. 463 states that whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17652             June 30, 1962

IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL., petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINGO CALALUNG, and ESTEBAN CALALUNG, respondents.

Bartolome Guirao and Antonio M. Orara for petitioners.Gonzales and Fernandez for respondents.

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal taken by petitioners Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and Sofia Grande, from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 25169-R) reversing that of the Court of First Instance of Isabela (Civil Case No. 1171), and dismissing petitioners' action against respondents Domingo and Esteban Calalung, to quiet title to and recover possession of a parcel of land allegedly occupied by the latter without petitioners' consent.

The facts of the case, which are undisputed, briefly are: Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 3.5032 hectares, located at barrio Ragan, municipality of Magsaysay (formerly Tumauini), province of Isabela, by inheritance from their deceased mother Patricia Angui (who inherited it from her parents Isidro Angui and Ana Lopez, in whose name said land appears registered, as shown by Original Certificate of Title No. 2982, issued on June 9, 1934). Said property is identified as Lot No. 1, Plan PSU-83342. When it was surveyed for purposes of registration sometime in 1930, its northeastern boundary was the Cagayan River (the same boundary stated in the title). Since then, and for many years thereafter, a gradual accretion on the northeastern side took place, by action of the current of the Cagayan River, so much so, that by 1958, the bank thereof had receded to a distance of about 105 meters from its original site, and an alluvial deposit of 19,964 square meters (1.9964 hectares), more or less, had been added to the registered area (Exh. C-1).

On January 25, 1958, petitioners instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela against respondents, to quiet title to said portion (19,964 square meters) formed by accretion, alleging in their complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 1171) that they and their predecessors-in-interest, were formerly in peaceful and continuous possession thereof, until September, 1948, when respondents entered upon the land under claim of ownership. Petitioners also asked for damages corresponding to the value of the fruits of the land as well as attorney's fees and costs. In their answer (dated February 18, 1958), respondents claim ownership in

themselves, asserting that they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of said portion, since prior to the year 1933 to the present.

After trial, the Court of First Instance of Isabela, on May 4, 1959, rendered a decision adjudging the ownership of the portion in question to petitioners, and ordering respondents to vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to petitioners, and to pay to the latter P250.00 as damages and costs. Said decision, in part, reads:

It is admitted by the parties that the land involved in this action was formed by the gradual deposit of alluvium brought about by the action of the Cagayan River, a navigable river. We are inclined to believe that the accretion was formed on the northeastern side of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2982 after the survey of the registered land in 1931, because the surveyors found out that the northeastern boundary of the land surveyed by them was the Cagayan River, and not the land in question. Which is indicative of the fact that the accretion has not yet started or begun in 1931. And, as declared by Pedro Laman, defendant witness and the boundary owner on the northwest of the registered land of the plaintiffs, the accretion was a little more than one hectare, including the stony portion, in 1940 or 1941. Therefore, the declarations of the defendant Domingo Calalung and his witness, Vicente C. Bacani, to the effect that the land in question was formed by accretion since 1933 do not only contradict the testimony of defendants' witness Pedro Laman, but could not overthrow the incontestable fact that the accretion with an area of 4 hectare more or less, was formed in 1948, reason for which, it was only declared in that same year for taxation purposes by the defendants under Tax Dec. No. 257 (Exh. "2") when they entered upon the land. We could not give credence to defendants' assertion that Tax Dec. No. 257 (Exh. "2") cancelled Tax Dee. No. 28226 (Exh. "1"), because Exh. "2" says that "tax under this declaration begins with the year 1948. But, the fact that defendants declared the land for taxation purposes since 1948, does not mean that they become the owner of the land by mere occupancy, for it is a new provision of the New Civil Code that ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation (Art. 714, New Civil Code). The land in question being an accretion to the mother or registered land of the plaintiffs, the accretion belongs to the plaintiffs (Art. 457, New Civil Code; Art. 366, Old Civil Code). Assuming arguendo, that the accretion has been occupied by the defendants since 1948, or earlier, is of no moment, because the law does not require any act of possession on the part of the owner of the riparian owner, from the moment the deposit becomes manifest (Roxas v. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; Cortez v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567). Further, no act of appropriation on the part of the reparian owner is necessary, in order to acquire ownership of the alluvial formation, as the law does not require the same (3 Manresa, C.C., pp. 321-326).

This brings us now to the determination of whether the defendants, granting that they have been in possession of the alluvium since 1948, could have acquired the property by prescription. Assuming that they occupied the land in September, 1948, but considering that the action was commenced on January 25, 1958, they have not been in possession of the land for ten (10) years; hence, they could not have acquired the land by ordinary prescription (Arts. 1134 and 1138, New Civil Code). Moreover, as the alluvium is, by law,

part and parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered property, within the meaning of Section 46 of Act No. 496: and, therefore, it could not be acquired by prescription or adverse possession by another person.

Unsatisfied, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which rendered, on September 14, 1960, the decision adverted to at the beginning of this opinion, partly stating:

That the area in controversy has been formed through a gradual process of alluvium, which started in the early thirties, is a fact conclusively established by the evidence for both parties. By law, therefore, unless some superior title has supervened, it should properly belong to the riparian owners, specifically in accordance with the rule of natural accession in Article 366 of the old Civil Code (now Article 457), which provides that "to the owner of lands adjoining the banks of rivers, belongs the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters." The defendants, however, contend that they have acquired ownership through prescription. This contention poses the real issue in this case. The Courta quo, has resolved it in favor of the plaintiffs, on two grounds: First, since by accession, the land in question pertains to the original estate, and since in this instance the original estate is registered, the accretion, consequently, falls within the purview of Section 46 of Act No. 496, which states that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession"; and, second, the adverse possession of the defendant began only in the month of September, 1948, or less than the 10-year period required for prescription before the present action was instituted.

As a legal proposition, the first ground relied upon by the trial court, is not quite correct. An accretion to registered land, while declared by specific provision of the Civil Code to belong to the owner of the land as a natural accession thereof, does not ipso jure become entitled to the protection of the rule of imprescriptibility of title established by the Land Registration Act. Such protection does not extend beyond the area given and described in the certificate. To hold otherwise, would be productive of confusion. It would virtually deprive the title, and the technical description of the land given therein, of their character of conclusiveness as to the identity and area of the land that is registered. Just as the Supreme Court, albeit in a negative manner, has stated that registration does not protect the riparian owner against the erosion of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream (Payatas Estate Development Co. v. Tuason, 53 Phil. 55), so registration does not entitle him to all the rights conferred by Land Registration Act, in so far as the area added by accretion is concerned. What rights he has, are declared not by said Act, but by the provisions of the Civil Code on accession: and these provisions do not preclude acquisition of the addition area by another person through prescription. This Court has held as much in the case of Galindez, et al. v. Baguisa, et al., CA-G.R. No. 19249-R, July 17, 1959.

We now proposed to review the second ground relied upon by the trial court, regarding the length of time that the defendants have been in possession. Domingo Calalung testified that he occupied the land in question for the first time in 1934, not in 1948 as claimed by the plaintiffs. The area under occupancy gradually increased as the years went by. In 1946, he declared the land for purposes of taxation (Exhibit 1). This tax declaration was superseded in 1948 by another (Exhibit 2), after the name of the municipality wherein it is located was changed from Tumauini to Magsaysay. Calalung's testimony is corroborated by two witnesses, both owners of properties nearby. Pedro Laman, 72 years of age, who was Municipal president of Tumauini for three terms, said that the land in question adjoins his own on the south, and that since 1940 or 1951, he has always known it to be in the peaceful possession of the defendants. Vicente C. Bacani testified to the same effect, although, he said that the defendants' possession started sometime in 1933 or 1934. The area thereof, he said, was then less than one hectare.

We find the testimony of the said witnesses entitled to much greater weight and credence than that of the plaintiff Pedro Grande and his lone witness, Laureana Rodriguez. The first stated that the defendants occupied the land in question only in 1948; that he called the latter's attention to the fact that the land was his, but the defendants, in turn, claimed that they were the owners, that the plaintiffs did not file an action until 1958, because it was only then that they were able to obtain the certificate of title from the surveyor, Domingo Parlan; and that they never declared the land in question for taxation purposes or paid the taxes thereon. Pedro Grande admitted that the defendants had the said land surveyed in April, 1958, and that he tried to stop it, not because he claimed the accretion for himself and his co-plaintiffs, but because the survey included a portion of the property covered by their title. This last fact is conceded by the defendants who, accordingly, relinquished their possession to the part thus included, containing an area of some 458 square meters.1äwphï1.ñët

The oral evidence for the defendants concerning the period of their possession — from 1933 to 1958 — is not only preponderant in itself, but is, moreover, supported by the fact that it is they and not the plaintiffs who declared the disputed property for taxation, and by the additional circumstance that if the plaintiff had really been in prior possession and were deprived thereof in 1948, they would have immediately taken steps to recover the same. The excuse they gave for not doing so, namely, that they did not receive their copy of the certificate of title to their property until 1958 for lack of funds to pay the fees of the surveyor Domingo Parlan, is too flimsy to merit any serious consideration. The payment of the surveyor's fees had nothing to do with their right to obtain a copy of the certificate. Besides, it was not necessary for them to have it in their hands, in order to file an action to recover the land which was legally theirs by accession and of which, as they allege, they had been illegally deprived by the defendants. We are convinced, upon consideration of the evidence, that the latter, were really in possession since 1934, immediately after the process of alluvion started, and that the plaintiffs woke up to their rights only when they received

their copy of the title in 1958. By then, however, prescription had already supervened in favor of the defendants.

It is this decision of the Court of Appeals which petitioners seek to be reviewed by us.

The sole issue for resolution in this case is whether respondents have acquired the alluvial property in question through prescription.

There can be no dispute that both under Article 457 of the New Civil Code and Article 366 of the old, petitioners are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered owners of the land which it adjoins. The question is whether the accretion becomes automatically registered land just because the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens title thereby making the alluvial property imprescriptible. We agree with the Court of Appeals that it does not, just as an unregistered land purchased by the registered owner of the adjoining land does not, by extension, become ipso facto  registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite another. Ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the registration law. Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or give title to the land, but merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be placed under the operation of the registration laws wherein certain judicial procedures have been provided. The fact remain, however, that petitioners never sought registration of said alluvial property (which was formed sometime after petitioners' property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2982 was registered on June 9, 1934) up to the time they instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela in 1958. The increment, therefore, never became registered property, and hence is not entitled or subject to the protection of imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered property under the Torrens system. Consequently, it was subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.

The next issue is, did respondents acquire said alluvial property through acquisitive prescription? This is a question which requires determination of facts: physical possession and dates or duration of such possession. The Court of Appeals, after analyzing the evidence, found that respondents-appellees were in possession of the alluvial lot since 1933 or 1934, openly, continuously and adversely, under a claim of ownership up to the filing of the action in 1958. This finding of the existence of these facts, arrived at by the Court of Appeals after an examination of the evidence presented by the parties, is conclusive as to them and can not be reviewed by us.

The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided in Act 190 and not the provisions of the Civil Code, since the possession started in 1933 or 1934 when the pertinent articles of the old Civil Code were not in force and before the effectivity of the new Civil Code in 1950. Hence, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the respondents acquired alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription is in accordance with law.

The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.Reyes, J.B.L., Regala and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

GRANDE v. CA

FACTS:

The Grandes are owners of a parcel of land in Isabela, by inheritance from their deceased mother, Patricia Angui, who likewise, inherited it from her parents. In the early 1930’s, the Grandes decided to have their land surveyed for registration purposes. The land was described to have Cagayan River as the northeastern boundary, as stated in the title.

By 1958, a gradual accretion took place due to the action of the current of the river, and an alluvial deposit of almost 20,000 sq.m. was added to the registered area. The Grandes filed an action for quieting of title against the Calalungs, stating that they were in peaceful and continuous possession of the land created by the alluvial deposit until 1948, when the Calalungs allegedly trespassed into their property. The Calalungs, however, stated that they were the rightful owners since prior to 1933.The CFI found for the Grandes and ordered the Calalungs to vacate the premises and pay for damages. Upon appeal to the CA, however, the decision was reversed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alluvium deposited land automatically belongs to the riparian owners?

HELD:

Art. 457 dictates that alluvium deposits on land belong to the owners of the adjacent land. However, this does not ipso jure become theirs merely believing that said land have become imprescriptible. The land of the Grandes only specifies a specific portion, of which the alluvial deposits are not included, and are thus, subject to acquisition by prescription.

Since the Calalungs proved that they have been in possession of the land since 1934 via two credible witnesses, as opposed to the Grande’s single witness who claims that the Calalungs only entered the land in 1948, the Calalungs have been held to have acquired the land created by the alluvial deposits by prescription. This is because the possession took place in 1934, when the law to be followed was Act 190, and not the New Civil Code, which only took effect in 1950.

PD 1067 – WATER CODE

Article 58. When a river or stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private lands, the owners of the affected lands may not compel the government to restore the river to its former bed; nor can they restrain the government from taking steps to revert the river or stream to its former course. The owners of the land thus affected are not entitled to compensation for any damage sustained thereby. However, the former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the abandoned bed in proportion to the area lost by each.

The owners of the affected lands may undertake to return the river or stream to its old bed at their own expense; Provided, That a permit therefor is secured from the Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communication and work pertaining thereto are commenced within two years from the change in the course of the river or stream.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 157906             November 2, 2006

JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI, Petitioner, vs.SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAÑA and ROSALITA CARDAÑA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

Before us is a petition for review assailing the Decision1 dated October 18, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 54412, declaring petitioner liable for negligence that resulted in the death of Jasmin Cardaña, a school child aged 12, enrolled in Grade 6, of San Roque Elementary School, where petitioner is the principal. Likewise assailed is the Resolution2 dated March 20, 2003 denying reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

On February 1, 1993, Jasmin Cardaña was walking along the perimeter fence of the San Roque Elementary School when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous death. Thus, her parents - Dominador and Rosalita Cardaña - filed a case for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte against petitioner.

The Cardañas alleged in their complaint that even as early as December 15, 1992, a resident of the barangay, Eufronio Lerios, reported on the possible danger the tree posed to passersby. Lerios even pointed to the petitioner the tree that stood near the principal’s office. The Cardañas averred that petitioner’s gross negligence and lack of foresight caused the death of their daughter.

Petitioner denied the accusation and said that at that time Lerios had only offered to buy the tree. She also denied knowing that the tree was dead and rotting. To prove her point, she presented witnesses who attested that she had brought up the offer of Lerios to the other teachers during a meeting on December 15, 1992 and assigned Remedios Palaña to negotiate the sale.

In a Decision3 dated February 5, 1996, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure of the respondents to establish negligence on the part of the petitioner.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court found the appellee (herein petitioner) liable for Jasmin’s death, as follows:

Foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Appellee Joaquinita Capili is hereby declared liable for negligence resulting to the death of Jasmin D. Cardaña. She is hereby ordered to indemnify appellants, parents of Jasmin, the following amounts:

1. For the life of Jasmin D. Cardaña P50,000.00;

2. For burial expenses 15,010.00;

3. For moral damages 50,000.00;

4. For attorney’s fees and litigation 10,000.00.expenses

SO ORDERED.4

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner now comes before us submitting the following issues for our resolution:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIS-À-VIS THE SET OF FACTS STATED IN THE CHALLENGED DECISION, ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 2206 OF THE CIVIL CODE AND IN ORDERING THE PETITIONER TO PAY DAMAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS; AND

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.5

On the other hand, respondents posit the following issue:

Whether or not the Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals, Twelfth Division, in CA G.R. CV. No. 54412 promulgated on October 18, 2002 … should be affirmed and respected, thus remain undisturbed.6

Primarily, the issue is whether petitioner is negligent and liable for the death of Jasmin Cardaña.

Petitioner asserts that she was not negligent about the disposal of the tree since she had assigned her next-in-rank, Palaña, to see to its disposal; that despite her physical inspection of the school grounds, she did not observe any indication that the tree was already rotten nor did any of her 15 teachers inform her that the tree was already rotten;7 and that moral damages should not be granted against her since there was no fraud nor bad faith on her part.

On the other hand, respondents insist that petitioner knew that the tree was dead and rotting, yet, she did not exercise reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have done in the same situation.

To begin, we have to point out that whether petitioner was negligent or not is a question of fact which is generally not proper in a petition for review, and when this determination is supported by substantial evidence, it becomes conclusive and binding on this Court.8 However, there is an exception, that is, when the findings of the Court of Appeals are incongruent with the findings of the lower court.9 In our view, the exception finds application in the present case.

The trial court gave credence to the claim of petitioner that she had no knowledge that the tree was already dead and rotting and that Lerios merely informed her that he was going to buy the tree for firewood. It ruled that petitioner exercised the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances require and that there was an absence of evidence that would require her to use a higher standard of care more than that required by the attendant circumstances.10 The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled that petitioner should have known of the condition of the tree by its mere sighting and that no matter how hectic her schedule was, she should have had the tree removed and not merely delegated the task to Palaña. The appellate court ruled that the dead caimitotree was a nuisance that should have been removed soon after petitioner had chanced upon it.11

A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor’s position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.12

The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable. As the school principal, petitioner was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises. That she was unaware of the rotten state of a tree whose falling branch had caused the death of a child speaks ill of her discharge of the responsibility of her position.

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.13

The fact, however, that respondents’ daughter, Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school’s premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.14

The effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to warrant a presumption or inference that the mere falling of the branch of the dead and rotting tree which caused the death of respondents’ daughter was a result of petitioner’s negligence, being in charge of the school.

In the case of D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,15 this Court held:

…As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes thatprima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.

The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in this wise:

While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while the mere happening of an accident or injury will not generally give rise to an inference or presumption that it was due to negligence on defendant’s part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other person who is charged with negligence.

x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and that the

occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those who had its control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused by the defendant’s want of care.

The procedural effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that petitioner’s negligence is presumed once respondents established the requisites for the doctrine to apply. Once respondents made out a prima facie case of all requisites, the burden shifts to petitioner to explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference.16

Was petitioner’s explanation as to why she failed to have the tree removed immediately sufficient to exculpate her?

As the school principal, petitioner was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises. That she was unaware of the rotten state of the tree calls for an explanation on her part as to why she failed to be vigilant.

Petitioner contends she was unaware of the state of the dead and rotting tree because Lerios merely offered to buy the tree and did not inform her of its condition. Neither did any of her teachers inform her that the tree was an imminent danger to anyone. She argues that she could not see the immediate danger posed by the tree by its mere sighting even as she and the other teachers conducted ground inspections. She further argues that, even if she should have been aware of the danger, she exercised her duty by assigning the disposition of the tree to another teacher.

We find petitioner’s explanation wanting. As school principal, petitioner is expected to oversee the safety of the school’s premises.1âwphi1 The fact that she failed to see the immediate danger posed by the dead and rotting tree shows she failed to exercise the responsibility demanded by her position.

Moreover, even if petitioner had assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises supervision over her assignee.17 The record shows that more than a month had lapsed from the time petitioner gave instruction to her assistant Palaña on December 15, 1992, to the time the incident occurred on February 1, 1993. Clearly, she failed to check seasonably if the danger posed by the rotting tree had been removed. Thus, we cannot accept her defense of lack of negligence.

Lastly, petitioner questions the award of moral damages. Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.18However, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always

presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.19 Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-à-vis respondents’ daughter’s death. The award of moral damages is therefore not proper.

In line with applicable jurisprudence, we sustain the award by the Court of Appeals of P50,000 as indemnity for the death of Jasmin,20 and P15,010 as reimbursement of her burial expenses.21

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 18, 2002 and the Resolution dated March 20, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 54412 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION such that the award of moral damages is hereby deleted.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

FACTS: 

February 1, 1993: Jasmin Cardaa was walking along the San Roque Elementary School when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous death.  Her parents Dominador and Rosalita Cardaa filed a case for damages against the school principal Joaquinita Capili knowing that the tree was dead and rotting did not dispose of it

RTC: dismissed for failing to show negligence on the part of Capili CA: reversed. Awarded P50,000 as indemnity for the death of Jasmin and

P15,010 as reimbursement of her burial expenses, moral damages P50,000 and attorney's fees and litigation P10,000

ISSUE: W/N Capili can be held liable for damages under Res ipsa loquitur 

HELD: YES. 

negligent act

inadvertent(unintentional) act may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence

and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature

an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner

The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable.  As school principal, she was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises.  Moreover, even if petitioner had assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises supervision over her assignee

Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school's premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.  

Once respondents made out a prima facie case of all requisites, the burden shifts to petitioner to explain.The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference

Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis--vis respondents' daughter's death.The award of moral damages is therefore not proper.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 72694 December 1, 1987

AURORA DEL BANCO, EVELYN DEL BANCO, FEDERICO TAINO, SOLEDAD TAINO, JOVENCIO TAINO, SAMSON TAINO, NOE TAINO, SOCORRO TAINO and CLEOFAS TAINO, petitioners, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Second Civil Cases Division), ALEJANDRA PANSACOLA, LEONILA ENCALLADO, VEDASTO ENCALLADO, JOSE YEPES, et al., respondents.

 

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari by way of appeal from: (a) the decision of respondent Court of Appeals (Intermediate Appellate Court) * promulgated on May 17, 1985 in AC-G.R. CV No. 70460, entitled "Alejandra Pansacola, et al. vs. Domen Villabona del Banco, et al." which reversed and set aside the judgment ** of the trial court; and (b) its resolution ** of October 15, 1985 in the same case, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision and their supplement to motion for reconsideration.

The dispositive portion of the questioned decision (Rollo, p. 97) reads, as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE insofar as it dismisses the complaint, and another one entered —

(1) Declaring plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-appellees, in their respective capacities as described in par. V of the complaint, as co-owners of the property in dispute, but subject to the four-part pro-indiviso division already made by said property;

(2) Ordering the cancellation of all certificates of title that may have been issued to any of the parties hereto; and

(3) Ordering the complete and final partition of the subject property in conformity with law.

For this purpose, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of origin so that a final partition shall be made in accordance with Sections 2, 3, et. seq., Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Register of Deeds for the Province of Quezon.

The facts of the case are taken from the decision of the Appellate Court (Rollo, p. 39) as follows:

In a document executed in the Municipality of San Rafael, Bulacan, on February 11, 1859, three brothers, Benedicto Pansacola, Jose Pansacola and Manuel Pansacola (known as Fr. Manuel Pena) entered into an agreement which provided, among others:

(1) That they will purchase from the Spanish Government the lands comprising the Island of Cagbalite which is located within the boundaries of the Municipality of Mauban, Province of Tayabas (now Quezon) and has an approximate area of 1,600 hectares;

(2) That the lands shall be considered after the purchase as their common property;

(3) That the co-ownership includes Domingo Arce and Baldomera Angulo, minors at that time represented by their father, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena) who will contribute for them in the proposed purchase of the Cagbalite Island;

(4) That whatever benefits may be derived from the Island shall be shared equally by the co-owners in the following proportion: Benedicto Pansacola-1/4 share; Jose Pansacola-1/4 share; and, Domingo Arce and Baldomera Angulo-2/4 shares which shall be placed under the care of their father, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena).

On August 14, 1866, co-owners entered into the actual possession and enjoyment of the Island purchased by them from the Spanish Government. On April 11, 1868 they agreed to modify the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by them on February 11, 1859. The new agreement provided for a new sharing and distribution of the lands, comprising the Island of Cagbalite and whatever benefits may be derived therefrom, as follows:

(a) The first one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to Don Benedicto Pansacola;

(b) The second one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to Don Jose Pansacola;

(c) The third one-fourth(1/4) portion shall henceforth belong to the children of their deceased brother, Don Eustaquio Pansacola, namely: Don Mariano Pansacola,- Maria Pansacola and Don Hipolito Pansacola;

(d) The fourth and last one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to their nephews and nieces (1) Domingo Arce, (2) Baldomera Angulo, (3) Marcelina Flores, (4) Francisca Flores, (5) Candelaria dela Cruz, and (6) Gervasio Pansacola who, being all minors, are still under the care of their brother, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena). The latter is the real father of said minors.

About one hundred years later, on November 18, 1968, private respondents brought a special action for partition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, under the provisions of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, including as parties the heirs and successors-in-interest of the co-owners of the Cagbalite Island in the second contract of co-ownership dated April 11, 1968. In their answer some of the defendants, petitioners herein, interposed such defenses as prescription, res judicata, exclusive ownership, estoppel and laches.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision *** dated November 6, 1981 dismissing the complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, and in the fight of all the foregoing this Court finds and so holds that the Cagbalite Island has already been partitioned into four (4) parts among the original co-owners or their successors-in-interest.

Judgment is therefore rendered for the defendants against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint in the above entitled case.

Considering that the cross claims filed in the above entitled civil case are not compulsory cross claims and in order that they may be litigated individually the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs, private respondents herein, was denied by the trial court in an order dated February 25, 1982 (Record on Appeal, p. 241).

On appeal, respondent Court reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court (Rollo, p. 117). It also denied the motion for reconsideration and the supplement to motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents, in its resolution dated October 15, 1983 (Rollo, p. 86).

Instant petition was filed with the Court on December 5, 1985 (Rollo, p. 12). Petitioners Josefina Pansacola, et al. having filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 72620) on the same subject matter and issues raised in the instant 'petition, the counsel for private respondents filed a consolidated comment on the separate petitions for review on February 24, 1986 with the First Division of the Court (Rollo, p. 119). It appears that counsel for petitioners also filed a consolidated reply to the consolidated comment of private respondents as required by the Second Division of

the Court (Rollo, p. 151). However, petitioners filed a separate reply in the instant case on February 18,1987 (Rollo, p. 168)as required by the Court in a Resolution of the Second Division dated November 24, 1986 (Rollo, p. 160).

On May 19, 1987, private respondents in the instant petition filed a manifestation praying for the denial of the instant petition in the same manner that G.R. No. 72620 was denied by the Court in its Resolution dated July 23, 1986 (Rollo, p. 151). Their rejoinder to the reply of petitioners was filed on May 25,1987 (Rollo, p. 179).

On June 8, 1987, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 192). The memorandum of private respondents was mailed on July 18, 1987 and received in the Court on July 29, 1987 (Rollo, p. 112); the memorandum for petitioners was mailed on August 18, 1987 and received in the Court on September 7, 1987 (Rollo, p. 177).

The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is the question of whether or not Cagbalite Island is still undivided property owned in common by the heirs and successors-in-interest of the brothers, Benedicto, Jose and Manuel Pansacola.

The Pansacola brothers purchased the Island in 1859 as common property and agreed on how they would share in the benefits to be derived from the Island. On April 11, 1868, they modified the terms and conditions of the agreement so as to include in the co-ownership of the island the children of their deceased brothers Eustaquio and the other children of Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena) who were committed in the agreement of February 11, 1859. The new agreement provided for a new sharing proportion and distribution of the Island among the co-owners.

On January 20, 1907, the representative of the heirs of all the original owners of Cagbalite Island entered into an agreement to partition the Island, supplemented by another agreement dated April 18, 1908. The contract dated January 20, 1907 provides as follows:

Sa Mauban, Tayabas, ika 20 ng Enero ng 1907 caming mga quinatawan ng mga ibang co-herederos na hindi caharap, sa pulong na ito, sa nasa naming lahat na magcaroon na ng catahimikan ang aming-aming cabahagui sa Pulong Kagbalete sumacatuid upang mapagtoos ang hangahan ng apat na sapul na pagcacabahagui nitong manang ito, pagcacausap na naming lahat at maihanay at mapagtalonan ang saysay ng isa't isa, ay cusa naming pinagcasunduan at pinasiya ang nangasosonod:—

Una: Ang malaquing calupaan, alis ang lahat na pacatan ay babahaguin alinsunod sa pagcabaki na guinawa sa croquis na niyari ng practico agrimensor Don Jose Garcia.

Icalawa: Ang Lomingoy, doon ang tuid na guhit sa ilong ng Pait ay pagaapatin ding sinlaqui ayon sa dating pagkakabaki.

Icatlo: Cung magawa na ang tunay na piano at icapit na sa lupa, paglalagay ng nadarapat na mojon, ang masacupan ng guhit, sumacatuid ang caingin at pananim ng isa na nasacupan ng pucto na noocol sa iba, ay mapapasulit sa dapat mag-ari, na pagbabayaran nito ang nagtanim sa halagang:- bawat caponong niog na nabunga, P 1.00 'un peso); cung ang bias ay abot sa isang vara, P 0.50; cung bagong tanim o locloc P 0. 50 ang capono.

Icapat: Ang lahat na pacatan ay bacod na pagaapatin at bawat bahagui ay noocol sa isat-isa sa apat na sanga ng paganacang nagmana.

Icalima: Upang ang naipatanim ng bawat isa ay matama sa canya ng mailagan ang hirap ng loob ng nagatikha; ay pagtotolong-tolongan ng lahat naiba na mahusay ang dalawang partes na magcalapit na mapa ayong tumama, hangang may pagluluaran, sa nagsikap at maoyanam, maidaco sa lugar na walang cailangang pagusapan.

Icanim: Ang casulatang ito, cung mapermahan na na magcacaharap sampong ng mga ibang co-herederos na notipicahan nitong lahat na pinagcasundoan ay mahahabilin sa camay ng agrimensor, Amadeo Pansacola, upang canyang mapanusugan ang maipaganap ang dito'y naootos.

Na sa catunayan at catibayan ng lahat na nalalagda dito, sa pag galang at pag ganap dito sa paingacaisahan ay pumirma sampo ng mga sacsing caharap at catanto ngayong fecha ayon sa itaas.

The contract dated April 18, 1908 provides as follows:

Sa Mauban, ika 18 ng Abril ng 1908, sa pagcacatipon ng lahat na firmantes nito ay pinagcaisahan itong nangasosonod:—

Una — Pinagtitibay ang mga pinagcasundoan sa itaas noong 20 ng Enero ng 1907, liban na lamang sa mga pangcat na una at icapat at tongcol doon pinasiya naming bahaguinin ng halohalo at paparejo ang calupaan at pacatan.

Ycalawa — Sa pagsucat ng agrimensor na si Amadeo at paggawa ng piano at descripcion ay pagbabayaran siya ng sa bawat isa naoocol sa halagang isang piso sa bawat hectares.

Icatlo — Ang counting pucto sa 'Mayanibulong' na may caingin ni G. Isidro Altamarino, asawa ni Restitute ay tutumbasan naman cay G. Norberto Pansacola sa lugar ng Dapo calapit ng Pinangalo ng gasing sucat.

Icapat — Sa inilahad na piano ay pinasiya nang itoloy at upang maca pagparehistro ang isa't isa ay pinagcaisahang magcacagastos na parepareho para sa tablang pangmohon at ibat iba pang cagastusan.

Sa catunayan at catibayan ay cami, pumirma. (Record on Appeal, p. 224)

There is nothing in all four agreements that suggests that actual or physical partition of the Island had really been made by either the original owners or their heirs or successors-in-interest. The agreement entered into in 1859 simply provides for the sharing of whatever benefits can be derived from the island. The agreement, in fact, states that the Island to be purchased shall be considered as their common property. In the second agreement entered in 1868 the co-owners agreed not only on the sharing proportion of the benefits derived from the Island but also on the distribution of the Island each of the brothers was allocated a 1/4 portion of the Island with the children of the deceased brother, Eustaquio Pansacola allocated a 1/4 portion and the children of Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena) also allocated a 1/4 portion of the Island. With the distribution agreed upon each of the co-owner is a co-owner of the whole, and in this sense, over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the sole owner of a portion, in the instant case, a 1/4 portion (for each group of co-owners) of the Island which is truly abstract, because until physical division is effected such portion is merely an Ideal share, not concretely determined (3 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 3rd Ed., page 486, cited in Lopez vs. Cuaycong, 74 Phil. 601; De la Cruz vs. Cruz, 32 SCRA 307 [1970]; Felices vs. Colegado, 35 SCRA 173 [1970],; Dultra vs. CFl 70 SCRA 465 [1976]; Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, 75 SCRA 234 [1977].)

In the agreement of January 20, 1907, the heirs that were represented agreed on how the Island was to be partitioned. The agreement of April 18, 1908 which supplements that of January 20, 1907 reveals that as of the signing of the 1908 agreement no actual partition of the Island had as yet been done. The second and fourth paragraphs of the agreement speaks of a survey yet to be conducted by a certain Amadeo and a plan and description yet to be made. Virgilio Pansacola, a son of the surveyor named Amadeo who is referred to in the contract dated April 18, 1908 as the surveyor to whom the task of surveying Cagbalite Island pursuant to said agreement was entrusted, however, testified that said contracts were never implemented because nobody defrayed the expenses for surveying the same (Record on Appeal, p. 225).

Petitioners invoke res judicata to bar this action for partition in view of the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 21033,"Domingo Arce vs. Maria Villabona, et al.," 21034, "Domingo Arce vs. Francisco Pansacola, et al.," and 21035,"Domingo Arce vs. Emiliano Pansacola, et al." promulgated on February 20, 1958 (Rollo, p. 141) and Brief for Defendants-Appellees, p. 87 Appendix 1), wherein the Court said:

Considering the facts that he waited for a period of nearly 23 years after the return from his deportation before taking any positive action to recover his pretended right in the property in question, gives great credit, in our opinion, to the declaration of the witnesses

for the defense (a) that the original parcel of land was partitioned as they claim, and (b) that the plaintiff had disposed of all the right and interest which he had in the portion which had been given to him.

The issue in the aforementioned case which were tried together is not whether there has already been a partition of the Cagbalite Island. The actions were brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of three distinct parcels of land, together with damages. In fact the word partition was used in the metaphysical or Ideal sense (not in its physical sense).

Commenting on the above ruling of the Court in connection with the instant case, the respondent Court said:

Concededly, the Supreme Court decision in G.R. Nos. 21033-35 (Exh. X) did use or employ the word "partition." A careful reading of the said decision will, however, reveal, and we so hold, that the employment or use of the word "partition" therein was made not in its technical and legal meaning or sense adverted to above, but, rather in its Ideal, abstract and spiritual sense, this is (at) once evident from the bare statement in said decision to the effect that the property was divided into four parts, without any reference to the specific parts of the property that may have been adjudicated to each owner. There being no such reference in the decision and in the judgment affirmed therein to the adjudication of specific and definite portions of the property to each co-owner, there is a clear and logical inference that there was indeed no adjudication of specific and definite portions of the property made to each co-owner.

It must be admitted that the word "partition" is not infrequently used both in popular and technical parlance (Fule vs. Fule, 52 Phil. 750 [1929]). For purposes of the aforementioned case, evidently the Court used the word "partition" to refer to the distribution of the Cagbalite Island agreed upon by the original owners and in the later agreements, by the heirs and their subsequent successors-in-interest. There need not be a physical partition; a distribution of the Island even in a state of indiviso or was sufficient in order that a co-owner may validly sell his portion of the co-owned property. The sale of part of a particular lot thus co-owned by one co-owner was within his right pro-indiviso is valid in its entirety (Pamplona vs. Moreto, 96 SCRA 775 [1980]) but he may not convey a physical portion with boundaries of the land owned in common (Mercado vs. Liwanag, 5 SCRA 472 [1962]). Definitely, there was no physical partition of the Island in 1859. Neither could there have been one in 1894 because the manner of subdividing the Island was only provided for in the later agreements entered into by the heirs in 1907 and 1908. There was a distribution of the Island in 1868 as agreed upon by the original co-owners in their agreement of April 11, 1868. Any agreement entered into by the parties in 1894 could be no more than another agreement as to the distribution of the Island among the heirs of the original co-owners and the preparation of a tentative plan by a practical surveyor, a Mr. Jose Garcia, mentioned in the first paragraph of the 1907 agreement, preparatory to the preparation of the real plan to be prepared by the surveyor Amadeo, mentioned in the agreement of April 18, 1908.

What is important in the Court's ruling in the three aforementioned cases is that, the fact that there was a distribution of the Island among the co-owners made the sale of Domingo Arce of the portion allocated to him though pro-indiviso, valid. He thus disposed of all his rights and interests in the portion given to him.

It is not disputed that some of the private respondents and some of the petitioners at the time the action for partition was filed in the trial court have been in actual possession and enjoyment of several portions of the property in question (Rollo, p. 148). This does not provide any proof that the Island in question has already been actually partitioned and co-ownership terminated. A co-owner cannot, without the conformity of the other co-owners or a judicial decree of partition issued pursuant to the provision of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court (Rule 71 of the Old Rules), adjudicate to himself in fee simple a determinate portion of the lot owned in common, as his share therein, to the exclusion of other co-owners (Santos, Jr. vs. Buenconsejo, 14 SCRA 407 [1965]; Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals, 112 SCRA 237 [1982]). It is a basic principle in the law of co-ownership both under the present Civil Code as in the Code of 1889 that no individual co- owner can claim any definite portion thereof (Diversified Credit Corporation vs. Rosada 26 SCRA 470 [1968]). lt is therefore of no moment that some of the co-owners have succeeded in securing cadastral titles in their names to some portions of the Island occupied by them (Rollo, p. 10).

It is not enough that the co-owners agree to subdivide the property. They must have a subdivision plan drawn in accordance with which they take actual and exclusive possession of their respective portions in the plan and titles issued to each of them accordingly (Caro vs. Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 10 [1982]). The mechanics of actual partition should follow the procedure laid down in Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. Maganon vs. Montejo, 146 SCRA 282 [1986]).

Neither can such actual possession and enjoyment of some portions of the Island by some of the petitioners herein be considered a repudiation of the co-ownership. It is undisputed that the Cagbalite Island was purchased by the original co-owners as a common property and it has not been proven that the Island had been partitioned among them or among their heirs. While there is co-ownership, a co-owner's possession of his share is co-possession which is linked to the possession of the other co-owners (Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, 75 SCRA 234 [1977]).

Furthermore, no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership (Valdez vs. Olonga, 51 SCRA 71 [1973], Tero vs. Tero, 131 SCRA 100 [1984]). Co-owners cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership clearly communicated to the other co-owners (Mariano vs. De Vega, 148 SCRA 342 [1987]).

An action for partition does not prescribe. Article 403 of the Old Civil Code, now Article 497, provides that the assignees of the co-owners may take part in the partition of the common property, and Article 400 of the Old Code, now Article 494 provides that each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property, a provision which implies that the action to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches (Budlong vs. Pondoc, 79 SCRA 24

[1977]). An action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co- owner (Jardin vs. Hollasco, 117 SCRA 532 [1982]).

On July 23, 1986, the Court through its Second Division denied the petition for the review of G.R. No. 72620, the petition for review on certiorari separately filed by Josefina Pansacola (Rollo, p. 151).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is likewise DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

FACTS:

In a document executed in the Municipality of San Rafael, Bulacan, on February 11, 1859, three brothers, Benedicto Pansacola, Jose Pansacola and Manuel Pansacola (known as Fr. Manuel Pena) entered into an agreement which provided, among others:

On April 11, 1868, they modified the terms and conditions of the agreement:

About one hundred years later, on November 18, 1968, private respondents brought a special action for partition under the provisions of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, including as parties the heirs and successors-in-interest of the co-owners of the Cagbalite Island.

The trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. But the CA reversed the decision.

ISSUES: Whether or not Cagbalite Island is still undivided property owned in common by the heirs and successors-in-interest of the brothers, Benedicto, Jose and Manuel Pansacola.

Does prescription run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership

HELD:

YES. There is nothing in all four agreements that suggests that actual or physical partition of the Island had really been made by either the original owners or their heirs or successors-in-interest. Although, some of the private respondents and some of the petitioners at the time the action for partition was filed in the trial court have been in actual possession and enjoyment of several portions of the property in question, this does not provide any proof that the Island in question has already been actually partitioned and co-ownership terminated. It is not enough that the co-owners agree to subdivide the property. They must have a subdivision plan drawn in accordance with which they take actual and exclusive possession of their respective portions in the plan and titles issued to each of them accordingly. The mechanics of actual partition should follow the procedure laid down in Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

NO. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.Co-owners cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership clearly communicated to the other co-owners An action for partition does not prescribe. Article 497 of the New Civil Code, provides that “the assignees of the co-owners may take part in the partition of the common property, and Article 494 provides that “each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property, a provision which implies that the action to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches” An action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co- owner.

(1) That they will purchase from the Spanish Government the lands comprising the Island of Cagbalite which is located in the Province of Tayabas (now Quezon) and has an approximate area of 1,600 hectares;

(2) That the lands shall be considered after the purchase as their common property;

(3) That the co-ownership includes Domingo Arce and Baldomera Angulo, minors at that time represented by their father, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena) who will contribute for them in the proposed purchase of the Cagbalite Island;

(4) That whatever benefits may be derived from the Island shall be shared equally by the co-owners in the following proportion: Benedicto Pansacola-1/4 share; Jose Pansacola-1/4 share; and, Domingo Arce and Baldomera Angulo-2/4 shares which shall be placed under the care of their father, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena).

(a) The first one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to Don Benedicto Pansacola;

(b) The second one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to Don Jose Pansacola;

(c) The third one-fourth(1/4) portion shall henceforth belong to the children of their deceased brother, Don Eustaquio Pansacola, namely: Don Mariano Pansacola,- Maria Pansacola and Don Hipolito Pansacola;

(d) The fourth and last one-fourth (1/4) portion shall belong to their nephews and nieces (1) Domingo Arce, (2) Baldomera Angulo, (3) Marcelina Flores, (4) Francisca Flores, (5) Candelaria dela Cruz, and (6) Gervasio Pansacola who, being all minors, are still under the care of their brother, Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Pena). The latter is the real father of said minors.

 Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

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

RICARDO PARDELL Y CRUZ and VICENTA ORTIZ Y FELIN DE PARDELL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.GASPAR DE BARTOLOME Y ESCRIBANO and MATILDE ORTIZ Y FELIN DE BARTOLOME, defendants-appellants.

TORRES, J.:

This is an appeal by bill of exceptions, from the judgment of October 5, 1907, whereby the Honorable Dionisio Chanco, judge, absolved the defendants from the complaint, and the plaintiff from a counterclaim, without special finding as to costs.

Counsel for the spouses Ricardo y Cruz and Vicente Ortiz y Felin de Pardell, the first of whom, absent in Spain by reason of his employment, conferred upon the second sufficient and ample powers to appear before the courts of justice, on June 8, 1905, in his written complaint, alleged that the plaintiff, Vicente Ortiz, and the defendant, Matilde Ortiz, are the duly recognized natural daughters of the spouses Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin y Paula who died in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, in 1875 and 1882, respectively; that Calixta Felin, prior to her death, executed on August 17, 1876, a nuncupative will in Vigan whereby she made her four children, named Manuel, Francisca, Vicenta, and Matilde, surnamed Ortiz y Felin, her sole and universal heirs of all her property; that, of the persons enumerated, Manuel died before his mother and Francisca a few years after her death, leaving no heirs by force of law, and therefore the only existing heirs of the said testatrix are the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz and the defendant Matilde Ortiz; that, aside from some personal property and jewelry already divided among the heirs, the testatrix possessed, at the time of the execution of her will, and left at her death the real properties which, with their respective cash values, are as follows:

1. A house of strong material, with the lot on which it is built, situated on Escolta Street, Vigan, and valued at P6,000.00

2. A house of mixed material, with the lot on which it stands, at No. 88 Washington Street, Vigan; valued at 1,500.00

3. A lot on Magallanes Street, Vigan; valued at 100.00

4. A parcel of rice land, situated in the barrio of San Julian, 60.00

Vigan; valued at

5. A parcel of rice land in the pueblo of Santa Lucia; valued at 86.00

6. Three parcels of land in the pueblo of Candon; valued at 150.00

Total 7,896.00

That, on or about the first months of the year 1888, the defendants, without judicial authorization, nor friendly or extrajudicial agreement, took upon themselves the administration and enjoyment of the said properties and collected the rents, fruits, and products thereof, to the serious detriment of the plaintiffs' interest; that, notwithstanding the different and repeated demands extrajudicially made upon Matilde Ortiz to divide the aforementioned properties with the plaintiff Vicente and to deliver to the latter the one-half thereof, together with one-half of the fruits and rents collected therefrom, the said defendant and her husband, the self-styled administrator of the properties mentioned, had been delaying the partition and delivery of the said properties by means of unkept promises and other excuses; and that the plaintiffs, on account of the extraordinary delay in the delivery of one-half of said properties, or their value in cash, as the case might be, had suffered losses and damages in the sum of P8,000. Said counsel for the plaintiffs therefore asked that judgment be rendered by sentencing the defendants, Gaspar de Bartolome, and Matilde Ortiz Felin de Bartolome, to restore and deliver to the plaintiffs one-half of the total value in cash, according to appraisal, of the undivided property specified, which one-half amounted approximately to P3,948, or if deemed proper, to recognize the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz to be vested with the full and absolute right of ownership to the said undivided one-half of the properties in question, as universal testamentary heir thereof together with the defendant Matilde Ortiz, to indemnify the plaintiffs in the sum of P8,000, for losses and damages, and to pay the costs.

Counsel for the defendants, in his answer denied the facts alleged in paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 thereof, inasmuch as, upon the death of the litigating sister's brother Manuel, their mother, who was still living, was his heir by force of law, and the defendants had never refused to give to the plaintiff Vicente Ortiz her share of the said properties; and stated that he admitted the facts alleged in paragraph 2, provided it be understood, however, that the surname of the defendant's mother was Felin, and not Feliu, and that Miguel Ortiz died in Spain, and not in Vigan; that he also admitted paragraph 3 of the complaint, with the difference that the said surname should be Felin, and likewise paragraph 5, except the part thereof relating to the personal property and the jewelry, since the latter had not yet been divided; that the said jewelry was in the possession of the plaintiffs and consisted of: one Lozada gold chronometer watch with a chain in the form of a bridle curb and a watch charm consisting of the engraving of a postage stamp on a stone mounted in gold and bearing the initials M. O., a pair of cuff buttons made of gold coins, four small gold buttons, two finger rings, another with the initials M. O., and a gold bracelet; and that the defendants were willing to deliver to the plaintiffs, in conformity with their petitions, one-half of the total value in cash, according to appraisement, of the undivided real properties specified in paragraph 5, which half amounted to P3,948.

In a special defense said counsel alleged that the defendants had never refused to divide the said property and had in fact several years before solicited the partition of the same; that, from 1886 to 1901, inclusive, there was collected from the property on Calle Escolta the sum of 288 pesos, besides a few other small amounts derived from other sources, which were delivered to the plaintiffs with other larger amounts, in 1891, and from the property on Calle Washington, called La Quinta, 990.95 pesos, which proceeds, added together, made a total of 1,278.95 pesos, saving error or omission; that, between the years abovementioned, Escolta, and that on Calle Washington,La Quinta, 376.33, which made a total of 1,141.71, saving error or omission; that, in 1897, the work of reconstruction was begun of the house on Calle Escolta, which been destroyed by an earthquake, which work was not finished until 1903 and required an expenditure on the part of the defendant Matilde Ortiz, of 5,091.52 pesos; that all the collections made up to August 1, 1905, including the rent from the stores, amounted to only P3,654.15, and the expenses, to P6,252.32, there being, consequently, a balance of P2,598.17, which divided between the sisters, the plaintiff and the defendant, would make the latter's share P1,299.08; that, as shown by the papers kept by the plaintiffs, in the year 1891 the defendant Bartolome presented to the plaintiffs a statement in settlements of accounts, and delivered to the person duly authorized by the latter for the purpose, the sum of P2,606.29, which the said settlement showed was owing his principals, from various sources; that, the defendant Bartolome having been the administrator of the undivided property claimed by the plaintiffs, the latter were owing the former legal remuneration of the percentage allowed by law for administration; and that the defendants were willing to pay the sum of P3,948, one-half of the total value of the said properties, deducting therefrom the amount found to be owing them by the plaintiffs, and asked that judgment be rendered in their favor to enable them to recover from the latter that amount, together with the costs and expenses of the suit.

The defendants, in their counter claim, repeated each and all of the allegations contained in each of the paragraphs of section 10 of their answer; that the plaintiffs were obliged to pay to the administrator of the said property the remuneration allowed him by law; that, as the revenues collected by the defendants amounted to no more than P3,654.15 and the expenditures incurred by them, to P6,252.32, it followed that the plaintiffs owed the defendants P1,299.08, that is one-half of the difference between the amount collected from and that extended on the properties, and asked that judgment be therefore rendered in their behalf to enable them to collect this sum from the plaintiffs, Ricardo Pardell and Vicenta Ortiz, with legal interest thereon from December 7, 1904, the date when the accounts were rendered, together with the sums to which the defendant Bartolome was entitled for the administration of the undivided properties in question.

By a written motion of August 21, 1905, counsel for the plaintiffs requested permission to amend the complaint by inserting immediately after the words "or respective appraisal," fifth line of paragraph 5, the phrase "in cash in accordance with the assessed value," and likewise further to amend the same, in paragraph 6 thereof, by substituting the following word in lieu of the petition for the remedy sought: "By reason of all the foregoing, I beg the court to be pleased to render the judgment by sentencing the defendants, Gaspar de Bartolome and Matilde Ortiz Felin de Bartolome, to restore and deliver to the plaintiffs an exact one-half of the total vale of the undivided properties described in the complaint, such value to be ascertained by the expert appraisal of two competent persons, one of whom shall be appointed by

the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants, and, in case of disagreement between these two appointees such value shall be determined by a third expert appraiser appointed by the court, or, in a proper case, by the price offered at public auction; or, in lieu thereof, it is requested that the court recognize the plaintiff, Vicenta Ortiz, to be vested with a full and absolute right to an undivided one-half of the said properties; furthermore, it is prayed that the plaintiffs be awarded an indemnity of P8,000 for losses and damages, and the costs." Notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants, the said amendment was admitted by the court and counsel for the defendants were allowed to a period of three days within which to present a new answer. An exception was taken to this ruling.

The proper proceedings were had with reference to the valuation of the properties concerned in the division sought and incidental issues were raised relative to the partition of some of them and their award to one or the other of the parties. Due consideration was taken of the averments and statements of both parties who agreed between themselves, before the court, that any of them might at any time acquire, at the valuation fixed by the expert judicial appraiser, any of the properties in question, there being none in existence excluded by the litigants. The court, therefore, by order of December 28, 1905, ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to acquire, at the valuation determined by the said expert appraiser, the building known as La Quinta, the lot on which it stands and the warehouses and other improvements comprised within the inclosed land, and the seeds lands situated in the pueblos of Vigan and Santa Lucia; and that the defendants were likewise entitled to acquire the house on Calle Escolta, the lot on Calle Magallanes, and the three parcels of land situated in the pueblo of Candon.

After this partition had been made counsel for the defendants, by a writing of March 8, 1906, set forth: That, having petitioned for the appraisement of the properties in question for the purpose of their partition, it was not to be understood that he desired from the exception duly entered to the ruling made in the matter of the amendment to the complaint; that the properties retained by the defendants were valued at P9,310, and those retained by the plaintiffs, at P2,885, one-half of which amounts each party had to deliver to the other, as they were pro indivisoproperties; that, therefore, the defendants had to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,212.50, after deducting the amount which the plaintiffs were obliged to deliver to the defendants, as one-half of the price of the properties retained by the former; that, notwithstanding that the amount of the counterclaim for the expenses incurred in the reconstruction of the pro indiviso property should be deducted from the sum which the defendants had to pay the plaintiffs, the former, for the purpose of bringing the matter of the partition to a close, would deliver to the latter, immediately upon the signing of the instrument of purchase and sale, the sum of P3,212.50, which was one-half of the value of the properties alloted to the defendants; such delivery, however, was not to be understood as a renouncement of the said counterclaim, but only as a means for the final termination of the pro indiviso status of the property.

The case having been heard, the court on October 5, 1907, rendered judgment holding that the revenues and the expenses were compensated by the residence enjoyed by the defendant party, that no losses or damages were either caused or suffered, nor likewise any other expense besides those aforementioned, and absolved the defendants from the complaint and the plaintiffs from the counterclaim, with no special finding as to costs. An exception was taken to this judgment by

counsel for the defendants who moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented did not warrant the judgment rendered and that the latter was contrary to law. This motion was denied, exception whereto was taken by said counsel, who filed the proper bill of exceptions, and the same was approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court, with a transcript of the evidence.

Both of the litigating sisters assented to a partition by halves of the property left in her will by their mother at her death; in fact, during the course of this suit, proceedings were had, in accordance with the agreement made, for the division between them of the said hereditary property of common ownership, which division was recognized and approved in the findings of the trial court, as shown by the judgment appealed from.

The issues raised by the parties, aside from said division made during the trial, and which have been submitted to this court for decision, concern: (1) The indemnity claimed for losses and damages, which the plaintiffs allege amount to P8,000, in addition to the rents which should have been derived from the house on Calle Escolta, Vigan; (2) the payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the sum of P1,299.08, demanded by way of counterclaim, together with legal interest thereon from December 7, 1904; (3) the payment to the husband of the defendant Matilde Ortiz, of a percentage claimed to be due him as the administrator of the property of common ownership; (4) the division of certain jewelry in the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz; and (5) the petition that the amendment be held to have been improperly admitted, which was made by the plaintiffs in their written motion of August 21, 1905, against the opposition of the defendants, through which admission the latter were obliged to pay the former P910.50.lawphil.net

Before entering upon an explanation of the propriety or impropriety of the claims made by both parties, it is indispensable to state that the trial judge, in absolving the defendants from the complaint, held that they had not caused losses and damages to the plaintiffs, and that the revenues and the expenses were compensated, in view of the fact that the defendants had been living for several years in the Calle Escolta house, which was pro indivisoproperty of joint ownership.

By this finding absolving the defendants from the complaint, and which was acquiesced in by the plaintiffs who made no appeal therefrom, the first issue has been decided which was raised by the plaintiffs, concerning the indemnity for losses and damages, wherein are comprised the rents which should have been obtained from the upper story of the said house during the time it was occupied by the defendants, Matilde Ortiz and her husband, Gaspar de Bartolome.

Notwithstanding the acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs, assenting to the said finding whereby the defendants were absolved from the complaint, yet, as such absolution is based on the compensation established in the judgment of the trial court, between the amounts which each party is entitled to claim from the other, it is imperative to determine whether the defendant Matilde Ortiz, as coowner of the house on Calle Escolta, was entitled, with her husband, to reside therein, without paying to her coowner, Vicenta Ortiz, who, during the greater part of the time, lived with her husband abroad, one-half of the rents which the upper story would have produced, had it been rented to a stranger.

Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes:

Each coowner may use the things owned in common, provided he uses them in accordance with their object and in such manner as not to injure the interests of the community nor prevent the coowners from utilizing them according to their rights.

Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed for use as a dwelling, in the house of joint ownership; but the record shows no proof that, by so doing, the said Matilde occasioned any detriment to the interest of the community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta from utilizing the said upper story according to her rights. It is to be noted that the stores of the lower floor were rented and accounting of the rents was duly made to the plaintiffs.

Each coowner of realty held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his coowners, for the reason that, until a division be made, the respective part of each holder can not be determined and every one of the coowners exercises, together with his other coparticipants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.

As the hereditary properties of the joint ownership of the two sisters, Vicenta Ortiz, plaintiff, and Matilde Ortiz, defendant, were situated in the Province of Ilocos Sur, and were in the care of the last named, assisted by her husband, while the plaintiff Vicenta with her husband was residing outside of the said province the greater part of the time between 1885 and 1905, when she left these Islands for Spain, it is not at all strange that delays and difficulties should have attended the efforts made to collect the rents and proceeds from the property held in common and to obtain a partition of the latter, especially during several years when, owing to the insurrection, the country was in a turmoil; and for this reason, aside from that founded on the right of coownership of the defendants, who took upon themselves the administration and care of the properties of joint tenancy for purposes of their preservation and improvement, these latter are not obliged to pay to the plaintiff Vicenta one-half of the rents which might have been derived from the upper of the story of the said house on Calle Escolta, and, much less, because one of the living rooms and the storeroom thereof were used for the storage of some belongings and effects of common ownership between the litigants. The defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupying with her husband the upper floor of the said house, did not injure the interests of her coowner, her sister Vicenta, nor did she prevent the latter from living therein, but merely exercised a legitimate right pertaining to her as coowner of the property.

Notwithstanding the above statements relative to the joint-ownership rights which entitled the defendants to live in the upper story of the said house, yet in view of the fact that the record shows it to have been proved that the defendant Matilde's husband, Gaspar de Bartolome, occupied for four years a room or a part of the lower floor of the same house on Calle Escolta, using it as an office for the justice of the peace, a position which he held in the capital of that province, strict justice, requires that he pay his sister-in-law, the plaintiff, one half of the monthly rent which the said quarters could have produced, had they been leased to another person. The amount of such monthly rental is fixed at P16 in accordance with the evidence shown in the

record. This conclusion as to Bartolome's liability results from the fact that, even as the husband of the defendant coowner of the property, he had no right to occupy and use gratuitously the said part of the lower floor of the house in question, where he lived with his wife, to the detriment of the plaintiff Vicenta who did not receive one-half of the rent which those quarters could and should have produced, had they been occupied by a stranger, in the same manner that rent was obtained from the rooms on the lower floor that were used as stores. Therefore, the defendant Bartolome must pay to the plaintiff Vicenta P384, that is, one-half of P768, the total amount of the rents which should have been obtained during four years from the quarters occupied as an office by the justice of the peace of Vigan.

With respect to the second question submitted for decision to this court, relative to the payment of the sum demanded as a counterclaim, it was admitted and proved in the present case that, as a result of a serious earthquake on August 15, 1897, the said house on Calle Escolta was left in ruins and uninhabitable, and that, for its reconstruction or repair, the defendants had to expend the sum of P6,252.32. This expenditure, notwithstanding that it was impugned, during the trial, by the plaintiffs, was duly proved by the evidence presented by the defendants. Evidence, unsuccessfully rebutted, was also introduced which proved that the rents produced by all the rural and urban properties of common ownership amounted, up to August 1, 1905, to the sum of P3,654.15 which, being applied toward the cost of the repair work on the said house, leaves a balance of P2,598.17, the amount actually advanced by the defendants, for the rents collected by them were not sufficient for the termination of all the work undertaken on the said building, necessary for its complete repair and to replace it in a habitable condition. It is therefore lawful and just that the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz, who was willing to sell to her sister Matilde for P1,500, her share in the house in question, when it was in a ruinous state, should pay the defendants one-half of the amount expanded in the said repair work, since the building after reconstruction was worth P9,000, according to expert appraisal. Consequently, the counterclaim made by the defendants for the payment to them of the sum of P1,299.08, is a proper demand, though from this sum a reduction must be made of P384, the amount of one-half of the rents which should have been collected for the use of the quarters occupied by the justice of the peace, the payment of which is incumbent upon the husband of the defendant Matilde, as aforesaid, and the balance remaining, P915.08, is the amount which the plaintiff Vicenta must pay to the defendants.

The defendants claim to be entitled to the collection of legal interest on the amount of the counterclaim, from December 7, 1904. This contention can not be sustained, inasmuch as, until this suit is finally decided, it could not be known whether the plaintiffs would or would not be obliged to pay the sum whatever in reimbursement of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the repair work on the said house on Calle Escolta, whether or not the defendants, in turn, were entitled to collect any such amount, and, finally, what the net sum would be which the plaintiff's might have to pay as reimbursement for one-half of the expenditure made by the defendants. Until final disposal of the case, no such net sum can be determined, nor until then can the debtor be deemed to be in arrears. In order that there be an obligation to pay legal interest in connection with a matter at issue between the parties, it must be declared in a judicial decision from what date the interest will be due on the principal concerned in the suit. This rule has been established by the decisions of the supreme court of Spain, in reference to articles 1108, 1109, and 1110 of the Civil Code, reference on April 24, 1867, November 19, 1869, and February 22, 1901.

With regard to the percentage, as remuneration claimed by the husband of the defendant Matilde for his administration of the property of common ownership, inasmuch as no stipulation whatever was made in the matter by and between him and his sister-in-law, the said defendant, the claimant is not entitled to the payment of any remuneration whatsoever. Of his own accord and as an officious manager, he administered the said pro indivisoproperty, one-half of which belonged to his wife who held it in joint tenancy, with his sister-in-law, and the law does not allow him any compensation as such voluntary administrator. He is merely entitled to a reimbursement for such actual and necessary expenditures as he may have made on the undivided properties and an indemnity for the damages he may have suffered while acting in that capacity, since at all events it was his duty to care for and preserve the said property, half of which belonged to his wife; and in exchange for the trouble occasioned him by the administration of his sister-in-law's half of the said property, he with his wife resided in the upper story of the house aforementioned, without payment of one-half of the rents said quarters might have produced had they been leased to another person.

With respect to the division of certain jewelry, petitioned for by the defendants and appellants only in their brief in this appeal, the record of the proceedings in the lower court does not show that the allegation made by the plaintiff Vicenta is not true, to the effect that the deceased mother of the litigant sisters disposed of this jewelry during her lifetime, because, had she not done so, the will made by the said deceased would have been exhibited in which the said jewelry would have been mentioned, at least it would have been proved that the articles in question came into the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta without the expressed desire and the consent of the deceased mother of the said sisters, for the gift of this jewelry was previously assailed in the courts, without success; therefore, and in view of its inconsiderable value, there is no reason for holding that the said gift was not made.

As regards the collection of the sum of P910.50, which is the difference between the assessed value of the undivided real properties and the price of the same as determined by the judicial expert appraiser, it is shown by the record that the ruling of the trial judge admitting the amendment to the original complaint, is in accord with the law and principles of justice, for the reason that any of the coowners of a pro indiviso property, subject to division or sale, is entitled to petition for its valuation by competent expert appraisers. Such valuation is not prejudicial to any of the joint owners, but is beneficial to their interests, considering that, as a general rule, the assessed value of a building or a parcel of realty is less than the actual real value of the property, and this being appraiser to determine, in conjunction with the one selected by the plaintiffs, the value of the properties of joint ownership. These two experts took part in the latter proceedings of the suit until finally, and during the course of the latter, the litigating parties agreed to an amicable division of the pro indiviso hereditary property, in accordance with the price fixed by the judicial expert appraiser appointed as a third party, in view of the disagreement between and nonconformity of the appraisers chosen by the litigants. Therefore it is improper now to claim a right to the collection of the said sum, the difference between the assessed value and that fixed by the judicial expert appraiser, for the reason that the increase in price, as determined by this latter appraisal, redounded to the benefit of both parties.

In consideration of the foregoing, whereby the errors assigned to the lower court have been duly refuted, it is our opinion that, with a partial reversal of the judgment

appealed from, in so far as it absolves the plaintiffs from the counterclaim presented by the defendants, we should and hereby do sentence the plaintiffs to the payment of the sum of P915.08, the balance of the sum claimed by the defendants as a balance of the one-half of the amount which the defendants advanced for the reconstruction or repair of the Calle Escolta house, after deducting from the total of such sum claimed by the latter the amount of P384 which Gaspar de Bartolome, the husband of the defendant Matilde, should have paid as one-half of the rents due for his occupation of the quarters on the lower floor of the said house as an office for the justice of the peace court of Vigan; and we further find: (1) That the defendants are not obliged to pay one-half of the rents which could have been obtained from the upper story of the said house; (2) that the plaintiffs can not be compelled to pay the legal interest from December 7, 1904, on the sum expanded in the reconstruction of the aforementioned house, but only the interest fixed by law, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the date of the judgment to be rendered in accordance with this decision; (3) that the husband of the defendant Matilde Ortiz is not entitled to any remuneration for the administration of the pro indivisoproperty belonging to both parties; (4) that, neither is he entitled to collect from the plaintiffs the sum of P910.50, the difference between the assessed valuation and the price set by the expert appraisal solicited by the plaintiffs in their amendment to the complaint; and, (5) that no participation shall be made of jewelry aforementioned now in the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta Ortiz. The said judgment, as relates to the points appealed, is affirmed, in so far as its findings agree with those of this decision, and is reversed, in so far as they do not. No special finding is made regarding the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.

Facts: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were the existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin. On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de Bartolome y Escribano took it upon themselves without an judicial authorization or even extra judicial agreement the administration of the properties of the late Calixta and Miguel. These properties included a house in Escolta Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a house in Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in Magallanes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land in Candon, Ilocos Sur. 

Vicenta filed an action in court asking that the judgement be rendered in restoring and returning to them one half of the total valueof the fruits and rents, plus losses and damages from the aforementioned properties. However, respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to give the plaintiff her share of the said properties. Vicenta also argued that Matilde and her husband, Gaspar are obliged to pay rent to the former for their occupation of the upper story of the house in Escolta Street. 

Issue: Whether or not Matilde and Gaspar are obliged to pay rent for their occupation of the said property 

Held: No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not liable to pay rent. Their occupation of the said property was a mere exercise of their right to use the same as a co-owner. One of the limitations on a co-owner’s right of use is that he must use it in such a way so as not to injure the interest of the other co-owners. In the case at bar,

the other party failed to provide proof that by the occupation of the spouses Bartolome, they prevented Vicenta from utilizing the same.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 76351 October 29, 1993

VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SENEN B. AGUILAR, respondents.

Jose F. Manacop for petitioner.

Siruello, Muyco & Associates Law Office for private respondent.

 

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 03933 declaring null and void the orders of 23 and 26 April, 1979, the judgment by default of 26 July 1979, and the order of 22 October 1979 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City, Branch 30, and directing the trial court to set the case for pre-trial conference.

Petitioner Virgilio and respondent Senen are brothers; Virgilio is the youngest of seven (7) children of the late Maximiano Aguilar, while Senen is the fifth. On 28 October 1969, the two brothers purchased a house and lot in Parañaque where their father could spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. Initially, the brothers agreed that Virgilio's share in the co-ownership was two-thirds while that of Senen was one-third. By virtue of a written memorandum dated 23 February 1970, Virgilio and Senen agreed that henceforth their interests in the house and lot should be equal, with Senen assuming the remaining mortgage obligation of the original owners with the Social Security System (SSS) in exchange for his possession and enjoyment of the house together with their father.

Since Virgilio was then disqualified from obtaining a loan from SSS, the brothers agreed that the deed of sale would be executed and the title registered in the meantime in the name of Senen. It was further agreed that Senen would take care of their father and his needs since Virgilio and his family were staying in Cebu.

After Maximiano Aguilar died in 1974, petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them.

Because of the refusal of respondent to give in to petitioner's demands, the latter filed on 12 January 1979 an action to compel the sale of the house and lot so that the they could divide the proceeds between them.

In his complaint, petitioner prayed that the proceeds of the sale, be divided on the basis of two-thirds (2/3) in his favor and one-third (1/3) to respondent. Petitioner also prayed for monthly rentals for the use of the house by respondent after their father died.

In his answer with counterclaim, respondent alleged that he had no objection to the sale as long as the best selling price could be obtained; that if the sale would be effected, the proceeds thereof should be divided equally; and, that being a co-owner, he was entitled to the use and enjoyment of the property.

Upon issues being joined, the case was set for pre-trial on 26 April 1979 with the lawyers of both parties notified of the pre-trial, and served with the pre-trial order, with private respondent executing a special power of attorney to his lawyer to appear at the pre-trial and enter into any amicable settlement in his behalf. 1

On 20 April 1979, Atty. Manuel S. Tonogbanua, counsel for respondent, filed a motion to cancel pre-trial on the ground that he would be accompanying his wife to Dumaguete City where she would be a principal sponsor in a wedding.

On 23 April 1979, finding the reasons of counsel to be without merit, the trial court denied the motion and directed that the pre-trial should continue as scheduled.

When the case was called for pre-trial as scheduled on 26 April 1979, plaintiff and his counsel appeared. Defendant did not appear; neither his counsel in whose favor he executed a special power of attorney to represent him at the pre-trial. Consequently, the trial court, on motion of plaintiff, declared defendant as in default and ordered reception of plaintiff's evidence ex parte.

On 7 May 1979, defendant through counsel filed an omnibus motion to reconsider the order of default and to defer reception of evidence. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff presented his evidence.

On 26 July 1979, rendering judgment by default against defendant, the trial court found him and plaintiff to be co-owners of the house and lot, in equal shares on the basis of their written agreement. However, it ruled that plaintiff has been deprived of his participation in the property by defendant's continued enjoyment of the house and lot, free of rent, despite demands for rentals and continued maneuvers of defendants, to delay partition. The trial court also upheld the right of plaintiff as co-owner to demand partition. Since plaintiff could not agree to the amount offered by defendant for the former's share, the trial court held that this property should be sold to a third person and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.

The trial court likewise ordered defendant to vacate the property and pay plaintiff P1,200.00 as rentals 2 from January 1975 up to the date of decision plus interest from the time the action was filed.

On 17 September 1979, defendant filed an omnibus motion for new trial but on 22 October 1979 the trial court denied the motion.

Defendant sought relief from the Court of Appeals praying that the following orders and decision of the trial court be set aside: (a) the order of 23 April 1970 denying defendants motion for postponement of the pre-trial set on 26 April 1979; (b) the order of 26 April 1979 declaring him in default and authorizing plaintiff to present his evidenceex-parte; (e) the default judgment of 26 July 1979; and, (d) the order dated 22 October 1979 denying his omnibus motion for new trial.

On 16 October 1986, the Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court of 26 April 1979 as well as the assailed judgment rendered by default., The appellate court found the explanation of counsel for defendant in his motion to cancel pre-trial as satisfactory and devoid of a manifest intention to delay the disposition of the case. It also ruled that the trial court should have granted the motion for postponement filed by counsel for defendant who should not have been declared as in default for the absence of his counsel.

Petitioner now comes to us alleging that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in not holding that the motion of defendant through counsel to cancel the pre-trial was dilatory in character and (2) in remanding the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial.

The issues to be resolved are whether the trial court correctly declared respondent as in default for his failure to appear at the pre-trial and in allowing petitioner to present his evidence ex-parte, and whether the trial court correctly rendered the default judgment against respondent.

We find merit in the petition.

As regards the first issue, the law is clear that the appearance of parties at the pre-trial is mandatory. 3 A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. 4 In the case at bar, where private respondent and counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, the trial, court has authority to declare respondent in default. 5

Although respondent's counsel filed a motion to postpone pre-trial hearing, the grant or denial thereof is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should take into account two factors in the grant or denial of motions for postponement, namely: (a) the reason for the postponement and (b) the merits of the case of movant. 6

In the instant case, the trial court found the reason stated in the motion of counsel for respondent to cancel the pre-trial to be without merit. Counsel's explanation that he had to go to by boat as early as 25 March 1979 to fetch his wife and accompany her to a wedding in Dumaguete City on 27 April 1979 where she was one of the principal sponsors, cannot be accepted. We find it insufficient to justify postponement of the

pre-trial, and the Court of Appeals did not act wisely in overruling the denial. We sustain the trial court and rule that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the postponement for lack of merit. Certainly, to warrant a postponement of a mandatory process as pre-trial would require much more than mere attendance in a social function. It is time indeed we emphasize that there should be much more than mere perfunctory treatment of the pre-trial procedure. Its observance must be taken seriously if it is to attain its objective, i.e., the speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases.

Moreover, the trial court denied the motion for postponement three (3) days before the scheduled pre-trial. If indeed, counsel for respondent could not attend the pre-trial on the scheduled date, respondent at least should have personally appeared in order not to be declared as in default. But, since nobody appeared for him, the order of the trial court declaring him as in default and directing the presentation of petitioner's evidence ex parte was proper. 7

With regard to the merits of the judgment of the trial court by default, which respondent appellate court did not touch upon in resolving the appeal, the Court holds that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence presented ex parte, petitioner and respondents are co-owners of subject house and lot in equal shares; either one of them may demand the sale of the house and lot at any time and the other cannot object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally according to their respective interests.

Private respondent and his family refuse to pay monthly rentals to petitioner from the time their father died in 1975 and to vacate the house so that it can be sold to third persons. Petitioner alleges that respondent's continued stay in the property hinders its disposal to the prejudice of petitioner. On the part of petitioner, he claims that he should be paid two-thirds (2/3) of a monthly rental of P2,400.00 or the sum of P1,600.00.

In resolving the dispute, the trial court ordered respondent to vacate the property so that it could be sold to third persons and the proceeds divided between them equally, and for respondent to pay petitioner one-half (1/2) of P2,400.00 or the sum of P1,200.00 as monthly rental, conformably with their stipulated sharing reflected in their written agreement.

We uphold the trial court in ruling in favor of petitioner, except as to the effectivity of the payment of monthly rentals by respondent as co-owner which we here declare to commence only after the trial court ordered respondent to vacate in accordance with its order of 26 July 1979.

Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially, indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be, allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to (1) when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co-owners but because of the nature of the property it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would prejudice

the interests of the co-owners, and (b) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who among them shall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement of the co-owners. In one case, 8 this Court upheld the order of the trial court directing the holding of a public sale of the properties owned in common pursuant to Art. 498 of the Civil Code.

However, being a co-owner respondent has the right to use the house and lot without paying any compensation to petitioner, as he may use the property owned in common long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other co-owners. 9 Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, the reason being that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants joint ownership over the pro indivisoproperty, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the same. 10

Since petitioner has decided to enforce his right in court to end the co-ownership of the house and lot and respondent has not refuted the allegation that he has been preventing the sale of the property by his continued occupancy of the premises, justice and equity demand that respondent and his family vacate the property so that the sale can be effected immediately. In fairness to petitioner, respondent should pay a rental of P1,200.00 per month, with legal interest; from the time the trial court ordered him to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the property appertaining to petitioner.

When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased. Thereafter, the continued stay of respondent and his family in the house prejudiced the interest of petitioner as the property should have been sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. To this extent and from then on, respondent should be held liable for monthly rentals until he and his family vacate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 October 1986 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 69.12-P dated 16 July 1979 is REINSTATED, with the modification that respondent Senen B. Aguilar is ordered to vacate the premises in question within ninety (90) days from receipt of this and to pay petitioner Virgilio B. Aguilar a monthly rental of P1,200.00 with interest at the legal rate from the time he received the decision of the trial court directing him to vacate until he effectively leaves the premises.

The trial court is further directed to take immediate steps to implement this decision conformably with Art. 498 of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court. This decision is final and executory.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Davide, Jr., Quiason, JJ., concur.

FACTS:

Petitioner Vergilio and respondent Senen bought a house and lot in Paraňaque where their father could spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. They initially agreed that Vergilio will get 2/3 and Senen will get 1/3; but later they agreed on equal shares. Senen was left in the said lot to take care of their father since Vergilio’s family was in Cebu. After their father’s death petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them but the latter refused. Petitioner then filed to compel the sale of the property. The chunk of the issue tackled by the courts was regarding the pre-trial. Respondent filed a motion to cancel Pre-trial since the counsel had to accompany his wife in Dumaguete City where she would be a principal sponsor in a wedding. CFI denied the motion; and the pre-trial proceeded on the scheduled date. The respondents did not appear thus they were declared in default. The trial went on ex parte without the respondent and held that the property should be sold to a third party and that the proceeds be distributed to the parties; in addition respondent was made to pay rent from the time the action was filed. Respondents appealed this and the decision was reversed by the CA saying that the TC erred in declaring respondents in default; the case was then remanded to the trial court. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:

A) W/N CA erred (1) in holding that the motion of respondent through counsel to cancel the pre-trial was dilatory in character and (2) in remanding the case to the trial court for pre-trial and trial?

ISSUE RELEVANT TO PROPERTY:

B) W/N trial court was correct with regards to the sale and rent?

RULING:

A) YES, CA erred in granting the respondents motion and remanding the case. The law is clear that the appearance of parties at the pretrial is mandatory. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. It is the discretion of the court to grant the motion if it sees that the reason for the cancelation of the same would be reasonable. SC found that the reason for the cancelation of the pre-trial was insufficient and that the trial court was not in grave abuse of discretion when they denied it.

B) YES, with a few modification. Petitioner and respondents are co-owners of subject house and lot in equal shares; either one of them may demand the sale of the house

and lot at any time and the other cannot object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally according to their respective interests.

BASIS: Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed.

SC held that ½ of the proceeds should go to the petitioner and the remainder to the respondent (1,200 each.) Also rent was awarded 1,200 pesos per month with legal interest from the time the trial court ordered the respondent to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the property.BASIS: When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4726 June 18, 1966

AN ACT TO DEFINE CONDOMINIUM, ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS CREATION, AND GOVERN ITS INCIDENTS.

Sec. 1. The short title of this Act shall be "The Condominium Act".

Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas.

The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in real property recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.

Sec. 3. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Condominium" means a condominium as defined in the next preceding section.

(b) "Unit" means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces located in one or more floors (or part or parts of floors) in a building or buildings and such accessories as may be appended thereto.

(c) "Project" means the entire parcel of real property divided or to be divided in condominiums, including all structures thereon,

(d) "Common areas" means the entire project excepting all units separately granted or held or reserved.

(e) "To divide" real property means to divide the ownership thereof or other interest therein by conveying one or more condominiums therein but less than the whole thereof.

Sec. 4. The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to be divided into condominiums only if there shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds of the province or city in which the property lies and duly annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the land, if the latter had been patented or registered under either the Land

Registration or Cadastral Acts, an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among others, the following:

(a) Description of the land on which the building or buildings and improvements are or are to be located;

(b) Description of the building or buildings, stating the number of stories and basements, the number of units and their accessories, if any;

(c) Description of the common areas and facilities;

(d) A statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be acquired by the purchaser in the separate units and in the common areas of the condominium project. Where title to or the appurtenant interests in the common areas is or is to be held by a condominium corporation, a statement to this effect shall be included;

(e) Statement of the purposes for which the building or buildings and each of the units are intended or restricted as to use;

(f) A certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than those executing the master deed, as well as of all registered holders of any lien or encumbrance on the property, that they consent to the registration of the deed;

(g) The following plans shall be appended to the deed as integral parts thereof:

(1) A survey plan of the land included in the project, unless a survey plan of the same property had previously bee filed in said office;

(2) A diagrammatic floor plan of the building or buildings in the project, in sufficient detail to identify each unit, its relative location and approximate dimensions;

(h) Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law, morals or public policy regarding the right of any condominium owner to alienate or dispose of his condominium.

The enabling or master deed may be amended or revoked upon registration of an instrument executed by the registered owner or owners of the property and consented to by all registered holders of any lien or encumbrance on the land or building or portion thereof. The term "registered owner" shall include the registered owners of condominiums in the project. Until registration of a revocation, the provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to such property.

Sec. 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or store or other space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided interests in the common areas or, in a proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the condominium corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons

other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by existing laws.

Sec. 6. Unless otherwise expressly provided in the enabling or master deed or the declaration of restrictions, the incidents of a condominium grant are as follows:

(a) The boundary of the unit granted are the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, windows and doors thereof. The following are not part of the unit bearing walls, columns, floors, roofs, foundations and other common structural elements of the building; lobbies, stairways, hallways, and other areas of common use, elevator equipment and shafts, central heating, central refrigeration and central air-conditioning equipment, reservoirs, tanks, pumps and other central services and facilities, pipes, ducts, flues, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations, wherever located, except the outlets thereof when located within the unit.

(b) There shall pass with the unit, as an appurtenance thereof, an exclusive easement for the use of the air space encompassed by the boundaries of the unit as it exists at any particular time and as the unit may lawfully be altered or reconstructed from time to time. Such easement shall be automatically terminated in any air space upon destruction of the unit as to render it untenantable.

(c) Unless otherwise, provided, the common areas are held in common by the holders of units, in equal shares, one for each unit.

(d) A non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and support through the common areas is appurtenant to each unit and the common areas are subject to such easements.

(e) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to paint, repaint, tile, wax, paper or otherwise refinish and decorate the inner surfaces of the walls, ceilings, floors, windows and doors bounding his own unit.

(f) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to mortgage, pledge or encumber his condominium and to have the same appraised independently of the other condominiums but any obligation incurred by such condominium owner is personal to him.

(g) Each condominium owner has also the absolute right to sell or dispose of his condominium unless the master deed contains a requirement that the property be first offered to the condominium owners within a reasonable period of time before the same is offered to outside parties;

Sec. 7. Except as provided in the following section, the common areas shall remain undivided, and there shall be no judicial partition thereof.

Sec. 8. Where several persons own condominiums in a condominium project, an action may be brought by one or more such persons for partition thereof by sale of the entire project, as if the owners of all of the condominiums in such project were co-owners of the entire project in the same proportion as their interests in the common areas:Provided, however, That a partition shall be made only upon a showing:

(a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project which renders material part thereof unit for its use prior thereto, the project has not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its damage or destruction, or

(b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one-half or more of the units therein untenantable and that condominium owners holding in aggregate more than thirty percent interest in the common areas are opposed to repair or restoration of the project; or

(c) That the project has been in existence in excess of fifty years, that it is obsolete and uneconomic, and that condominium owners holding in aggregate more than fifty percent interest in the common areas are opposed to repair or restoration or remodeling or modernizing of the project; or

(d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the condominium owners holding in aggregate more than seventy percent interest in the common areas are opposed to continuation of the condominium regime after expropriation or condemnation of a material portion thereof; or

(e) That the conditions for such partition by sale set forth in the declaration of restrictions, duly registered in accordance with the terms of this Act, have been met.

Sec. 9. The owner of a project shall, prior to the conveyance of any condominium therein, register a declaration of restrictions relating to such project, which restrictions shall constitute a lien upon each condominium in the project, and shall insure to and bind all condominium owners in the project. Such liens, unless otherwise provided, may be enforced by any condominium owner in the project or by the management body of such project. The Register of Deeds shall enter and annotate the declaration of restrictions upon the certificate of title covering the land included within the project, if the land is patented or registered under the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts.

The declaration of restrictions shall provide for the management of the project by anyone of the following management bodies: a condominium corporation, an association of the condominium owners, a board of governors elected by condominium owners, or a management agent elected by the owners or by the board named in the declaration. It shall also provide for voting majorities quorums, notices, meeting date, and other rules governing such body or bodies.

Such declaration of restrictions, among other things, may also provide:

(a) As to any such management body;

(1) For the powers thereof, including power to enforce the provisions of the declarations of restrictions;

(2) For maintenance of insurance policies, insuring condominium owners against loss by fire, casualty, liability, workmen's compensation and other insurable risks, and for bonding of the members of any management body;

(3) Provisions for maintenance, utility, gardening and other services benefiting the common areas, for the employment of personnel necessary for the operation of the building, and legal, accounting and other professional and technical services;

(4) For purchase of materials, supplies and the like needed by the common areas;

(5) For payment of taxes and special assessments which would be a lien upon the entire project or common areas, and for discharge of any lien or encumbrance levied against the entire project or the common areas;

(6) For reconstruction of any portion or portions of any damage to or destruction of the project;

(7) The manner for delegation of its powers;

(8) For entry by its officers and agents into any unit when necessary in connection with the maintenance or construction for which such body is responsible;

(9) For a power of attorney to the management body to sell the entire project for the benefit of all of the owners thereof when partition of the project may be authorized under Section 8 of this Act, which said power shall be binding upon all of the condominium owners regardless of whether they assume the obligations of the restrictions or not.

(b) The manner and procedure for amending such restrictions: Provided, That the vote of not less than a majority in interest of the owners is obtained.

(c) For independent audit of the accounts of the management body;

(d) For reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures, each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owners fractional interest in any common areas;

(e) For the subordination of the liens securing such assessments to other liens either generally or specifically described;

(f) For conditions, other than those provided for in Sections eight and thirteen of this Act, upon which partition of the project and dissolution of the condominium corporation may be made. Such right to partition or dissolution may be conditioned upon failure of the condominium owners to rebuild within a certain period or upon

specified inadequacy of insurance proceeds, or upon specified percentage of damage to the building, or upon a decision of an arbitrator, or upon any other reasonable condition.

Sec. 10. Whenever the common areas in a condominium project are held by a condominium corporation, such corporation shall constitute the management body of the project. The corporate purposes of such a corporation shall be limited to the holding of the common areas, either in ownership or any other interest in real property recognized by law, to the management of the project, and to such other purposes as may be necessary, incidental or convenient to the accomplishment of said purposes. The articles of incorporation or by-laws of the corporation shall not contain any provision contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the enabling or master deed, or the declaration of restrictions of the project. Membership in a condominium corporation, regardless of whether it is a stock or non-stock corporation, shall not be transferable separately from the condominium unit of which it is an appurtenance. When a member or stockholder ceases to own a unit in the project in which the condominium corporation owns or holds the common areas, he shall automatically cease to be a member or stockholder of the condominium corporation.

Sec. 11. The term of a condominium corporation shall be co-terminus with the duration of the condominium project, the provisions of the Corporation Law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sec. 12. In case of involuntary dissolution of a condominium corporation for any of the causes provided by law, the common areas owned or held by the corporation shall, by way of liquidation, be transferred pro-indiviso and in proportion to their interest in the corporation to the members or stockholders thereof, subject to the superior rights of the corporation creditors. Such transfer or conveyance shall be deemed to be a full liquidation of the interest of such members or stockholders in the corporation. After such transfer or conveyance, the provisions of this Act governing undivided co-ownership of, or undivided interest in, the common areas in condominium projects shall fully apply.

Sec. 13. Until the enabling or the master deed of the project in which the condominium corporation owns or holds the common area is revoked, the corporation shall not be voluntarily dissolved through an action for dissolution under Rule 104 of the Rules of Court except upon a showing:

(a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project in which the corporation owns or holds the common areas, which damage or destruction renders a material part thereof unfit for its use prior thereto, the project has not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its damage or destruction; or

(b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one-half or more of the units therein untenantable and that more than thirty percent of the members of the corporation, if non-stock, or the shareholders representing more than thirty percent of the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock corporation, are opposed to the repair or reconstruction of the project, or

(c) That the project has been in existence in excess of fifty years, that it is obsolete and uneconomical, and that more than fifty percent of the members of the corporation, if non-stock, or the stockholders representing more than fifty percent of the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock corporation, are opposed to the repair or restoration or remodeling or modernizing of the project; or

(d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the members holding in aggregate more than seventy percent interest in the corporation, if non-stock, or the stockholders representing more than seventy percent of the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock corporation, are opposed to the continuation of the condominium regime after expropriation or condemnation of a material portion thereof; or

(e) That the conditions for such a dissolution set forth in the declaration of restrictions of the project in which the corporation owns of holds the common areas, have been met.

Sec. 14. The condominium corporation may also be dissolved by the affirmative vote of all the stockholders or members thereof at a general or special meeting duly called for the purpose: Provided, That all the requirements of Section sixty-two of the Corporation Law are complied with.

Sec. 15. Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration of restrictions upon voluntary dissolution of a condominium corporation in accordance with the provisions of Sections thirteen and fourteen of this Act, the corporation shall be deemed to hold a power of attorney from all the members or stockholders to sell and dispose of their separate interests in the project and liquidation of the corporation shall be effected by a sale of the entire project as if the corporation owned the whole thereof, subject to the rights of the corporate and of individual condominium creditors.

Sec. 16. A condominium corporation shall not, during its existence, sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of the common areas owned or held by it in the condominium project unless authorized by the affirmative vote of all the stockholders or members.

Sec. 17. Any provision of the Corporation Law to the contrary notwithstanding, the by-laws of a condominium corporation shall provide that a stockholder or member shall not be entitled to demand payment of his shares or interest in those cases where such right is granted under the Corporation Law unless he consents to sell his separate interest in the project to the corporation or to any purchaser of the corporation's choice who shall also buy from the corporation the dissenting member or stockholder's interest. In case of disagreement as to price, the procedure set forth in the appropriate provision of the Corporation Law for valuation of shares shall be followed. The corporation shall have two years within which to pay for the shares or furnish a purchaser of its choice from the time of award. All expenses incurred in the liquidation of the interest of the dissenting member or stockholder shall be borne by him.

Sec. 18. Upon registration of an instrument conveying a condominium, the Register of Deeds shall, upon payment of the proper fees, enter and annotate the conveyance on the certificate of title covering the land included within the project and the transferee shall be entitled to the issuance of a "condominium owner's" copy of the pertinent portion of such certificate of title. Said "condominium owner's" copy need not reproduce the ownership status or series of transactions in force or annotated with respect to other condominiums in the project. A copy of the description of the land, a brief description of the condominium conveyed, name and personal circumstances of the condominium owner would be sufficient for purposes of the "condominium owner's" copy of the certificate of title. No conveyance of condominiums or part thereof, subsequent to the original conveyance thereof from the owner of the project, shall be registered unless accompanied by a certificate of the management body of the project that such conveyance is in accordance with the provisions of the declaration of restrictions of such project.

In cases of condominium projects registered under the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law or Act 3344, as amended, the registration of the deed of conveyance of a condominium shall be sufficient if the Register of Deeds shall keep the original or signed copy thereof, together with the certificate of the management body of the project, and return a copy of the deed of conveyance to the condominium owner duly acknowledge and stamped by the Register of Deeds in the same manner as in the case of registration of conveyances of real property under said laws.

Sec. 19. Where the enabling or master deed provides that the land included within a condominium project are to be owned in common by the condominium owners therein, the Register of Deeds may, at the request of all the condominium owners and upon surrender of all their "condominium owner's" copies, cancel the certificates of title of the property and issue a new one in the name of said condominium owners as pro-indiviso co-owners thereof.

Sec. 20. An assessment upon any condominium made in accordance with a duly registered declaration of restrictions shall be an obligation of the owner thereof at the time the assessment is made. The amount of any such assessment plus any other charges thereon, such as interest, costs (including attorney's fees) and penalties, as such may be provided for in the declaration of restrictions, shall be and become a lien upon the condominium assessed when the management body causes a notice of assessment to be registered with the Register of Deeds of the city or province where such condominium project is located. The notice shall state the amount of such assessment and such other charges thereon a may be authorized by the declaration of restrictions, a description of the condominium, unit against which same has been assessed, and the name of the registered owner thereof. Such notice shall be signed by an authorized representative of the management body or as otherwise provided in the declaration of restrictions. Upon payment of said assessment and charges or other satisfaction thereof, the management body shall cause to be registered a release of the lien.

Such lien shall be superior to all other liens registered subsequent to the registration of said notice of assessment except real property tax liens and except that the declaration of restrictions may provide for the subordination thereof to any other liens and encumbrances.

Such liens may be enforced in the same manner provided for by law for the judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages of real property. Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration of restrictions, the management body shall have power to bid at foreclosure sale. The condominium owner shall have the same right of redemption as in cases of judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages.

Sec. 21. No labor performed or services or materials furnished with the consent of or at the request of a condominium owner or his agent or his contractor or subcontractor, shall be the basis of a lien against the condominium of any other condominium owner, unless such other owners have expressly consented to or requested the performance of such labor or furnishing of such materials or services. Such express consent shall be deemed to have been given by the owner of any condominium in the case of emergency repairs of his condominium unit. Labor performed or services or materials furnished for the common areas, if duly authorized by the management body provided for in a declaration of restrictions governing the property, shall be deemed to be performed or furnished with the express consent of each condominium owner. The owner of any condominium may remove his condominium from a lien against two or more condominiums or any part thereof by payment to the holder of the lien of the fraction of the total sum secured by such lien which is attributable to his condominium unit.

Sec. 22. Unless otherwise provided for by the declaration of restrictions, the management body, provided for herein, may acquire and hold, for the benefit of the condominium owners, tangible and intangible personal property and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise; and the beneficial interest in such personal property shall be owned by the condominium owners in the same proportion as their respective interests in the common areas. A transfer of a condominium shall transfer to the transferee ownership of the transferor's beneficial interest in such personal property.

Sec. 23. Where, in an action for partition of a condominium project or for the dissolution of condominium corporation on the ground that the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or expropriated, the Court finds that the conditions provided for in this Act or in the declaration of restrictions have not been met, the Court may decree a reorganization of the project, declaring which portion or portions of the project shall continue as a condominium project, the owners thereof, and the respective rights of said remaining owners and the just compensation, if any, that a condominium owner may be entitled to due to deprivation of his property. Upon receipt of a copy of the decree, the Register of Deeds shall enter and annotate the same on the pertinent certificate of title.

Sec. 24. Any deed, declaration or plan for a condominium project shall be liberally construed to facilitate the operation of the project, and its provisions shall be presumed to be independent and severable.

Sec. 25. Whenever real property has been divided into condominiums, each condominium separately owned shall be separately assessed, for purposes of real property taxation and other tax purposes to the owners thereof and the tax on each such condominium shall constitute a lien solely thereon.

Sec. 26. All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict or inconsistent with this Act are hereby amended insofar as condominium and its incidents are concerned.

Sec. 27. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 18, 1966