Rem2 Case Digests Rule 92 to 97

8/11/2019 Rem2 Case Digests Rule 92 to 97

1/4

Rem2 Case Digests || Rules 92 to 97: Guardians & Guardianship || Bato, Boco, Castro

G.R. No. 147148 January 13, 2003

PILAR Y. GOYENA,petitioner, vs.AMPARO LEDESMA-GS!ILO,respondent.

"A#!S$

or the most part during the !ear "99# and "99$, %ulieta edesma has 'een a patient in the(a)ati (edical Center *here she is under medical attention +or old age, general de'ilit!, anda mini-stro)e *hich she suered in the /nited 0tates in earl! "99#. 0he is con1ned to her'ed and can not get up +rom 'ed *ithout outside assistance, and she has to 'e moved '!*heel chair. %ulieta edesma o*ns real estate and personal properties in (etro (anila and in

estern 3isa!as, *ith an aggregate estimated assessed and par value o+ 4" (illion 4esos.5he nearest o+ )in o+ %ulieta edesma are her sisters o+ the +ull 'lood, namel!, 6mparoedesma Gustilo, 5eresa edesma, all o+ *hom have given their consent to the 1ling o+ theletters o+ guardianship 1led '! 6mparo.

4etitioner 98 !o +riend o+ %ulieta 1led an ;pposition to the petition +or letters o+guardianship. Ga!ona claimed that the petition lac)ed +actual and legal 'asis in that %ulieta iscompetent and sane and there is a'solutel! no need to appoint a guardian< and that 6mparois not 1t to 'e appointed as the guardian o+ %ulieta since their interests are antagonistic.

5he R5C +ound %ulieta incompetent and incapa'le o+ ta)ing care o+ hersel+ and her propert!and appointed respondent as guardian o+ her person and properties.= ;n appeal o+ Go!ena,the C6 a>rmed the R5C?s decision. Both courts +ound that the letters allegedl! *ritten '!

%ulieta to 6mparo *hich sho*ed %ulieta@s sentiments regarding certain matters, has notproperl! sho*n the eAistence o+ a ri+t 'et*een %ulieta and her +amil! and dissatis+action as toho* the 'usinesses *ere managed.

ISSE$

hether the R5C & C6 erred in 1nding that respondent is not unsuita'le +or appointment asguardian o+ the persons and propert! o+ %ulieta.

%ELD$

o.

5he issues raised '! petitioner *ere pure uestions o+ +acts that reuire a revie* o+ theevidence, hence, not proper +or consideration '! the Court. t *as also admitted '! petitionerthat the issues she raised are +actual, ho*ever, she claims that Ethere is no dou't that theinstant petition +alls *ithin the eAceptions o+ the general rule 'ecause the 1ndings o+ the C6are clearl! 'elied '! the evidence on record=

n the selection o+ a guardian, a large discretion must 'e allo*ed the Fudge *ho deals directl!*ith the parties.6s a rule, *hen it appears that the Fudge has eAercised care and diligence inselecting the guardian, and has given due consideration to the reasons +or and against hisaction *hich are urged '! the interested parties, &'( a)*'on (&ou+ no* '(*urun+(( '* '( /a ry )+ar *&a* & &a( a++n 'n*o r'ou( rror.

n the case at 'ar, petitioner has not sho*n that the lo*er courts committed an! error.

4etitioner cannot rel! on certain letters o+ %ulieta to esta'lish her claim that there eAisted ari+t 'et*een the t*o, *hich amounts to antagonistic interests. 5he 1rst land second letterssent '! %ulieta to respondent merel! sho*s that: " respondent did not visit %ulieta *hen she*as con1ned 2 there *as disagreement as to *ho should run the hacienda and respondent too) over management o+ the hacienda *ith their 'rother Carlos edesmasupporting her. o in+erence as to the eAistence o+ antagonistic interests 'et*eenrespondent and %ulieta can thus 'e made. 5he rdand Hthletter presented has no relevance tothe issue in the case at 'ar.

4etitioner@s assertion that respondent@s intent in instituting the guardianship proceedings isto ta)e control o+ %ulieta@s properties and use them +or her o*n 'ene1t is purel! speculativeand 1nds no support +rom the records. 5he claim that respondent is hostile to the 'estinterests o+ %ulieta also lac)s merit. 5hat respondent removed %ulieta +rom the (a)ati (edicalCenter *here she *as con1ned a+ter she suered a stro)e does not necessaril! sho* herhostilit! to*ards %ulieta, given the o'servation '! the trial court, cited in the present petition,that %ulieta *as still placed under the care o+ doctors22 a+ter she chec)ed out and *asreturned to the hospital *hen she suered another stro)e.

G.R. No. 110427 "ruary 24, 17

!& In)o/*n*, #ARMEN #A5I6A, rr(n* y &r +a+ uar'an, AMPAROEANGELIS!A, petitioner, vs.#OR! O" APPEALS SPE#IAL "IRS! DIISION9, PEDROES!RADA an &'( :', LEONORA ES!RADA, respondents.

"A#!S$

;n ovem'er 28, "9I9, 'eing then ninet!-+our 9H !ears o+ age, Carmen CaJiKa, a spinster,a retired pharmacist, and +ormer pro+essor o+ the College o+ Chemistr! and 4harmac! o+ the/niversit! o+ the 4hilippines, *as declared incompetent '! Fudgment o+ the Regional 5rialCourt o+ LueKon Cit!, Branch "87, in a guardianship proceeding instituted '! her niece,6mparo 6. Mvangelista. 0he *as so adFudged 'ecause o+ her advanced age and ph!sicalin1rmities *hich included cataracts in 'oth e!es and senile dementia. 6mparo 6. Mvangelista*as appointed legal guardian o+ her person and estate.

CaJiKa *as the o*ner o+ a house and lot at o. $" 5o'ias 0t., LueKon Cit!. ;n 0eptem'er "7,"998, her guardian 6mparo Mvangelista commenced a suit in the (etropolitan 5rial Court(etro5C o+ LueKon Cit! Branch # to eFect the spouses 4edro and eonora Mstrada +romsaid premises.(5C rendered in +avour o+ CaniKa, and on appeal to C6, it reversed thedecision o+ the lo*er court CaniKa died during the pendenc! o+ an appeal to 0C.

ISSE$

hether the case should 'e continued in spite the death o+ CaniKaN

%ELD$

Oes.

6s alread! stated, Carmen CaJiKa passed a*a! during the pendenc! o+ this appeal. 5heMstradas thereupon moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that CaJiKa@s death automaticall!terminated the guardianship, 6maparo Mvangelista lost all authorit! as her Fudicial guardian,and ceased to have legal personalit! to represent her in the present appeal. 5he motion is*ithout merit.

hile it is indeed *ell-esta'lished rule that the relationship o+ guardian and *ard isnecessaril! terminated '! the death o+ either the guardian or the *ard, the rule aords noadvantage to the Mstradas. 6mparo Mvangelista, as niece o+ Carmen CaJiKa, is one o+ thelatter@s onl! t*o 2 surviving heirs, the other 'eing CaJiKa@s nephe*, Ramon C. evado. ;ntheir motion and '! Resolution o+ this Court o+ %une 28, "99H, the! *ere in +act su'stituted asparties in the appeal at 'ar in place o+ the deceased, in accordance *ith 0ection "7, Rule o+the Rules o+ Court.

5o 'e sure, an eFectment case survives the death o+ a part!. CaJiKa@s demise did noteAtinguish the desahucio suit instituted '! her through her guardian. 5hat action, not 'eing apurel! personal one, survived her death< her heirs have ta)en her place and no* representher interests in the appeal at 'ar.


2/4


G.R. No. 118;8 Ar'+ 2, 2003

EDcials or persons thereinresponsi'le +or the oense. ncidental or not, petitioner *as then acting on 'ehal+ o+6R(6GR, carr!ing out the corporation@s decision *hen he signed the trust receipts.

5he Court o+ 6ppeals +urther ruled that the prosecution need not prove that petitionerpersonall! received and misappropriated the goods su'Fect o+ the trust receipts. Mvidence o+misappropriation is not reuired under the 5rust Receipts a*. 5o esta'lish the crimeo+ estafa, it is su>cient to sho* +ailure '! the entrustee to turn over the goods or theproceeds o+ the sale o+ the goods covered '! a trust receipt. (oreover, the 'an) is not

o'liged to determine i+ the goods came into the actual possession o+ the entrustee. 5rustreceipts are issued to +acilitate the purchase o+ merchandise. 5o o'ligate the 'an) to eAaminethe +act o+ actual possession '! the entrustee o+ the goods su'Fect o+ ever! trust receipt *illgreatl! impede commercial transactions.

ISSE$

4etitioner see)s to reverse his conviction '! contending that the Court o+ 6ppeals erred: R/G 5Q65, BO 5QM (MRM CRC/(056CM 5Q65 4M55;MR 6C5MD 60 6GM5 6D 0GMD;R 5QM M5R/05MM C;R4;R65;, 4M55;MR 60 MCM006RO 5QM ;M RM04;0BM;R 5QM ;M0M.

%ELD$

5he Court sustains the conviction o+ petitioner.

5he pivotal issue +or resolution is *hether petitioner comes *ithin the purvie* o+ 0ection "o+ the 5rust Receipts a* *hich provides:

A A A . + the violation is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or otherFuridical entities, the penalt! provided +or in this Decree shall 'e imposed upon the directors,o>cers, emplo!ees or other o>cials orpersons therein responsible for the oense, *ithoutpreFudice to the civil lia'ilities arising +rom the oense.

e hold that petitioner is a person responsi'le +or violation o+ the 5rust Receipts a*.

5he relevant penal provision o+ the 5rust Receipts a* reads:

0MC. ". Penalty Clause. - 5he +ailure o+ the entrustee to turn over the proceeds o+ the sale o+the goods, documents or instruments covered '! a trust receipt to the eAtent o+ the amounto*ing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documentsor instruments i+ the! *ere not sold or disposed o+ in accordance *ith the terms o+ the trustreceipt shall constitute the crime o+ esta+a, punisha'le under the provisions o+ 6rticle 5hreeQundred and i+teen, 4aragraph ;ne ', o+ 6ct um'ered 5hree 5housand Might Qundredand i+teen, as amended, other*ise )no*n as the Revised 4enal Code. + the violation oroense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other Furidical entities, thepenalt! provided +or in this Decree shall 'e imposed upon the directors, o>cers, emplo!eesor other o>cials orpersons therein responsible for the oense, *ithout preFudice to the civillia'ilities arising +rom the criminal oense.

5he 5rust Receipts a* is violated *henever the entrustee +ails to: " turn over the proceedso+ the sale o+ the goods, or 2 return the goods covered '! the trust receipts i+ the goods arenot sold."I5he mere +ailure to account or return gives rise to the crime *hich is malumprohi'itum."95here is no reuirement to prove intent to de+raud. 28

5he 5rust Receipts a* recogniKes the impossi'ilit! o+ imposing the penalt! o+ imprisonmenton a corporation. Qence, i+ the entrustee is a corporation, the la* ma)es the o>cers oremplo!ees or other persons responsible for the oenselia'le to suer the penalt! o+imprisonment. 5he reason is o'vious: corporations, partnerships, associations and other

Furidical entities cannot 'e put to Fail. Qence, the criminal lia'ilit! +alls on the human agentresponsi'le +or the violation o+ the 5rust Receipts a*.

n the instant case, the Ban) *as the entruster *hile 6R(6GR *as the entrustee. Being theentrustee, 6R(6GR *as the one responsi'le to account +or the goods or its proceeds in caseo+ sale. Qo*ever, the criminal lia'ilit! +or violation o+ the 5rust Receipts a* +alls on thehuman agent responsi'le +or the violation. 4etitioner, *ho admits 'eing the agent o+6R(6GR, is the person responsi'le +or the oense +or t*o reasons. irst, petitioner is thesignator! to the trust receipts, the loan applications and the letters o+ credit. 0econd, despite'eing the signator! to the trust receipts and the other documents, petitioner did not eAplainor sho* *h! he is not responsi'le +or the +ailure to turn over the proceeds o+ the sale oraccount +or the goods covered '! the trust receipts.

5he Ban) released the goods to 6R(6GR upon eAecution o+ the trust receipts and as part o+the loan transactions o+ 6R(6GR. 5he Ban) had a right to demand +rom 6R(6GR pa!mentor at least a return o+ the goods. 6R(6GR +ailed to pa! or return the goods despite repeateddemands '! the Ban).

t is a *ell-settled doctrine long 'e+ore the enactment o+ the 5rust Receipts a*, that the

+ailure to account, upon demand, +or +unds or propert! held in trust is evidence o+ conversion


3/4


or misappropriation.2"/nder the la*, mere +ailure '! the entrustee to account +or the goodsreceived in trust constitutes estafa. 5he 5rust Receipts a* punishes dishonest! and a'use o+con1dence in the handling o+ mone! or goods to the preFudice o+ pu'lic order. 225he mere+ailure to deliver the proceeds o+ the sale or the goods i+ not sold constitutes a criminaloense that causes preFudice not onl! to the creditor, 'ut also to the pu'licinterest. Mvidentl!, the Ban) suered preFudice +or neither mone! nor the goods *ere turnedover to the Ban).

5he 5rust Receipts a* eApressl! ma)es the corporation@s o>cers or emplo!ees or otherpersons therein responsible for the oenselia'le to suer the penalt! o+ imprisonment. nthe instant case, petitioner signed the t*o trust receipts on 'ehal+ o+ 6R(6GR as the latter

could onl! act through its agents. hen petitioner signed the trust receipts, heac)no*ledged receipt o+ the goods covered '! the trust receipts. n addition, petitioner *as+ull! a*are o+ the terms and conditions stated in the trust receipts, including the o'ligation toturn over the proceeds o+ the sale or return the goods to the Ban).

5rue, petitioner acted on 'ehal+ o+ 6R(6GR. Qo*ever, it is a *ell-settled rule that the la* o+agenc! governing civil cases has no application in criminal cases. hen a person participatesin the commission o+ a crime, he cannot escape punishment on the ground that he simpl!acted as an agent o+ another part!.n the instant case, the Ban) accepted the trust receiptssigned '! petitioner 'ased on petitioner@s representations. t is the +act o+ 'eing the signator!to the t*o trust receipts, and thus a direct participant to the crime , *hich ma)es petitioner aperson responsi'le +or the oense.

4etitioner could have raised the de+ense that he had nothing to do *ith the +ailure to account+or the proceeds or to return the goods. 4etitioner could have sho*n that he had severed hisrelationship *ith 6R(6GR prior to the loss o+ the proceeds or the disappearance o+ thegoods. 4etitioner, ho*ever, *aived his right to present an! evidence, and thus +ailed to sho*that he is not responsi'le +or the violation o+ the 5rust Receipts a*.

5here is no dispute that on $ %ul! "998 and on 2 %ul! "998, petitioner signed the t*o trustreceipts27on 'ehal+ o+ 6R(6GR. 4etitioner, acting on 'ehal+ o+ 6R(6GR, eApressl!ac)no*ledged receipt o+ the goods in trust +or the Ban). 6R(6GR +ailed to compl! *ith itsunderta)ings under the trust receipts. ;n the other hand, petitioner +ailed to eAplain andcommunicate to the Ban) *hat happened to the goods despite repeated demands +rom theBan). 6s o+ " (a! "99", the unpaid account under the 1rst and second trust receiptsamounted to 4",#27,"I8.$8 and 4",HH9,9#.7", respectivel!.

G.R. No. 143== O)*or 10, 2012

NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALI#IA D. NERI-MONDEJAR, ISMINDA D. NERI-#%AM>ERS,ROSA D. NERI-MILLAN, DOGLAS D. NERI, E!ROPIA D. ILL!-#O#?INOS ANDI#!ORIA D. ILL!-PIALA, 4etitioners, vs.%EIRS O" %ADJI YSOP Y AND JLP%A @

I>RA%IM Y, Respondents.

"A#!S$

During her li+etime, 6nunciacion eri 6nunciacion had seven children, t*o 2 +rom her 1rstmarriage *ith GonKalo llut GonKalo, namel!: Mutropia and 3ictoria, and 1ve # +rom hersecond marriage *ith Mnriue eri Mnriue, namel!: apoleon, 6licia, 3isminda, Douglasand Rosa. 5hroughout the marriage o+ spouses Mnriue and 6nunciacion, the! acuiredseveral homestead properties in 0amal, Davao del orte.

;n 0eptem'er 2", "977, 6nunciacion died intestate. Qer hus'and, Mnriue, in his personalcapacit! and as natural guardian o+ his minor children Rosa and Douglas, together *ithapoleon, 6licia, and 3isminda eAecuted an MAtra-%udicial 0ettlement o+ the Mstate *ith6'solute Deed o+ 0ale on %ul! 7, "979, adFudicating among themselves the said homesteadproperties, and therea+ter, conve!ing them to the late spouses /! +or a consideration o+ 4I8,888.88.

;n %une "", "99$, the children o+ Mnriue 1led a complaint +or annulment o+ sale o+ the saidhomestead properties against spouses /! 'e+ore the R5C, assailing the validit! o+ the sale +orhaving 'een sold *ithin the prohi'ited period. 5he complaint *as later amended to includeMutropia and 3ictoria as additional plaintis +or having 'een eAcluded and deprived o+ theirlegitimes as children o+ 6nunciacion +rom her 1rst marriage.

n their amended ans*er *ith counterclaim, the heirs o+ /! countered that the sale too)place 'e!ond the #-!ear prohi'itor! period +rom the issuance o+ the homestead patents.

5he! also denied )no*ledge o+ Mutropia and 3ictoria?s eAclusion +rom the eAtraFudicialsettlement and sale o+ the su'Fect properties, and interposed +urther the de+enses o+prescription and laches.

5he R5C rendered a decision ordering the annulment o+ the settlement and the sale. t ruledthat *hile the sale occurred 'e!ond the #-!ear prohi'itor! period, the sale is still void'ecause Mutropia and 3ictoria *ere deprived o+ their hereditar! rights and that Mnriue hadno Fudicial authorit! to sell the shares o+ his minor children, Rosa and Douglas. Conseuentl!,it reFected the de+enses o+ laches and prescription raised '! spouses /!, *ho claimedpossession o+ the su'Fect properties +or "7 !ears, holding that co-o*nership rights areimprescripti'le.

;n appeal, the Car eversed and set aside the ruling o+ the R5C. t held that, *hile Mutropiaand 3ictoria had no )no*ledge o+ the eAtraFudicial settlement and o+ the sale and as such,*ere not 'ound '! it, the C6 +ound it unconsciona'le to permit the annulment o+ the saleconsidering spouses /!?s possession thereo+ +or "7 !ears, and that Mutropia and 3ictoria'elatedl! 1led their action in "997, or more than t*o !ears +rom )no*ledge o+ their eAclusionas heirs in "99H *hen their step+ather died. t, ho*ever, did not preclude the eAcluded heirs+rom recovering their legitimes +rom their co-heirs.

0imilarl!, the C6 declared the eAtraFudicial settlement and the su'seuent sale as valid and'inding *ith respect to Mnriue and his children, holding that as co-o*ners, the! have theright to dispose o+ their respective shares as the! consider necessar! or 1t. hile recogniKingRosa and Douglas to 'e minors at that time, the! *ere deemed to have rati1ed the sale*hen the! +ailed to uestion it upon reaching the age o+ maForit!.talso +ound laches to haveset in 'ecause o+ their inaction +or a long period o+ time.

ISSES$

hether the eAtraFudicial settlement o+ estate *ith a'solute deed o+ sale is valid.

%ELD$

5he settlement is void< the sale is partl! valid and partl! invalidvoid.

t 'ears to stress that all the petitioners herein are indisputa'l! legitimate children o+6nunciacion +rom her 1rst and second marriages *ith GonKalo and Mnriue, respectivel!, andconseuentl!, are entitled to inherit +rom her in eual shares. Qence, in the eAecution o+ the

MAtra-%udicial 0ettlement o+ the Mstate *ith 6'solute Deed o+ 0ale in +avor o+ spouses /!, all


4/4


the heirs o+ 6nunciacion should have participated. Considering that Mutropia and 3ictoria*ere admittedl! eAcluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas *ere not properl!represented therein, the settlement *as not valid and 'inding upon them and conseuentl!,a total nullit!.

5he partition in the present case *as invalid 'ecause it eAcluded siA o+ the nine heirs *ho*ere entitled to eual shares in the partitioned propert!. /nder the rule no eAtraFudicialsettlement shall 'e 'inding upon an! person *ho has not participated therein or had nonotice thereo+. 6s the partition *as a total nullit! and did not aect the eAcluded heirs, it*as not correct +or the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition hadprescri'ed a+ter t*o !ears +rom its eAecution

Qo*ever, *hile the settlement o+ the estate is null and void, the su'seuent sale o+ thesu'Fect properties made '! Mnriue and his children, apoleon, 6licia and 3isminda, in +avoro+ the respondents is valid 'ut onl! *ith respect to their proportionate shares therein. tcannot 'e denied that these heirs have acuired their respective shares in the properties o+6nunciacion +rom the moment o+ her deathand that, as o*ners thereo+, the! can ver! *ellsell their undivided share in the estate.

ith respect to Rosa and Douglas *ho *ere minors at the time o+ the eAecution o+ thesettlement and sale, their natural guardian and +ather, Mnriue, represented them in thetransaction. Qo*ever, on the 'asis o+ the la*s prevailing at that time, Mnriue *as merel!clothed *ith po*ers o+ administration and 'ere+t o+ an! authorit! to dispose o+ their 2"$shares in the estate o+ their mother, 6nunciacion.

0ection 7, Rule 9 o+ the Rules o+ Court also provides:

0MC. 7. Parents as Guardians.S hen the propert! o+ the child under parental authorit! is*orth t*o thousand pesos or less, the +ather or the mother, *ithout the necessit! o+ courtappointment, shall 'e his legal guardian. hen the propert! o+ the child is *orth more thant*o thousand pesos, the +ather or the mother shall 'e considered guardian o+ the child?s

propert!, *ith the duties and o'ligations o+ guardians under these Rules, and shall 1le thepetition reuired '! 0ection 2 hereo+. or good reasons, the court ma!, ho*ever, appointanother suita'le persons.

6dministration includes all acts +or the preservation o+ the propert! and the receipt o+ +ruitsaccording to the natural purpose o+ the thing. 6n! act o+ disposition or alienation, or an!reduction in the su'stance o+ the patrimon! o+ child, eAceeds the limits o+ administration.

5hus, a +ather or mother, as the natural guardian o+ the minor under parental authorit!, doesnot have the po*er to dispose or encum'er the propert! o+ the latter. 0uch po*er is granted'! la* onl! to a Fudicial guardian o+ the *ard?s propert! and even then onl! *ith courts? priorapproval secured in accordance *ith the proceedings set +orth '! the Rules o+ Court.

Conseuentl!, the disputed sale entered into '! Mnriue in 'ehal+ o+ his minor children*ithout the proper Fudicial authorit!, unless rati1ed '! them upon reaching the age o+maForit!, is unen+orcea'le.

Rati1cation means that one under no disa'ilit! voluntaril! adopts and gives sanction to someunauthoriKed act or de+ective proceeding, *hich *ithout his sanction *ould not 'e 'inding onhim. t is this voluntar! choice, )no*ingl! made, *hich amounts to a rati1cation o+ *hat *as

thereto+ore unauthoriKed, and 'ecomes the authoriKed act o+ the part! so ma)ing therati1cation.;nce rati1ed, eApressl! or impliedl! such as *hen the person )no*ingl! received'ene1ts +rom it, the contract is cleansed +rom all its de+ects +rom the moment it *asconstituted, as it has a retroactive eect.

n apoleon and Rosa?s mani+estation 'e+ore the R5C on "997, ho*ever, sho* that the! haverati1ed the eAtraFudicial settlement o+ the estate *ith a'solute deed o+ sale. 6nd again in a

%oint-6>davit ac)no*ledging the validit! o+ the settlement and sale.

Clearl!, the +oregoing statements constituted rati1cation o+ the settlement o+ the estate andthe su'seuent sale, thus, purging all the de+ects eAisting at the time o+ its eAecution andlegitimiKing the conve!ance o+ Rosa?s ""$ share in the estate o+ 6nunciacion to spouses /!.

5he same, ho*ever, is not true *ith respect to Douglas +or lac) o+ evidence sho*ingrati1cation.

Considering, thus, that the eAtraFudicial settlement *ith sale is invalid and there+ore, not'inding on Mutropia, 3ictoria and Douglas, onl! the shares o+ Mnriue, apoleon, 6licia,3isminda and Rosa in the homestead properties have eectivel! 'een disposed in +avor o+spouses /!. 6 person can onl! sell *hat he o*ns, or is authoriKed to sell and the 'u!er can

as a conseuence acuire no more than *hat the sellercan legall! trans+er.

Conseuentl!, spouses /! or their su'stituted heirs 'ecame pro indiviso co-o*ners o+ thehomestead properties *ith Mutropia, 3ictoria and Douglas, *ho retained title to theirrespective ""$ shares. 5he! *ere deemed to 'e holding the "$ shares o+ Mutropia, 3ictoriaand Douglas under an implied constructive trust +or the latter?s 'ene1t. 6s such, it is onl!+air, Fust and euita'le that the amount paid +or their shares euivalent to 4 #,888.88 each ora total o+ 4 "#,888.88 'e returned to spouses /! *ith legal interest.

Documents

Rem2 Case Digests Rule 92 to 97