PAZ M. CEA AND SEBASTIAN MOLL, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED GREGORIO NATIVIDAD, RESPONDENTS.

The spouses Gregorio Natividad and Benedicta Villanueva, joint
owners of a tract of land known as “Hacienda Cabasay,” situate in the
municipality of Tigaon, Province of Camarines Sur, willed their respective half
interests therein to their grandson, Alfredo Natividad.

After the death of Gregorio Natividad his estate was placed
under administration in special proceedings No. 3963 of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur, and on October 8, 1928, notice of the proceedings was
recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of said province so that it
might be publicly known that the properties left by the deceased, including the
Hacienda Cabasay, were under judicial administration. This notwithstanding,
Alfredo Natividad, by a deed executed on December 31, 1923, and recorded in the
Office of the Register of Deeds on January 3, 1929, sold the hacienda to Gerardo
Cea. On learning of the sale, the judicial administrator brought suit to have it
annuled, but the suit ended in a settlement with Alfredo Natividad ceding half
of the hacienda to the heirs of Gregorio Natividad. On September 3, 1931,
Gerardo Cea, who does not appear to have been a party to the said suit or
settlement, sold the whole hacienda to Paz M. Cea, and on June 1, 1936,
the latter in turn sold one-half of it to Sebastian Moll. The following year,
Paz M. Cea and Sebastian Moll initiated proceedings for the registration in
their name of their respective half interests in the hacienda, each
filing a separate application for that purpose. Opposed by the heirs as to the
half interest which had come from Gregorio Natividad, the applications were,
nevertheless, granted by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. But the
Court of Appeals modified the decision by granting the applications only as to
the half interest which came from Benedicta Villanueva and denying the
applications as to the other half, which came from Gregorio Natividad, on the
ground that the applicants had no registrable title thereto, this on the theory
that the sale thereof by Alfredo Natividad without judicial sanction was null
and void for the reason that the property was in custodia legis. No
appeal was taken from this decision of the Court of Appeals.

On March 19, 1941, in the aforementioned proceedings for the
administration of the estate of Gregorio Natividad, two sons and seven
grandchildren of the deceased petitioned the court that they be declared his
heirs and that one-half of the hacienda in question (i. e., the half
interest which the deceased had devised to Alfredo Natividad) be adjudicated to
them as such heirs. Opposing the petition, Paz M. Cea and Sebastian Moll
reasserted their claim to the said half and asked that the same be adjudicated
to them instead. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, in its order of
March 23, 1941, granted the petition of the heirs and denied the claim of the
oppositors on the ground that the Court of Appeals, in the registration cases
above mentioned, had already pronounced the sale made by Alfredo Natividad,
which was the basis of oppositors’ title, to be null and void. The order having
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Paz M. Cea and Sebastian Moll have
appealed to this Supreme Court.

The question for determination is whether the decision of the
Court of Appeals in the registration cases constitutes res judicata for
the purposes of the present case.

We are of the opinion that the question should be answered in
the negative. The said decision does, indeed, declare that the sale by Alfredo
Natividad of the half interest bequeathed to him by the deceased Gregorio
Natividad was void as a conveyance of property in the custody of the law. But
the decision does not declare the said sale void as an assignment of Alfredo
Natividad’s interest in the property as a legatee pending the settlement of the
estate. The decision leaves the question of title to the contested half of the
hacienda for future determination in connection with the final
distribution of the estate of the deceased Gregorio Natividad. This is obvious
from the following portion of the decision:

“Se arguye que, a tenor de lo preceptuado en el Codigo Civil
sobre la materia, los bienew se transmiten a los herederos o legatarios desde el
momento mismo de la muerte del causante. Esto es cierto, pero cuando los bienes
de difuntos se hallan bajo administracio’n judicial, el heredero o legatario no
hace suya legalmente la propiedad sino despues de la adjudicacion hecha por el
juzgado en virtud de la correspondiente orden. Antes de eso, lounico, en todo
caso, de que puede disponer el heredero o legatario es su interes o derecho en
la herencia, pero en abstracto, sujeto a las resultas de la testamentaria o del
abintestato, segun sea el caso.

“De lo antedicho, se deduce que el unico derecho inscribible
que tienen los solicitantes en estos dos expedientes es en relacion con una
mitad pro indiviso de los lotes cuyo regiatro solicitan, es decir, la mitad no
cuestionada que heredo Alfredo Natividad de Benedicta Villanueva. Respecto de la
otra mitad, la perteneciente a la testamentaria de Gregorio Natividad, ni los
solicit antes, ni los opositores tienen ningun titulo inscribible bajo la ley
del Registro de la Propiedad, y la determinacion del titulo sobre dicha mitad
pro indiviso tiene que dejarse, como por la presente se deja, a las resultas de
lo que el Tribunal correspondiente resolviere al disponer en definitiva de como
deben distribuirse los bienes pertenecientes a la testamentaria de dicho
Gregorio Natividad.”

The Court of Appeals could not have declared void the wale of
Alfredo Natividad’s interest as an heir or legatee in the estate of Gregorio
Natividad as there is no provision of law which prohibits a coheir from selling
to a stranger his share of an estate held in common before the partition of the
property is approved by the court. (Beltran et al., vs. Doriano et al., 32 Phil.
66).

It results that the claim of Paz M. Cea and Sebastian Moll to
the disputed half interest in the Hacienda Cabasay has not been concluded by the
decision of the Court of Appeals in the registration cases, so that the same may
still be asserted in the administration proceedings in opposition to the claim
of the heirs of Gregorio Natividad.

In so far, therefore, as the decision of the Court of Appeals,
which is the subject of the present appeal, holds that its former decision in
the registration cases constitutes a bar to the claim of the herein petitioners
under the doctrine of res judicata, the said decision is hereby revoked,
as is also the order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dated March
28, 1941, in so far as it applies the same doctrine to the present controversy,
and the case is ordered remanded to the said Court of First Instance for the
determination of the said controversy between the petitioners and the
respondents with respect to the ownership of the half interest in the Hacienda
Cabasay that is here in dispute. With costs against the respondent heirs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Tuason, and Torres, JJ., concur.