GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. JULIA CARINO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. RUFINO MEJIA ET AL., INTERVENORS AND APPELLEES

This is an appeal from a judgment cof the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, Honorable Lourdes P, San Diego, presiding, dismissing the
action instituted by plaintiffs, declaring the defendants and
intervenors owners of the parcels of land sought to be recovered in the
complaint, etc.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that during the lifetime of the
spouses Gaspar Ramos and Angela de Guzman, they were owners of three
parcels of land situated in the Municipality of San Jacinto,
Pangasinan, having acquired the same during their marriage; that
plaintiff Gliceria Ramos and deceased Alejandro Ramos are the children
of the said spouses Gaspar Ramos and Angela de Guzma,; and by the
provisions of the law of succession plaintiffs became owners in equal
parts of the said three parcels of land; that upon the death of Gaspar
Ramos his widow administered the properties and delivered to plaintiff
her share in the products thereof; that upon the death of the widow
Angela de Guzman, Alejandro Ramos continued delivering plaintiff’s
share in the products of said lands; that similarly upon the death of
Alejandro Ramos, his widow Julia Carino continued giving plaintiff her
share of the products of the lands in question until the year 1948; but
that in 1949 the widow Julia Carino stopped giving plaintiff her share
in the products, alleging that she and her children are sole owners
thereof, etc., etc.

Subsequently an amended complaint was filed whereby Estefania Sonday
was included as a party defendant as purchaser of the second parcel of
land. It is further alleged therein that Angela de Guzman, widow of
Gaspar Ramos, donated that land to her son Alejandro Ramos, but said
donation is null and void and the certificate of title issued in the
name of Alejandro Ramos by reason of the said donation is also null and
void because said donation deprived plaintiff of her share as heir in
the donor’s properties. The defendants answered the complaint denying
the material allegations thereof and alleging that the lands subject of
the action were acquired by Alejandro Ramos as a donation from his
mother Angela de Guzman, with the knowledge and consent of the
plaintiff; that when Alejandro Ramos married Julia Carino the three
parcels of land were donated to the latter, and since then the latter
had always been in possession of the lands openly, peacefully,
adversely, publicly, continuously and uninterruptedly in the concept of
owner without opposition on the part of the plaintiff; that the said
lands had been sold with the consent of the Court to the defendant
Estefania Sonday and the latter had been in adverse possession thereof
for more than twenty years.

Rufino Mejia intervened in the action alleging that he is the owner
of the third parcel of land subject of the complaint, having acquired
the same from the late Alejandro Ramos in 1943. Maximo Mejia also filed
a motion for intervention and in his complaint alleged that he had
acquired one of the parcels of land in question (Lot No. 1 covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1738 in the name of Alejandro Ramos);
that he had secured a transfer certificate of title of the land since
1950 and had been in possession thereof since the time of his
acquisition up to the present.

In answer to the complaint in intervention filed by Kufino Mejia
plaintiff alleged that one-half of the laiid allegedly sold to the said
intervenor belongs to lier; that Rufino Mejia is a relative of Gliceria
Ramos and the purchase by him of the property was made in bad faith.
Answering the complaint in intervention of Maxima Mejia plaintiff
denied all the allegations and alleged by way of special defense that
the said intervenpr is not a purchaser in good faith because he
purchased the property knowing that the same belongs to the minor heirs
of Alejandro Ramos, etc.

The documents submitted at the trial of the case show that the first
two parcels of land subject of the complaint were originally registered
in the name of Angela de Guzman, with title thereto, Original
Certificate of Title No. 25500, issued in her name on October 16, 1923.
(Exh. “B”) On December 20, 1940 Angela de Guzman donated said parcels
of land to Alejandro Ramos, her son, and thereupon the original
certificate of title issued in the name of Angela de Guzman was
cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17338-P issued in the
name of Alejandro Ramos. (Exh-“9”) In the year 1950 Julia Carino, wife
of Alejandro Ramos, was appointed guardian of her minor children.
Subsequently Julia Carino and the minors sold Lot No. 1 of the lands
registered in the name of Alejandro Ramos to Maximo Mejia. The sale was
annotated at the back of the certificate of title on May 23, 1950 (Exh.
“9-b”). Pursuant to an authority granted by the Court, Julia Carino
sold Lot No. 2 in the title of Alejandro Ramos to Estefania Sonday and
this sale was registered at the back of the certificate of title on
June 7, 1951. This land is now registered in the name of Estefania
Sonday under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10677. (Exh. “10”)

The court makes the following finding as to whether or not the
purchase of said Lots 1 and 2 by the defendants Sonday and Mejia was a
purchase in bad faith:

“The plaintiff has not convincingly shown bad faith
on the part of either the defendant Estefania Sonday or Maximo Mejia,
the intervenor so that, for which reason, their purchase of the lands
in question and their acquisition of transfer certificates of title
thereto in due course be nullified their purchase may not be revoked
even if the seller, as alleged in the complaint, has acquired the title
thru fraud, (Raymundo, et al., vs. Afable, 96 Phil., 655; 51 Off. Gaz.
[3] 1329). * * *”

As regards the third parcel of land the Court below held:

“With regard to parcel (3), plaintiff has not even
established the fact that it formerly belonged to her parents. * * *
Whereas, parcel (3) comprises 2,572 square meters and has for
boundaries on the North Mariano Urbino; on the East, Francisco Mejia;
on the South, the same; and on the West, Moises Sta. Cruz, the
subjectmatter of Exhibits “D” and “F” comprises 50,973 square meters,
bounded on the North by the old Pozorrubio-San Jacinto Road; on the NE
by Valentine Cruz, Lazaro Perez and Maria Cruz; and on the SE by
Silvestre Callao; and the subject-matter of Exhibit “E” is a piece of
land 20,241 square meters in area with boundaries on the North, Mariano
Mejia, Francisco, Maximo and Emilia Mejia; on the South, Salvador del
Mundo; and on the Southwest, Engracio de Guzman. On the other hand,
defendants and intervenor Ruflno Mejia are in possession of a deed of
sale, covering a piece of land with the exact area and boundaries as
parcel (3) of the complaint, dated as early as 1943, i.e., during
Alejandro Ramos’ lifetime, executed by the latter in favor of Ruflno
Mejia.”

As to the first two lots, plaintiffs cause of action cannot be
sustained for two important reasons. The first is plaintiff’s failure
to prove that the properties donated by Angela de Guzman to her son
Alejandro de Guzman are the only properties of which she was seized at
the time of her death or at the time of the donation. In order that the
donation can be considered inofficious such as to deprive plaintiff’s
rights as forced heir of Angela de Guzman, plaintiff should have proved
that the value of the property donated exceeds the value of the free
portion plus the donee’s share in the properties of the donor (Arts.
750, 752, Civil Code).

The second reason is the fact that the two properties have already
been sold by Alejandro Ramos to the defendant Sonday and the intervenor
Maximo Mejia both of whom now hold certificates of title in their own
names. No evidence having been submitted by plaintiff that they
acquired the Lots in bad faith, then good faith is presumed (Art, 527,
Civil Code) and their titles are valid.

With respect to the third lot, the court bejow has found that
plaintiff’s evidence referred to another lot, a bigger one. There was a
failure on the part of plaintiff to prove that it belonged to
plaintiff’s father and/or mother, and also failure on her part to show
that, ever tho it belonged to her parents, the transfer to Alejandro
Ramos is in-officious, so that plaintiff could be adjudged entitled to
a share therein as heir of her parents.

Wherefore, the judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed. With costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.