AUXILIADORA ANGELES MELCHOR, VITERBO ANGELES (DECEASED) REP. BY HIS WIFE ADELFA BALIGUAT-ANGELES, ANTERO G. ANGELES (DECEASED) REP. BY HIS WIFE ROSALINDA MASANGKAY-ANGELES, IGME…

Melchor versus Saus

The Case

This is a case about a parcel of rice and residential land in Ibajay, Aklan that once belonged to Juan Saluta, who died intestate in September 1928. His great grandchildren fell into two camps: the descendants of Filemon Angeles and of Paz Angeles-Sollano on one side, and the children and heirs of Conegunda Angeles-Saus on the other. The first group sued to annul a Deed of Quitclaim with Adjudication executed in September 1998 by Conegunda's children, which declared that Conegunda was the only surviving grandchild of Juan Saluta and that the whole property was her exclusive share, and which conveyed it to Juanito Saus. They also asked for partition and damages. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a complaint for partition when the evidence shows that co-ownership has already been extinguished and there is, in truth, nothing left to divide.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed their complaint for annulment of document and partition with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 5. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision in March 2006, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning as errors the dismissal of the complaint despite the finding that the land belonged to the estate of Juan Saluta, and the finding that the share of Rafael Saluta had already been acquired by Conegunda Angeles-Saus from Rafael's heirs. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it by denying the appeal and affirming the trial court.

Facts

Juan Saluta died intestate in September 1928, leaving a parcel of land in Agbago, Ibajay, Aklan, with an area of approximately 6,552 square meters, declared in his name under a tax declaration. He was survived by four children: Basilisa, Soledad, Silverio, and Rafael, all surnamed Saluta. Basilisa married Alejandro Angeles and had three children: Conegunda Angeles-Saus, Filemon Angeles, and Paz Angeles-Sollano. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Filemon and of Paz; the defendants are the children and heirs of Conegunda, principally Juanito Saus.

The plaintiffs claimed that the shares of Soledad and Silverio were purchased by Conegunda, while the share of Rafael was purchased by Filemon from Rafael's daughter, Florenda Saluta-Sespeñe. They claimed that all the heirs possessed and usufructed the property in common for many years, dividing the produce every crop year in rotation, which they called liburan. In September 1998, however, the children of Conegunda executed a notarized Deed of Quitclaim with Adjudication stating that they were the only surviving grandchildren of Juan Saluta and that the property was Conegunda's exclusive share, which she had given to Juanito Saus. By virtue of that deed, Juanito transferred the tax declaration into his name and made known to the tenant that he was the sole owner.

The plaintiffs protested and brought the matter to the Lupon Tagapamayapa, but no settlement was reached, so they sued. The defendants answered that Juan Saluta never owned the property; that Conegunda had possessed it exclusively for more than fifty years; that Filemon and Paz had long waived their shares in her favor because they were dependent on her and indebted to her; and that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by prescription, laches, and estoppel. The trial court found that the tenants had always delivered the landowner's share to Conegunda and later to the defendants, never to the plaintiffs, and that the property had been mortgaged by Conegunda and later by the defendants, with the mortgagees receiving the produce. It thus held that the co-ownership had long been terminated and dismissed the complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court's findings of fact may be disturbed on appeal.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs duly established that the subject property remained in the estate of Juan Saluta and was still subject to partition.
• Whether or not the share of Rafael Saluta had already been acquired by Conegunda Angeles-Saus from Rafael's heirs.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the rule that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great weight on appeal. The Court states the rule and its exceptions in this wise:

The rule that the trial court's findings of facts are accorded due respect on appeal is not without exceptions. It is not applicable where there are strong and cogent reasons as when the trial court's findings are not supported by the evidence or when the trial court failed to consider material facts which would have led to a conclusion different from what was stated in its judgment or when the trial court's decision was attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

This governs the standard of review and explains why the Court declined to re-examine the trial court's factual conclusions.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's findings are entitled to great weight because the trial court is in a better position to examine the real evidence and observe the demeanor of the witnesses. It examined the record closely and found none of the recognized exceptions present, so there was no reason to reverse the findings.

On the second issue, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the property remained in the estate of Juan Saluta and could be the subject of partition. The evidence showed that Conegunda exclusively owned and possessed the land during her lifetime, and after her death her children and then the defendants did so. An Agricultural Leasehold Contract was executed in August 1976 between Conegunda and Julian Calizo, but even before that the land was tenanted by Isidro Sijera, and from the year 2000 it was tenanted by Federico Calizo. These tenants delivered the landowner's share of eight cavans of palay to Conegunda and later to the defendants, never to the plaintiffs. When the property was mortgaged to Opet Sasis in 1965, and later to Angelina Calizo, the landowner's share went to the mortgagees. The trial court's conclusion therefore stood: the co-ownership among the heirs had long been terminated and there was no more property to be partitioned.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the finding that the share of Rafael Saluta had already been acquired by Conegunda from Rafael's heirs, so that the ownership of the whole property declared in the name of Juan Saluta had passed to her long ago. With no co-ownership remaining and no estate left to divide, the complaint for annulment and partition stated no cause of action.

Doctrine

First, the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed absent strong and cogent reasons, such as findings unsupported by the evidence, material facts overlooked, or grave abuse of discretion. Second, a complaint for partition presupposes the existence of a co-ownership; where the evidence shows that co-ownership has already been extinguished because one heir acquired the shares of the others and exclusively possessed the property through tenants who delivered the landowner's share to her and her heirs, there is no property left to partition and the complaint fails for lack of cause of action. Third, the party asserting that a co-heir's share remains part of the estate carries the burden of proving it, and possession through tenant-cultivators, payment of taxes, and the exercise of acts of ownership are strong indicia of exclusive ownership.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, with the defendants prevailing.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no co-ownership, no partition — when one heir has acquired the shares of the others and possessed the land exclusively through tenants, the complaint for partition states no cause of action. Examiners use this case to test the great weight accorded to trial court findings and the requisites of an action for partition.