ELENA G. ANDALIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VIRGINIA CAMILA ANDALIS AND SALVE ANDALIS-BALMEDINA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Andalis versus Andalis

The Case

This is a case about a wife who sued her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law to undo two deeds over a family lot. Elena Andalis asked the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to declare null and void a Deed of Sale and a Deed of Transfer or Waiver of Rights over a subdivision lot in Signal Village, Taguig, and to recover possession with damages. The case matters for two reasons. First, it shows what happens when a seller sells land he does not own: the sale is void under the maxim that one cannot give what one does not have. Second, it draws a firm line between an ordinary action for recovery of possession and a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate, reminding the Bar candidate that the determination of heirs and the partition of property belong to the proper probate or settlement proceeding, not to an accion publiciana.

Procedural History

Elena Andalis filed her complaint for declaration of nullity of the deeds and recovery of possession with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The parties went to mediation, which failed, and then to pre-trial, where they stipulated on several facts and agreed to a reverse trial. The defense presented Salve Andalis-Balmedina as its witness; Virginia Andalis was deemed to have waived her right to testify. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in February 2013. It declared the Deed of Sale null and void, recognized Elena and her children as heirs of Mauro Andalis with rights under the laws of succession, recognized Elena's right to one half of the property as her conjugal partnership share, and ordered the parties to choose from three options set out in the decision, failing which Virginia and Salve would vacate the property and Elena and her children would reimburse Virginia for the portion within Mauro's free disposal.

Virginia and Salve filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court gave due course. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The defendants filed their appellants' brief, Elena filed her appellee's brief, and no reply brief was filed, so the case was submitted for decision.

Facts

Elena married Mauro Andalis in October 1980, and the marriage subsisted until Mauro died in January 2002. During the marriage, a parcel of subdivision lot at Signal Village, Taguig, was acquired by purchase from the Republic of the Philippines through the Land Management Bureau. Elena claimed the lot was conjugal and that the house on it was built from funds she obtained through loans. Mauro was later assigned to Bulan, Sorsogon, and from January 1999 he was incarcerated at the Naga City District Jail until his death. Virginia is Mauro's mother; Salve is his sister.

In June 1996, Mauro supposedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the lot in favor of Virginia. In April 1999, he supposedly executed a Deed of Transfer or Waiver of Rights, also in favor of Virginia. Elena alleged that her signature on the sale was a forgery, that her name appeared as Helen instead of Elena, and that she never appeared before the notary. She also alleged that Mauro could not have signed the waiver before the notary in April 1999 because he was in jail at the time. Virginia and Salve occupied the property from 1996.

At pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the property subject of the case is the house and lot at Lot 55, Signal Village, Taguig City, with an area of 239 square meters. The Deed of Transfer or Waiver, however, referred to Lot 53. The defendants admitted that the Deed of Sale was not accepted by the Bureau of Lands because the sale of government property is not allowed, and that no title had been issued to Mauro. The trial court ruled for Elena, and the defendants appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ruling on the Deed of Transfer or Waiver of Rights between Mauro Andalis and Virginia Andalis.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the partition of the subject property, which is still owned by the State, among the heirs of Mauro Andalis.
• Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to possession of the subject property pending approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:

The contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.

This provision binds the defendants to their pre-trial admission that the property in this case is Lot 55, not the Lot 53 described in the Deed of Transfer or Waiver.

Proclamation Number 172 dated 16 October 1987 provides:

No alienation, transfer or conveyance of any land covered by this proclamation shall be made within ten (10) years after issuance of title, provided that such alienations, transfer or conveyance may be made after ten (10) years but before twenty-five (25) years after issuance of the title upon approval of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Director of Lands, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds.

This provision bars any transfer of the lot before a title is issued, and no title had been issued to Mauro.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no ruling could be made on the Deed of Transfer or Waiver because it covered Lot 53, while the property in this case is Lot 55. The defendants failed to prove that the lot in the waiver is the same as the subject lot. Their pre-trial admission that the property is Lot 55 was a judicial admission, legally binding on them and removing the fact from the field of controversy.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. Courts may entertain suits over public land even before the application is resolved, because the authority of the Lands Department to administer public lands does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions. But on the merits, Elena failed to prove that Lot 55 was the very land Mauro applied for, since the application was never offered in evidence. She must rely on the strength of her own evidence, so she has not shown a better right of possession.

On the Deed of Sale, the Court held it clearly null and void. Mauro sold the land as absolute owner in fee simple when he was not the owner, because the lot still belonged to the State. The Court stated the governing maxim:

Nemo dat quod non habet.

Literally, one cannot give what one does not have. Salve herself admitted that the Bureau of Lands informed them the sale was void because government property cannot be sold. A tax declaration is not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when unsupported by other evidence.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the trial court erred in ordering partition. An accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession independently of title. The determination of who are the lawful heirs must be made in a proper special proceeding, not in an ordinary suit for recovery of possession. Partition presupposes a thing owned in common, and Lot 55 was never owned by Mauro, so his heirs could not own it in common.

Doctrine

A seller cannot transfer ownership of land he does not own; the sale is void under the maxim that one cannot give what one does not have. A pre-trial admission is a judicial admission, binding on the party who made it, and the pre-trial order controls the subsequent course of the action under Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. Courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions involving public land even while the land application is pending, but the plaintiff must still prove a better right of possession on the strength of his own evidence. The determination of heirs and the partition of an estate belong to a special proceeding, not to an accion publiciana. A tax declaration is not conclusive proof of ownership or of the right to possess.

Disposition

The appeal was partly granted. The trial court's decision was affirmed only insofar as it declared the Deed of Sale of 16 June 1996 null and void, and all other dispositions were deleted, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: one cannot give what one does not have, so a sale of public land by one who is not its owner is void. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between an accion publiciana and a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate, and the binding effect of pre-trial admissions.