ELISEA AGUILAR- SALATANDRE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. SPOUSES RICARDO PIA AND LITA PIA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Aguilar-Salatandre versus Spouses Pia

The Case

This is an appeal brought by Elisea Aguilar-Salatandre against the spouses Ricardo Pia and Lita Pia, seeking to annul a deed of donation, a deed of absolute sale, and an advance plan covering a parcel of land in the Maasin Cadastre. The plaintiff claims that her father, Pedro Aguilar, was the true owner of the land, and that the persons who donated and later sold it held no title to give. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of two working rules every examinee must carry: usufruct transfers only the right to use and enjoy, never the right to dispose, and no one can give what he does not have.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed her complaint for annulment and revocation of the deed of donation, the deed of sale, and the advance plan, with damages, before the Regional Trial Court of Maasin City, Southern Leyte. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that Camilo Diores was a mere usufructuary, and that where the evidence of both parties is in equipoise, the party bearing the burden of proof must fail. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court gave due course, and the records were elevated. The appeal was taken under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Supreme Court granted it, reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court.

Facts

Pedro Aguilar owned a large tract of land. During his lifetime, he granted usufructuary rights over the property to several tenants, evidenced by a document entitled Handumanan, dated 27 May 1948. The tenants were allowed to build their houses on the portions they tilled, on the condition that they would remove those houses if the owner should later use the land. One of the beneficiaries was Camilo Diores.

On 17 July 1987, Camilo Diores executed a deed of donation mortis causa over the property and the house in favor of his son, Jacinto Diores. In that deed, the donor inserted a condition that upon the death of the donee, the property shall revert to Pedro Aguilar or his legitimate heir. On 12 September 2000, Jacinto Diores sold the property to Ricardo Pia for 10,000 pesos by a deed of absolute sale, and the buyer secured an advance plan from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for titling purposes.

Learning of the sale, the plaintiff filed her complaint on 2 January 2002, contending that Camilo and Jacinto Diores held no absolute title and could not alienate the land. The defendants answered that Camilo had acquired the land from Pedro Aguilar by purchase, presenting a Spanish document entitled Escritura de Venta de un Terreno dated 23 February 1959. At trial, the plaintiff presented three witnesses, including Pedro Capecenio, a tenant who testified that he was present when the Handumanan was signed at the house of Camilo Diores. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish that Camilo Diores was merely a usufructuary of the subject property.
• Whether or not the deed of donation of 17 July 1987, the deed of absolute sale of 12 September 2000, and the advance plan are null and void.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that a usufruct of real property, being a real right, must be duly registered in order to bind innocent third persons.

Applicable Provisions

Article 562 of the Civil Code defines usufruct:

Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.

This is the core provision: it shows that what passes to the usufructuary is enjoyment, not ownership, so the right to dispose stays with the owner.

Article 582 of the Civil Code states the rights of the usufructuary:

The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, but he cannot alienate the thing itself.

This provision directly bars Camilo Diores from donating or selling the land itself.

Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence governs proof of private documents:

Before a private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

This is the rule that allowed the Handumanan to be authenticated by a witness who saw it signed.

Section 33 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence governs documents in an unofficial language:

When the terms of a document offered in evidence are in an unofficial language, it must be accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino, and the translation shall be filed with the court before the trial.

This is the rule that kept the Spanish Escritura de Venta out of evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plaintiff proved by preponderance of evidence that Camilo Diores was a mere usufructuary. The Handumanan was a contract of usufruct, and its due execution was sufficiently shown by Pedro Capecenio, who saw it signed; the rules do not require the authenticating witness to be the maker or a witness of the document. The Court also rejected the trial court's finding that the usufruct might refer to another parcel, since no other tenanted property of Pedro Aguilar appeared in the records.

On the second issue, the Court held that the donation and the sale are void. Since donation and sale are modes of acquiring ownership, the donor or seller must be the owner. The Court applied the maxim that no one can give what he does not have, nemo dat quod non habet, and observed that the spring cannot rise higher than its source. The deed of donation itself contained a condition that the property shall revert to Pedro Aguilar or his legitimate heir, which bolstered the finding that no sale ever took place between Pedro Aguilar and Camilo Diores.

On the third issue, the Court found no need to discuss it, since the resolution of the first two issues already disposed of the case.

Doctrine

Usufruct transfers to the usufructuary only the right to use and enjoy the property, including possession, while the owner retains the right to dispose. A usufructuary therefore cannot donate or sell the thing itself, and any such donation or sale is void. Because no one can give what he does not have, a buyer or donee from a usufructuary acquires no better right than the usufructuary had. A private document may be authenticated by anyone who saw it executed or written, not necessarily by its maker or a witness. A document in an unofficial language without a timely translation is not admitted in evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the trial court's decision, declared the plaintiff the lawful owner of the property, declared the deed of donation, the deed of absolute sale, and the advance plan null and void, and ordered the defendants to respect and recognize her ownership and possession.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a usufructuary may enjoy and possess, but he cannot alienate the thing itself, so his donation or sale is void under the maxim that no one can give what he does not have. Examiners use this case to test the rights of a usufructuary under Articles 562 and 582, and the rules on authenticating private documents and requiring translations of foreign-language evidence.