NEMESIO DOINOG AND THE HEIRS OF DONATA DOINOG, REPRESENTED BY MERLA D. JAROPOJOP, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. VICTORIA MACABIDANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Doinog versus Macabidang

The Case

This is the story of one family and one parcel of land. Nemesio Doinog and the heirs of Donata Doinog, represented by Merla Jaropojop, sued Victoria Macabidang to recover a share of a coconut and rice land in Calbayog City. The plaintiffs say Donata owned three fourths of the land, that she mortgaged it to Victoria in 1973, that she redeemed it in 1976, and that Victoria refused to return possession. Victoria answers that she and her late husband bought the coconut portion outright and that the rice portion was partitioned among the heirs. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules on consensual sale, co-ownership and the limits of what a co-owner may alienate, the legitimes of the surviving spouse and children, and the strict requirements of an action to recover ownership of real property.

Procedural History

The heirs of Donata Doinog filed their complaint for ownership and recovery of property before the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City in July 1989. The trial court, in a decision dated May 28, 2007, ruled largely for the plaintiffs. It held that the coconut land belonged to Victoria and the heirs of Patricio, that the rice land was owned in common by the plaintiffs, that the five thousand square meter dowry belonged to the plaintiffs, and it awarded actual damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and costs, while dismissing Victoria's counterclaims. Victoria appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the failure to dismiss the complaint, prescription, the absence of earnest efforts toward a compromise, the award of damages, and the dismissal of her counterclaims.

Facts

Victoriano Alandino and Demetria Julaton owned a parcel of coconut and rice land covered by a tax declaration in Victoriano's name. They had three children: Donata, Gloria, and Patricio. Donata married Nemesio Doinog and bore eleven children, the plaintiffs in this case. Patricio married Victoria Macabidang, the defendant.

In June 1968, while Victoriano and Demetria were alive, they executed an unnotarized deed of absolute sale of the entire coconut portion of the land in favor of Patricio and Victoria for five hundred pesos. Victoriano died on April 17, 1973, and two days later Patricio also died. On August 5, 1973, Demetria executed a notarized deed of confirmation of the previous sale in favor of Victoria. On August 30, 1973, Donata mortgaged her share to Victoria for one thousand pesos, and Victoria took possession. In December 1973, Demetria sold her one half determinate portion of the rice land to Donata, and Gloria sold her share to Donata as well. In 1979, Demetria and Gloria executed a deed of quitclaim and renunciation of rights over five thousand square meters in favor of Donata.

In 1976, Donata tried to redeem the mortgaged property, but Victoria refused to surrender possession. Victoria later transferred the tax declaration of the entire lot to her own name. When Donata died, her heirs demanded possession, again without success, and so they sued.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to identify the property they seek to recover and to establish their title to it.
• Whether or not the action is barred by prescription.
• Whether or not the complaint states no cause of action for failure to allege earnest efforts toward a compromise among members of the same family.
• Whether or not the award of damages is supported by evidence.
• Whether or not the counterclaims of Victoria were properly dismissed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 434 of the Civil Code governs the action to recover ownership, and it provides:

Article 434. In an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things: First, the identity of the land claimed, and second, his title thereto.

The Court uses this provision to test whether the plaintiffs proved both the land and their title, and it is the provision on which the case ultimately turns.

Article 493 of the Civil Code defines the rights of a co-owner, and it provides:

Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

This provision limits what Demetria and Gloria could validly convey to Donata before any partition was made.

Article 888 of the Civil Code fixes the legitime of legitimate children, and it provides:

Article 888. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.

This provision, together with Article 996, determines the shares of the heirs in the rice land.

Article 996 of the Civil Code fixes the share of the surviving spouse, and it provides:

Article 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children.

This provision gives Demetria a share equal to each child in the estate of Victoriano.

Article 151 of the Family Code requires earnest efforts toward a compromise, and it provides:

Article 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were, in fact, made, the case must be dismissed.

The Court discusses this provision in relation to Article 150, which defines family relations, in resolving Victoria's third assigned error.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the complaint must be dismissed. Although the plaintiffs proved their title through the deeds of sale, they failed to prove the identity of the land. The Court recalls that what defines a piece of land is not the area stated in its description but the boundaries laid down, and here there was no partition proved and no showing of which portion belonged to whom. The action to recover therefore cannot prosper under Article 434.

On the second issue, the Court does not sustain the defense of prescription, because the action is one for recovery of ownership and possession, not an action upon a written contract of mortgage.

On the third issue, the Court rejects Victoria's argument that the complaint states no cause of action for lack of earnest efforts toward a compromise, because the requirement of Article 151 applies only to suits between members of the same family as defined in Article 150, and Victoria, as a daughter-in-law, does not fall within that enumeration.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the award of damages is premature, because it could not be ascertained whether the land possessed by Victoria pertained to the share of the plaintiffs.

On the fifth issue, the Court finds that the dismissal of the counterclaims was proper, there being no legal basis shown for them.

Doctrine

First, a sale is a consensual contract, perfected by mere consent, and an unnotarized deed of sale is valid between the parties; notarization is only a formal requisite to bind third persons.

Second, a co-owner may alienate only his undivided share, and the effect of the alienation is limited to the portion allotted to him upon partition, under Article 493.

Third, the surviving spouse shares equally with each legitimate child in the estate of the deceased, under Articles 888 and 996.

Fourth, to recover ownership of real property, the plaintiff must prove both the identity of the land and his title, under Article 434, and the boundaries, not the stated area, define the land.

Fifth, the requirement of earnest efforts toward a compromise under Article 151 applies only to members of the same family as enumerated in Article 150.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint and set aside the awards of damages, while affirming the dismissal of Victoria's counterclaims.

Remember This

Remember the two things Article 434 demands: the identity of the land and the title to it, and that boundaries, not area, define the land. Examiners like to use this case on the limits of a co-owner's alienation under Article 493 and on who counts as a member of the family for the earnest efforts requirement.