G.R. No. 14530. April 25, 1962
LEONA AGLIBOT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ANDREA ACAY MAÑALAC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
DIZON, J.:
in the Court of First Instance of Zambales on July 31, 1952 to recover from
Andrea Acay Mañalac and her children—Ramona, Gregorio, Felix, Angela, Juanita
and Purisima, all surnamed Mañalac—the ownership and possession of a parcel of
land situated in barrio Namanaan, Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales, more
particularly described in paragraph 2 of their complaint, and damages.
Briefly stated, the allegations of the complaint are that the Aglibots
inherited the property subject matter thereof from their deceased niece Juliana
Mañalac, that upon the death of Anacleto Mañalac, father of Juliana; the
defendants took possession of said property, claimed it as their own and had
since then appropriated for themselves all the palay annually harvested
therefrom amounting to 30 cavanes; that notwithstanding demands made upon said
defendants by the Aglibots, they had refused to surrender the property of the
latter.
In their answer, after denying some material averments of the complaint,
appellants alleged substantially the following as affirmative defense: that the
land in question was purchased from Esteban Garcia by the spouses Anacleto
Mañalac and Maria Aglibot for P1,000.00; that when Maria Aglibot died, only
P300.00 of this amount had been paid; that the remaining P700.00 was paid to the
vendor during the marriage of Anacleto Mañalac and appellant Andrea Acay; that
Juliana Mañalac, the only daughter of Anacleto and his first wife, died in 1920,
while Anacleto died in 1942; that upon his death, his widow, Andrea Acay, and
their children acquired the property in question as his sole legal heirs. Their
answer likewise claimed the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees by way of
counterclaim.
After due trial upon the issue thus joined, the lower court rendered judgment
as follows:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court hereby renders judgment
declaring the plaintiffs owners pro-indiviso of one half (1/2) of the land
covered by Original Certificate No. 10 described in paragraph 2 of the amended
complaint; ordering the defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs the possession
of the said one-half (1/2) of the property covered by said title; ordering the
defendants jointly and severally to deliver to the plaintiffs 15 cavanes of
palay yearly as the share of the plaintiffs from the produce of the land or its
equivalent value at P10.00 a cavan from the date of the filing of the complaint
until the said one-half (1/2) portion of the property described in Original
Certificate No. 10 is delivered to the plaintiffs and ordering the defendants to
pay the costs.”
From the above judgment Andrea Acay and her children took the present
appeal.
The evidence shows that, originally, the land in question belonged to the
conjugal partnership of the spouses Anacleto Mañalac and Maria Aglibot, and was
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10 of the Register of Deeds of
Zambales in the name of Anacleto Mañalac, married to Maria Aglibot; that said
spouses had an only child named Juliana Mañalac; that Maria Aglibot died on
October 2, 1906; that on April 25, 1910, Anacleto Mañalac married appellant
Andrea Acay with whom he has six children (the other appellants herein); that
Juliana Mañalac died intestate on October 22, 1920, leaving no other relatives
except her father, Anacleto Mañalac, and her half brothers and sisters already
mentioned; that upon the death of Anacleto on June 2, 1942, his widow, Andrea
Acay, and her six children took possession of the parcel of land in controversy
and since then hare refused to surrender the ownership and possession thereof to
the appellees; that the land produces; thirty cavanes of palay yearly.
On May 18, 1951 appellees Leona and Evariata Aglibot filed a verified
petition in the Court of First Instance of Zambales for the summary partition or
distribution of the properties left by the deceased Juliana Mañalac among her
rightful heirs (Special Proceeding No. 594). The court, after proper
proceedings, issued an order dated October 30, 1951, the dispositive part of
which reads as follows:
“Wherefore, the Court declares that the applicant Leona Aglibot and Evarista
Aglibot are the only heirs within the third degree of Juliana Mañalac, and
belonging to the same line from which: these properties originally belong, that
is, from Maria Aglibot, being the sisters of the latter; that the value of these
properties does not exceed six thousand pesos (P6,000); and that each of the
applicants is entitled to receive and enter into possession of onehalf of the
first five parcels and one-fourth of the last two, after paying such debts of
the state—if there be any—and the proportionate expenses of this special
proceedings, subject to the provisions of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court”. (Page
10 Rec. on Ap.)
After securing the decision above quoted appellees made the unsuccessful
demands upon appellants for the surrender of the property in question to them,
and subsequently filed the present action.
The main question to be resolved now is: Who is entitled to the land which
Anacleto Mañalac inherited from his daughter, Juliana, as between appellees
(sisters of Maria Aglibot, first wife of Anacleto Mañalac), on the one hand, and
appellants (Anacleto’s second wife and their children), on the other?
It is clear from the facts of the case that the land in question is
reservable property in accordance with the provisions of Article 811 of the
Spanish Civil Code (Art. 891 of the New Civil Code). Both parties now admit that
the entire parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10 belonged to
the conjugal partnership of the spouses Anacleto Mañalac and Maria Aglibot; that
upon the death of the latter on October 2,1906, their only daughter, Juliana
Mañalac, inherited one-half of the property, the other half pertaining to her
father as his share in the conjugal partnership; that upon the death of Juliana
Mañalac on October 22, 1920 without leaving any descendant, her father inherited
her one-half portion of said property. In accordance with law, therefore,
Anacleto Mañalac was obliged to reserve the portion he had thus inherited from
his daughter, for the benefit of appellees, Leona and Evarista Aglibot, aunts of
Juliana on the maternal side and who are, therefore, her relatives within the
third degree belonging to the line from which said property came.
Appellant’s contention that the major portion of the purchase price of the
land in question was paid to the original owner, Esteban Garcia, after the death
of Maria Aglibot is rendered clearly untenable not only by the lack of
sufficient evidence to this effect but also by the very significant circumstance
that the property was titled in the name of Anacleto Mañalac “married to Maria
Aglibot”—circumstance that strongly indicates that said spouses had acquired
full ownership thereof during the lifetime of Maria Aglibot.
A secondary question raised by appellants is to the effect that the lower
court erred in ordering them, jointly and severally, to deliver to appellees
fifteen cavanes of palay yearly or pay their equivalent value of P10.00 a cavan,
from the date of the filing of the complaint. Considering the belief of
appellants that the property in controversy formed part of the estate of
Anacleto Mañalac and that upon the latter’s death ownership thereof was
transmitted to all his heirs, subject to the usufructuary rights of the
surviving spouse, Maria Acay, their contention—not sufficiently rebutted—that
only the latter enjoyed possession of the property since her husband’s death and
received the annual share pertaining to the landlord seems to be reasonable and
logical. She should be the only one, therefore, sentenced to pay the fifteen
cavanes of palay yearly from the date of the filing of the complaint.
The remaining contention of appellants that the lower court should have
ordered appellees to refund to them 50% of the annual realty tax paid on thq
property cannot be sustained, this matter having been raised by them for the
first time on appeal.
Wherefore, modified as above indicated, the decision appealed from is
affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.
B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.