CARMEN FANGONIL – HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. TOMAS FANGONIL, PURA FANGONIL TINO, MARINA FANGONIL, MARIANO FANGONIL, MILAGROS FANGONIL-LAYUG AND VICTORIA FANGONIL ESTOQUE, RESPONDE…

Fangonil-Herrera versus Fangonil

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Carmen Fangonil-Herrera against her own siblings, Tomas, Pura, Marina, Mariano, Milagros, and Victoria, arising from a judicial partition of the estate of their deceased parents, the spouses Fabian Fangonil and Maria Lloren Fangonil. Carmen claims that two of the seven parcels of land, the sixth and the seventh, belong to her exclusively because it was her own money that redeemed them from mortgage and from a sale with a right to repurchase in the 1950s, and she also complains that the manner of dividing the first parcel, the residential lot facing the town plaza, is unequal and prejudicial to her. The case matters because it settles, in a compact and teachable way, the rule that a co-heir who pays to redeem estate property does not thereby become its owner, but is at most a creditor of the estate, and that findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

Six of the seven children of the Fangonil spouses, excluding Carmen, filed a petition for judicial partition of the seven parcels of land before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31, with a prayer for the appointment of Marina Fangonil as administratrix. Carmen intervened to oppose the petition, praying that she instead be appointed administratrix and claiming exclusive ownership of the sixth and seventh parcels. The parties agreed to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, since there was no disagreement as to the sharing of the second, third, fourth, and fifth parcels. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declared the sixth and seventh parcels part of the estate, ordered the partition of the first parcel in the manner proposed by the respondents, and ordered the estate to pay Carmen the money equivalent of what she had spent for the redemption. Carmen appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full. She moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and she then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

Fabian Fangonil and Maria Lloren Fangonil had seven children: Tomas, Pura, Marina, Mariano, Milagros, Sinforoso, and Carmen. Fabian died in June 1953 and Maria died in February 1976, both intestate, leaving seven parcels of land. During their lifetime, the spouses mortgaged a middle portion of the sixth parcel to Francisca Saguitan, sold a portion of that same parcel with a right to repurchase to Constantino Oribello, and sold the seventh parcel with a right to repurchase to Quirino Estacio. The properties were never redeemed by the parents.

It was Carmen who later paid to release the mortgaged portion, to repurchase the portion sold to Oribello, and to repurchase the seventh parcel from Estacio, advancing a total of 6,100 pesos. She then kept possession of the sixth and seventh parcels, paid the real estate taxes, and enjoyed their produce for decades, while the tax declarations remained in the name of the deceased Fabian.

In November 1983 the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement and partial partition covering all seven parcels, including the sixth and seventh, and stating that Carmen and her brother Tomas were the only creditors of the estate, with Carmen a creditor in the amount of 8,700 pesos. Carmen signed this document but refused to accede to the proposed partition of the first parcel. Years later she executed an affidavit refuting the portions on the sixth and seventh parcels, claiming that her late brother Sinforoso, then a Regional Trial Court judge, had misrepresented matters and convinced her to sign. When the judicial partition was filed, she intervened, claiming exclusive ownership of the two parcels and objecting to the partition of the first parcel.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the partition of the first parcel in the manner approved by the trial court, which Carmen claims is unequal and prejudicial to her.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the sixth and seventh parcels belong solely and exclusively to Carmen, she being the only one who redeemed and repurchased them.
• Whether or not the respondents' right to claim a share in the sixth and seventh parcels had long prescribed through their inaction for more than forty years.
• Whether or not the respondents' claim was barred by laches.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in fixing the money equivalent of Carmen's redemption payments at 138,100 pesos.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

This confines the Supreme Court's review to errors of law, which is why the Court declined to re-examine the factual findings of the courts below.

Section 4, paragraph a, of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

The Court of Appeals shall not be impleaded as a respondent in the petition.

This is the basis for the Court's ruling that impleading the Court of Appeals was a procedural error that could be cured by simply omitting it from the title of the case.

Ruling

On the procedural point, the Court held that although Carmen erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals as a respondent, she clearly invoked Rule 45, and the correct remedy was a petition for review, not a special civil action for certiorari. The Court of Appeals was simply omitted from the title of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

On the merits, the Court resolved the issues against Carmen. As to the first parcel, she failed to adduce substantial evidence that the partition was unequal or prejudicial. The trial court had conducted an ocular inspection and found existing structures, the homes of Carmen, Tomas, and Marina, and Carmen's store, and the partition gave each heir an equal area of 362 square meters, following the arrangement the family had observed on the ground.

As to the sixth and seventh parcels, the Court held that the fact that it was Carmen's money that redeemed the properties did not make her their owner, absent convincing proof of an agreement of ownership. Her possession and enjoyment of the fruits were by the mere tolerance of the other co-owners. The real estate tax receipts, while indicia of ownership, were not conclusive, especially since the declared owner remained the deceased Fabian. Most tellingly, the extrajudicial settlement she signed included the two parcels in the estate and described her as a creditor, not an owner. The Court held that she was therefore a mere creditor of the estate, and an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. On prescription and laches, the Court found no basis, since the co-ownership among the heirs had not been repudiated and the respondents' claim was timely asserted. On the money equivalent, the Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the courts below.

Doctrine

A co-heir who pays for the redemption or repurchase of estate property does not thereby acquire ownership of that property. The payment creates at most a credit in her favor against the estate, and she holds the property in trust for her co-heirs. Possession and enjoyment of the fruits by one co-owner are presumed to be by the tolerance of the others, and real estate tax receipts are not conclusive proof of ownership where other evidence shows otherwise. An admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. Finally, under Section 1 of Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised before the Supreme Court, and the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they affirm those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with the Court of Appeals omitted from the title of the case.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is this: the heir who redeems estate property with her own money becomes a creditor of the estate, not the owner of the land. Examiners use this case to test the co-ownership rule on possession by tolerance, the conclusiveness of factual findings under Rule 45, and the effect of an extrajudicial settlement as a judicial admission.