SPOUSES MARIANO (A.K.A. QUAKY) AND EMMA BOLAÑOS, PETITIONERS, VS. ROSCEF ZUÑIGA BERNARTE, CLARO ZUÑIGA, PERFECTO ZUÑIGA, AND CEFERINA ZUÑIGA-GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

Bolaños versus Bernarte

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the spouses Mariano and Emma Bolaños against Roscef Zuñiga Bernarte, Claro Zuñiga, Perfecto Zuñiga, and Ceferina Zuñiga-Garcia. The respondents sued to partially annul two deeds of absolute sale over a 238-square-meter lot in Rapu-Rapu, Albay, on the ground that the sellers disposed of property that did not belong to them alone. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of two rules every reviewee must carry into the bar: that a co-owner can sell only his or her ideal share, and that a buyer of an unregistered lot steps into the shoes of the seller and can acquire no greater interest than the seller had.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for declaration of partial nullity of deeds of transfer and sale, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment limiting the interest acquired by the Bolaños spouses to the ideal shares of Flavia Zuñiga and Cresencia Zuñiga-Echague, equivalent to two-elevenths of the lot, and partially nullifying the two deeds of sale for the excess. The trial court also ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The Bolaños spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court judgment in full. The spouses then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, raising a single question of law on the application of the law on co-ownership.

Facts

Roman Zuñiga, Senior, married twice. His first wife was Flavia, who died sometime in 1944 or 1945, and they had seven children, among them Flavia Zuñiga and Cresencia Zuñiga-Echague. On October 18, 1954, Roman married his second wife, Ceferina Bendaña, and they had four children, the respondents in this case. Roman died on August 9, 1976, survived by all eleven children, and his estate was never settled or partitioned.

The subject lot was declared for taxation purposes for the first time on December 14, 1948, in the name of Flavia Zuñiga, sisters and brothers. In a sworn statement executed in 1973, Roman himself declared the lot as among the properties belonging to him. Flavia Zuñiga admitted at trial that her parents always declared their properties in her name together with her sisters and brothers, that she never acquired the lot on her own, and that she always recognized her father as the actual owner while he was alive.

On June 20, 2001, Flavia Zuñiga executed a notarized deed of absolute sale over the lot in favor of her sister Cresencia. On the very same day, Cresencia executed another notarized deed of absolute sale over the same lot in favor of the Bolaños spouses, who registered the sale with the municipal assessor. The respondents then sued, and the Bolaños spouses demolished a portion of the ancestral house on the lot. The Bolaños spouses claimed they were buyers in good faith and for value.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the lot was the capital property of Roman Zuñiga, Senior, and not the paraphernal property of his first wife.
• Whether or not the lot is owned in common by the eleven legitimate children of Roman from his two marriages, in equal shares.
• Whether or not the Bolaños spouses acquired the entire lot, or only the ideal shares of Flavia Zuñiga and Cresencia Zuñiga-Echague.

Applicable Provisions

Article 979 of the Civil Code provides:

Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from different marriages.

This provision establishes that children of the deceased inherit regardless of which marriage they come from, which is why the children of both marriages share in the lot.

Article 980 of the Civil Code provides:

The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.

This is the rule the Court applies to divide the lot into eleven equal shares among Roman's legitimate children.

Article 484 of the Civil Code provides:

There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.

This provision governs the relationship of the heirs before partition, since their shares remain ideal and undivided.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lot was the capital property of Roman Zuñiga, Senior. The claim that it was the paraphernal property of his first wife rested solely on the testimony of Josefina, who said she was told so by her elders in 1923 when she was about three years old, and who offered no document because the deed was allegedly lost in a typhoon. The Court held that evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, meaning natural, reasonable, and probable. The credible ancient documentary evidence, Tax Declaration Number 2975 effective in 1949, showed that Roman acquired the lot in 1948, while he was a widower and years before his second marriage. The lot was therefore his capital property.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lot formed part of Roman's estate at his death in 1976, and that the Civil Code on succession applied. Applying Articles 979 and 980, the Court ruled that the lot belongs to the eleven children of Roman, seven from the first marriage and four from the second, in equal shares. Because there was no partition, they owned the lot in common as co-heirs, and their shares remained ideal, so no one of them could claim a specifically identified portion.

On the third issue, the Court held that the sale by Flavia Zuñiga to Cresencia was valid only to the extent of Flavia's ideal share, since Flavia did not successfully repudiate her signature on the notarized deed. What Cresencia then sold to the Bolaños spouses was her own share plus the share she acquired from Flavia, or two-elevenths of the lot. The Court rejected the claim of good faith, reasoning that the lot was unregistered and the buyers merely stepped into the shoes of the seller, acquiring no greater interest than she had. The tax declaration at the time of purchase still showed the owners as Flavia Zuñiga, sisters and brothers, so the buyers knew that Flavia was not the exclusive owner.

Doctrine

A co-owner or co-heir may sell only his or her ideal share, and the sale is valid only to that extent; the buyer acquires no greater right than the seller had, because in the sale of an unregistered lot the buyer merely steps into the shoes of the seller. Before partition, the shares of co-heirs remain ideal and undivided under Article 484 of the Civil Code, and no co-heir may claim a specific portion. Legitimate children of the deceased inherit in their own right and divide the inheritance in equal shares under Articles 979 and 980, without distinction as to sex, age, or whether they come from different marriages. Good faith does not enlarge what a buyer of an unregistered lot acquires.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioners, leaving the Bolaños spouses with only the two-elevenths ideal share acquired from Flavia Zuñiga and Cresencia Zuñiga-Echague.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a buyer of an unregistered lot steps into the shoes of the seller and can acquire no greater interest than the seller had. Examiners use this case to test co-ownership and ideal shares among co-heirs, the limits of a co-owner's power to sell, and the rule that good faith does not cure a seller's lack of title over the excess.