REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND POLICARPIO MAMON, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal interposed by Remedios C. Ledesma from the decision of the Court of Appeals in G.R.
L-30048-R modifying the one rendered by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
in Civil Case No. 4562 by declaring that she and Policarpo
Mamon are the owners pro-indiviso
of a 1/6 portion each of Lot No. 9403 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan, Iloilo, described in Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-7958 issued in the names of Felix Labrador, married to Expectacion Palma, 1/3 share; Jose Labrador, a widower, 1/3
share; and the spouses Benigno Labrador and Marcelina Justiniani, 1/3 share.

On August 18, 1951,
Benigno Labrador sold his and that of his wife’s
share, interest and participation in the aforementioned property to Policarpo Mamon (Exh. “1”), reserving for themselves, however, the
right to repurchase it within two years after the expiration of three years
from the date of the deed of sale.  Said
deed was not signed by Benigno’s wife, nor was it
registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo.  However, Mamon
immediately took possession of the property and cultivated it until the middle
part of 1959.

On August 23, 1951,
Marcelina J. Labrador – Benigno
Labrador’s wife – executed in Manila
a power of attorney authorizing her husband to encumber her share in the same
property to secure a loan.  Her husband,
on the other hand, failed to exercise his right to repurchase within the period
stipulated.

The record further discloses that in Civil Case No. 2932,
entitled “Remedios C. Ledesma,
plaintiff, vs. Marcelina J. Labrador, accompanied by
her husband, Benigno Labrador, etc.”, the
Municipal Court of Iloilo City, on February 19, 1955, rendered judgment as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, this Court renders decision in favor of the
plaintiff, ordering the defendant Marcelina J.
Labrador to pay to the herein plaintiff the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY
(P870.00) pesos, with legal rate of interest from October 26, 1954 (date of the
filing of the complaint) until fully paid; TWO HUNDRED
(P200.00) pesos for damages; ONE
HUNDRED (P100.00) for attorney’s fees and the costs of this suit.”

The above decision was amended six days later to reduce the money
claim to P585.47 and to eliminate the sum of P200.00 awarded as damages.  Re-amended subsequently, the decision
restored the principal money claim to P870.00, awarded P100.00 attorney’s fees
and eliminated the P200.00 damages.

After the decision had become executory,
the corres­ponding writ of execution was issued and the sheriff levied upon and
sold at public auction on April 9, 1956, 1/3 of Lot No. 9403 to the herein
petitioner, as the highest bid­der.  Upon
failure of the spouses to redeem their property within one year from the
auction sale, the corresponding final certificate of sale was executed in favor of the purchaser, the pertinent
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, I, Cipriano Cabaluna, Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, by
virtue of the provisions of the law in
this case made and provided and in consideration of the abovementioned amount
of P1,446.00, do hereby sell, cede and transfer
definitely and forever all rights, interests and participations of Marcelina J. Labrador
consisting of 1/3 share over the above described property unto Remedios C. Ledesma, of legal
age, widow, Filipino and resident of Jaro, Iloilo
City, Philippines.”

The provisional as well as the final certificates of sale were
duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo.  Thereafter, Ledesma
repaired to the land to take possession thereof, but found Mamon
cultivating it.  Demands on the latter
were made for him to vacate and surrender the land to petitioner, but said
demands were not heeded.  Thereupon,
petitioner instituted the present action (Civil Case No. 4562) against Jose
Labrador, Magdalena Labrador and Policarpo Mamon, praying that (1) she and the defendants Jose
Labrador, and Magdaleno Labrador (heir of deceased
Felix Labrador), assisted by her husband Florentino
Gonzales, be declared as co-owners of the aforesaid property; (2) said lot be
partitioned among themselves, or 1/3 each; and that (3) Mamon
be ordered to:  (a) deliver to her the
possession of the 1/3 portion of the land following its partition, and (2) to
pay her an annual damage of 91 cavans of palay, or its money value at the rate of P10.00 per cavan from the filing of this suit until complete pos­session
is delivered to her.

In their answer to the complaint Jose Labrador and Magdalena
Labrador denied that a big portion of the property was riceland
and, as special defense, further alleged that it was already subdivided for
taxation purposes into three equal parts of 26,750 square meters each between
them and Mamon as lawful owners, pursuant to a
subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands on December 15, 1952,
and as a counterclaim prayed for P3,000.00 as moral
damages and attorney’s fees of P500.00.

In his separate answer Mamon made a
general denial of the facts alleged in the complaint and, as special defense,
invoked possession and ownership of 1/3 of said realty since 1951, which
portion had already been segregated from that of the two other owners.  Upon his counterclaim he prayed for payment
of moral damages and attorney’s fees in the sum of P11,000.00.

On June 24, 1959,
through the intervention of the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo,
Mamon eventually surrendered possession of the
property to Ledesma who, since then has been in possession thereof.

After due trial, the lower court on June 21, 1961 rendered judgment as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of plaintiff Remedios C. Ledesma
by declaring her as absolute owner of 1/3 of Lot No. 9403 of the cadastral
survey of Pototan, Iloilo,
described under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-7953,
with costs against defendant Policarpo Mamon.

The plaintiff Remedios C. Ledesma and defendants Jose Labrador, Magdalena Labrador,
accompanied by her husband Florentino Gonzales, are
hereby ordered to submit to this Court an extra-judicial physical partition of
Lot No. 9403 in accordance with their ownership as shown in the certificate of
title within a period of thirty (30) days, and should they fail to do so, this
Court will be constrained to appoint Commissioners for the physical partition
of the property.  This is without costs
against defendants Jose Labrador, Magdalena Labrador, accompanied by her
husband Florentino Gonzales.”

From the above decision only Mamon
appealed to the Court of Appeals where, after proper proceedings, the appealed
judgment was rendered.

As grounds for a reversal of the appealed decision petitioner
relies upon the following:  that the
Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction (a) when it decided the
validity of the public auction sale in which petitioner was the highest bidder,
said question not having been raised in the trial court, and (b) when it
declared respondent Mamon owner of 1/6 undivided
share in Lot No. 9403 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan,
inspite of the fact that he had not pleaded any
counterclaim in relation thereto and the pacto de
retro sale executed in his favor had never been registered; and lastly, that
said court erred in modifying the decision of the trial court.

To be borne in mind in this case is the fact that the present
action is for partition (see p. 7, record on appeal) where respondent Mamon alleged in his answer that he was the exclusive owner
of 1/3 portion of Lot No. 9403 also claimed by petitioner.  The action, therefore, necessarily involved
the question of whether or not it was petitioner or it was respondent Mamon who was a co-owner of the land sought to be
partitioned.  Such being the case, it can
not be denied that the auction sale made pursuant to the writ of execution
issued in Civil Case No. 2932 of the Municipal Court of Iloilo in which
petitioner was the purchaser of the alleged 1/3 share of Marcelina J. Labrador
in the property covered by T.C.T. No. 7958, was directly and necessarily
involved in the action.

On the other hand, it is obvious from the answers to the
complaint filed separately, on the one hand by Jose and Magdalena Labrador,
and, on the other, by Policarpo Mamon
that, aside from denying the material averments of the complaint, they alleged
that the property covered by the certificate of title mentioned above was their
common property; that, in fact, it had already been partitioned amongst them;
that Mamon had acquired 1/3 portion of the whole
property from the spouses Benigno Labrador and Marcelina J. Labrador; that since the year 1951 when these
vendors a retro failed to exercise their right of repurchase, Mamon had taken possession of their 1/3 share, cultivated
it and paid all land taxes due thereon.

The foregoing, in our opinion, makes it clearer still that the
validity of the public auction sale mentioned heretofore was an issue in the
trial court, it being undeniable that any right of ownership petitioner could
claim over 1/3 of the property must necessarily be based upon and spring from
the execution sale made in her favor. 
Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling upon its
validity.

It is likewise clear from the averments made in the answers filed
by the defendants in Civil Case No. 2932 – both defensive and in the nature of
a counterclaim – that it was their common contention that respondent Mamon was the owner of 1/3 undivided share of Lot No. 9403
of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan.  As a matter of fact, the answer of Jose and Magdalena
Labrador, besides alleging that each of them (Jose and Magdalena Labrador, and Porfirio Mamon) had obtained his
1/3 share with an area of 26,750 square meters in said property by virtue of a
subdivision plan duly approved by the Bureau of Lands since December 15, 1952,
it alleged specifically that each portion, as subdivided, was declared in the
name of the respective owner for taxation purposes and was in their respective
possession.  Consequently, We deem it
clear that respondent Mamon’s answer to the
complaint, although not as specific and definite as was desirable, involved a
claim that he should be declared the owner of one-third (1/3) share of the
totality of the titled parcel of land. 
As a matter of fact, even if Mamon’s claim of
co-ownership was interposed merely as a defense, there was sufficient
justification, considering the nature of the action and the result of the
evidence, for the declaration made in the appealed decision that 1/6 portion of
the property belonged to him and that the averments made therein could not have
possibly misled petitioner – and she makes no claim to this effect – in the
conduct of her case.

Considering what
has been said heretofore, We deem it unnecessary to
decide the last assignment of error submitted in petitioner’s brief.

WHEREFORE, finding the appealed decision to be in
accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.