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

Ledesma versus Mamon

The Case

This is the case of Ledesma versus Mamon, decided by the Supreme Court in December 1967. Remedios Ledesma sues Policarpo Mamon and the Labrador family in an action for partition of a parcel of land in Pototan, Iloilo. She claims one third of the land by virtue of a public auction sale in her favor, while Mamon claims a portion by virtue of an earlier unregistered sale in his favor. The case matters because it teaches when an appellate court may rule on a question not squarely pleaded below, and how a claim of co-ownership may be recognized even when raised only as a defense in a partition suit.

Procedural History

Ledesma filed the action for partition before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in her favor, declaring her the absolute owner of one third of the land and ordering the parties to submit to an extrajudicial physical partition. Only Mamon appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision, declaring that Ledesma and Mamon are the owners pro indiviso of a one sixth portion each of the property. Ledesma then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction and erred in modifying the trial court's decision.

Facts

The land, Lot Number 9403 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan, Iloilo, was covered by a transfer certificate of title in the names of Felix Labrador with a one third share, Jose Labrador with a one third share, and the spouses Benigno Labrador and Marcelina Justiniani with a one third share. On August 18, 1951, Benigno Labrador sold his and his wife's share to Policarpo Mamon, reserving the right to repurchase within two years after the expiration of three years from the date of the deed. The deed was not signed by Benigno's wife and was not registered, but Mamon immediately took possession and cultivated the property until the middle part of 1959. Benigno failed to exercise his right to repurchase within the stipulated period.

Meanwhile, in a separate case before the Municipal Court of Iloilo City, Ledesma obtained a judgment against Marcelina Labrador for a sum of money, with interest, damages, attorney's fees, and costs. After the decision became executory, a writ of execution issued, and the sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction one third of Lot Number 9403 to Ledesma as the highest bidder. The spouses failed to redeem within one year, so a final certificate of sale was executed in her favor, and both the provisional and final certificates were registered. When Ledesma went to take possession, she found Mamon cultivating the land, and he refused her demands to vacate.

Ledesma then filed the present action for partition against Jose Labrador, Magdalena Labrador, and Policarpo Mamon, praying that she and the Labradors be declared co-owners and that the lot be partitioned, and that Mamon be ordered to deliver possession of her one third portion and to pay damages. Mamon invoked possession and ownership of one third of the property since 1951. On June 24, 1959, through the intervention of the Provincial Sheriff, Mamon surrendered possession to Ledesma, who has since been in possession.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction when it ruled on the validity of the public auction sale in which Ledesma was the highest bidder, that question not having been raised in the trial court.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction when it declared Mamon the owner of a one sixth undivided share of the lot, despite the fact that he had not pleaded a counterclaim in relation thereto and the sale in his favor had never been registered.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the decision of the trial court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. Its reasoning rests on the nature of a partition action and on the rule that a defense of co-ownership, when necessarily involved in the action and litigated by the evidence, may be recognized by the court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling on the validity of the auction sale. The action was one for partition, and Mamon alleged in his answer that he was the exclusive owner of one third of the lot also claimed by Ledesma. The action therefore necessarily involved the question of who was the co-owner of the land to be partitioned. Any right of ownership Ledesma could claim over one third of the property must necessarily be based upon and spring from the execution sale made in her favor. The validity of that sale was thus directly and necessarily involved in the action and was an issue in the trial court.

On the second issue, the Court held that Mamon's answer, although not as specific and definite as was desirable, involved a claim that he should be declared the owner of one third of the totality of the titled parcel of land. Even if his 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 that a one sixth portion of the property belonged to him. The Court added that the averments could not have misled Ledesma in the conduct of her case, and she made no claim to this effect.

On the third issue, the Court found the appealed decision to be in accordance with law and the evidence, and deemed it unnecessary to decide the last assignment of error.

Doctrine

A bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in an action for partition, the question of who among the claimants is a co-owner of the land sought to be partitioned is necessarily involved, and the validity of the execution sale from which a claimant derives her title is likewise directly and necessarily involved, so the appellate court may rule on it even if not squarely raised below. Second, a claim of co-ownership interposed merely as a defense in a partition action may be recognized by the court when the nature of the action and the evidence justify it, provided the opposing party was not misled in the conduct of her case. Third, the appellate court may modify the trial court's decision when the evidence shows a different apportionment of shares among the co-owners.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs, holding that Ledesma and Mamon are the owners pro indiviso of a one sixth portion each of the property.

Remember This

In a partition suit, the validity of the execution sale from which a claimant derives her title is necessarily involved, and a claim of co-ownership raised only as a defense may still be recognized. Examiners use this case to test the scope of appellate review and the pleading of co-ownership in partition actions.