DONATO S. PAULMITAN, JULIANA P. FANESA AND RODOLFO FANESA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIO PAULMITAN, ELENA PAULMITAN, ABELINO PAULMITAN, ANITA PAULMITAN, BAKING PAULM…

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the
reversal of the decision^[1]
of the Court of Appeals, dated July 14, 1982 in CA-G.R. No. 62255-R entitled
“Alicio Paulmitan, et al. v. Donato Sagario Paulmitan, et al.” which
affirmed the decision^[2]
of the then Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Negros Occidental, 12th
Judicial District, Branch IV, Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. 11770.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Agatona Sagario Paulmitan, who died sometime in 1953,^[3]
left the two following parcels of land located in the Province of Negros
Occidental: (1) Lot No. 757 with an
area of 1,946 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
RO-8376; and (2) Lot No. 1091 with an area of 69,080 square meters and covered
by OCT No. RO-11653. From her marriage
with Ciriaco Paulmitan, who is also now deceased, Agatona begot two legitimate
children, namely: Pascual Paulmitan,
who also died in 1953,^[4]
apparently shortly after his mother passed away, and Donato Paulmitan, who is
one of the petitioners. Petitioner
Juliana P. Fanesa is Donato’s daughter while the third petitioner, Rodolfo
Fanesa, is Juliana’s husband. Pascual
Paulmitan, the other son of Agatona & Sagario, is survived by the
respondents, who are his children, namely: Alicio, Elena, Abelino, Adelina, Anita, Baking and Anito, all surnamed
Paulmitan.

Until 1963, the estate of Agatona Sagario Paulmitan remained
unsettled and the titles to the two lots mentioned above remained in the name
of Agatona. However, on August 11,
1963, petitioner Donato Paulmitan executed an Affidavit of Declaration of
Heirship, extrajudicially adjudicating unto himself Lot No. 757 based on the
claim that he is the only surviving heir of Agatona Sagario. The affidavit was filed with the Register of
Deeds of Negros Occidental who, on August 20, 1963, cancelled OCT No. RO-8376
in the name of Agatona Sagario and issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 35979 in Donato’s name.

As regards Lot No. 1091, Donato executed on May 28, 1974 a Deed
of Sale over the same in favor of petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa, his daughter.^[5]

In the meantime, sometime in 1952, for non-payment of taxes, Lot
No. 1091 was forfeited and sold at a public auction, with the Provincial
Government of Negros Occidental being the buyer. A Certificate of Sale over the land was executed by the
Provincial Treasurer in favor of the Provincial Board of Negros Occidental.^[6]

On May 29, 1974, Juliana P. Fanesa redeemed the property from the
Provincial Government of Negros Occidental for the amount of P2,959.09.^[7]

On learning of these transactions, respondent’s children of the
late Pascual Paulmitan filed on January 18, 1975 with the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental a Complaint against petitioners to partition the
properties plus damages.

Petitioners set up the defense of prescription with respect to
Lot No. 757 as an affirmative defense, contending that the Complaint was filed more
than eleven years after the issuance of a transfer certificate of title to
Donato Paulmitan over the land as a consequence of the registration with the
Register of Deeds, of Donato’s affidavit extrajudicially adjudicating unto
himself Lot No. 757. As regards Lot No.
1091, petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa claimed in her Answer to the Complaint that
she acquired exclusive ownership thereof not only by means of a deed of sale
executed in her favor by her father, petitioner Donato Paulmitan, but also by
way of redemption from the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental.

Acting on the petitioners’ affirmative defense of prescription
with respect to Lot No. 757, the trial court issued an order dated April 22,
1976 dismissing the complaint as to the said property upon finding merit in
petitioners’ affirmative defense. This
order, which is not the object of the present petition, has become final after
respondents’ failure to appeal therefrom.

Trial proceeded with respect to Lot No. 1091. In a decision dated May 20, 1977, the trial
court decided in favor of respondents as to Lot No. 1091. According to the trial court, the
respondents, as descendants of Agatona Sagario Paulmitan were entitled to
one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 1091, pro indiviso. The sale by petitioner Donato Paulmitan to
his daughter, petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa, did not prejudice their
rights. And the repurchase by Juliana
P. Fanesa of the land from the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental did
not vest in Juliana exclusive ownership over the entire land but only gave her
the right to be reimbursed for the amount paid to redeem the property. The trial court ordered the partition of the
land and directed petitioners Donato Paulmitan and Juliana P. Fanesa to pay
private respondents certain amounts representing the latter’s share in the
fruits of the land. On the other hand,
respondents were directed to pay P1,479.55 to Juliana P. Fanesa as their share
in the redemption price paid by Fanesa to the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s
decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered on the second cause of
action pleaded in the complaint as follows:

“1. The deed of sale
(Exh. ‘F’) dated May 28, 1974 is valid insofar as the one-half undivided
portion of Lot 1091 is concerned as to vest ownership over said half portion in
favor of defendant Juliana Fanesa and her husband Rodolfo Fanesa, while the
remaining half shall belong to plaintiffs, pro-indiviso;

“2. Lot 1091,
Cadastral Survey of Pontevedra, Province of Negros Occidental, now covered by
TCT No. RO-11653 (N.A.), is ordered partitioned. The parties must proceed to an actual partition by property
instrument of partition, submitting the corresponding subdivision within sixty (60) days from finality of this
decision, and should they fail to agree, commissioners of partition may be
appointed by the Court;

“3. Pending the physical
partition, the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental is ordered to cancel
Original Certificate of Title No. RO-11653 (N.A.) covering Lot 1091, Pontevedra
Cadastre, and to issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in the name
of plaintiffs and defendants, one-half portion each, pro-indiviso, as indicated
in paragraph 1 above;

“4. Plaintiffs are ordered
to pay, jointly and severally, defendant Juliana Fanesa the amount of P1,479.55
with interest at the legal rate from May 28, 1974 until paid;

“5. Defendants Donato
Sagario Paulmitan and Juliana Paulmitan Fanesa are ordered to account to
plaintiffs and to pay them, jointly and severally, the value of the produce
from Lot 1091 representing plaintiffs’ share in the amount of P5,000.00 per
year from 1966 up to the time of actual partition of the property, and to pay
them the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees as well as the costs of the
suit.”

* * *

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision. Hence this petition.

To determine the rights and obligations of the parties to the
land in question, it is well to review, initially, the relatives who survived
the decedent Agatona Sagario Paulmitan. When Agatona died in 1953, she was survived by two (2) sons, Donato and
Pascual. A few months later in the same
year, Pascual died, leaving seven children, the private respondents. On the other hand, Donato’s sole offspring
was petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa.

At the time of the
relevant transactions over the properties
of decedent Agatona Sagario Paulmitan, her son Pascual had died, survived by respondents, his children. It is, thus, tempting to apply the
principles pertaining to the right
of representation as regards respondents. It
must, however, be borne in mind that Pascual did not predecease his mother^[8], thus precluding the operation of the
provisions in the Civil Code on the right of representation^[9] with
respect to his children, the respondents. When Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died intestate in 1952, her two (2) sons
Donato and Pascual were still alive. Since it is well-settled by virtue of Article 777 of the Civil Code that
“(t)he rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent,”^[10] the right of ownership, not only of Donato
but also of Pascual, over their respective shares in the inheritance was
automatically and by operation of law vested in them in 1953 when their mother
died intestate. At that stage, the
children of Donato and Pascual did not yet have any right over the inheritance since “[i]n every inheritance the
relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones.”^[11] Donato and Pascual excluded their children as
to the right to inherit from Agatona Sagario Paulmitan, their mother.

From the time of the
death of Agatona Sagario Paulmitan to the subsequent passing away of her son
Pascual in 1953, the estate remained unpartitioned. Article 1078 of the Civil Code provides: “Where there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such
heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased.”^[12] Donato and Pascual Paulmitan were,
therefore, co-owners of the estate left by their mother as no partition was
ever made.

When Pascual Paulmitan died intestate in 1953, his children, the
respondents, succeeded him in the co-ownership of the disputed property. Pascual Paulmitan’s right of ownership over an
undivided portion of the property passed on to his children, who, from the time
of Pascual’s death, became co-owners with their uncle Donato over the disputed
decedent estate.

Petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa claims ownership over Lot No. 1091
by virtue of two transactions, namely: (a) the sale made in her favor by her father Donato Paulmitan; and (b)
her redemption of the land from the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental
after it was forfeited for non-payment of taxes.

When Donato Paulmitan sold on May 28,1974 Lot No. 1091 to his
daughter Juliana P. Fanesa, he was only a co-owner with respondents and as
such, he could only sell that portion which may be allotted to him upon
termination of the co-ownership.^[13]
The sale did not prejudice the rights of respondents to one half (1/2)
undivided share of the land which they inherited from their father. It did not vest ownership in the entire land
with the buyer but transferred only the seller’s pro–indiviso
share in the property^[14]
and consequently made the buyer a co-owner of the land until it is
partitioned. In Bailon–Casilao
v. Court of Appeals,^[15]
the Court, through Justice Irene R. Cortex, outlined the effects of a sale by
one co-owner without the consent of all the co-owners, thus:

“The rights of a co-owner of a certain property are clearly
specified in Article 493 of the Civil Code. Thus:

Art. 493. Each co-owner
shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and
even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the
alienation or mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the
portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of
the co-ownership. [Italics
supplied.]

As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner
sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but
not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale [Punsalan v.
Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 (1923)]. This
is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale or other
disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what
would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in
common. [Ramirez v. Bautista, 14 Phil.
528 (1909)]. Consequently, by virtue of
the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid with respect to
their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in
the sale to private respondent Celestino Afable, the said Afable thereby became
a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court
since the sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment
thereof [Mainit v. Bandoy, 14 Phil. 730 (1910)].

From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-owner is
entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one
co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the
co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the
property.”

Applying this principle to the case at bar, the sale by
petitioner Donato Paulmitan of the land to his daughter, petitioner Juliana P.
Fanesa, did not give to the latter ownership over the entire land but merely
transferred to her the one half (1/2) undivided share of her father, thus
making her the co-owner of the land in question with the respondents, her first
cousins.

Petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa also claims ownership of the entire
property by virtue of the fact that when the Provincial Government of Negros
Occidental bought the land after it was forfeited for non-payment of taxes, she
redeemed it.

The contention is without merit.

The redemption of the land made by Fanesa did not terminate the
co-ownership nor give her title to the entire land subject of the
co-ownership. Speaking on the same
issue raised by petitioners, the Court, in Adille v. Court Appeals,^[16] resolved the same with the following
pronouncements:

“The petition raises a purely legal issue: May a co-owner acquire exclusive ownership
over the property held in common?

Essentially, it is the petitioners’ contention that the property
subject of dispute devolved upon him upon the failure of his co-heirs to join
him in its redemption within the period required by law. He relies on the provisions of Article 1515
of the old Civil Code, Article 1613 of the present Code, giving the vendee a
retro the right to demand redemption of the entire property.

There is no merit in this petition.

The rights of repurchase may exercised by a co-owner with respect
to his share alone (CIVIL CODE, art. 1612; CIVIL CODE (1889), art. 1514.). While the record show hat petitioner
redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering the expenses therefor, that
did not make him the owner of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of co-ownership
(Supra, art 489). There is no doubt
that redemption of property entails a necessary expense. Under the Civil Code:

ART. 488. Each co-owner
shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses
of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of
his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and
taxes. No such waiver shall be made if
it is prejudicial to the co-ownership.

The result is that the
property remains to be in a condition of co-ownership. While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613 of the Code, “may not be
compelled to consent to a partial redemption,” the redemption by one
co-heir or co-owner of the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership
over it. Failure on the part of all the
co-owners to redeem it entitles the vendee a retro to retain the property and
consolidate title thereto in his name (Supra, art. 1607). But the provision does not give to the
redeeming co-owner the right to the entire property. It does not provide for a mode of terminating a
co-ownership.”

Although petitioner Fanesa did not acquire ownership over the
entire lot by virtue of the redemption she made, nevertheless, she did acquire
the right to be reimbursed for half of the redemption price she paid to the
Provincial Government of Negros Occidental on behalf of her co-owners. Until reimbursed, Fanesa holds a lien upon
the subject property for the amount due her.^[17]

Finally, petitioners dispute the order of the trial court, which
the Court of Appeals affirmed, for them to pay private respondents P5,000.00
per year from 1966 until the partition of the estate which represents the share
of private respondents in the fruits of the land. According to petitioners, the land is being leased for P2,000.00
per year only. This assigned error,
however, raises a factual question. The
settled rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review. As a general rule, findings of
fact made by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive
and cannot be reviewed on appeal.^[18]

WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED and the decision of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Crisolito Pascual with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Guillermo P. Villasor and Vicente V. Mendoza.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Oscar R. Victoriano.

^[3]
Petition, page 3; Rollo, page 15.

^[4]
Record on Appeal, pages 63, 65.

^[5]
Record on Appeal, pp. 21-24.

^[6]
Record on Appeal, page, 72.

^[7]
Record on Appeal, page 92.

^[8]
The records of the case do not indicate the exact date when Agatona Sagario
Paulmitan and her son Pascual died in 1953 but all parties, including
petitioners, do not dispute that Agatona died ahead of her son (See Petition,
p.3; Rollo p. 15.)

^[9]
See Articles 970-977, 981 of the Civil Code.

^[10]
Jimenez v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 46364, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 190; Quion
v. Claridad, 74 Phil. 100 (1943).

^[11]
Article 962, Civil Code.

^[12]
See also Mendoza I v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 44664, July 31, 1991,
199 SCRA 778.

^[13]
Article 493, Civil Code; Reyes v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 56550, October 1,
1990, 190 SCRA 171.

^[14]
Abad v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 84908, December 4, 1989, 179 SCRA 817.

^[15]
G.R. No. 78178, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 738, 744-745.

^[16]
G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 455, 459-460.

^[17]
Guinto v. Lim Bonfing, 48 Phil. 884 (1926).

^[18]
Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89880, February 6, 1991, 193
SCRA 603; De Ocsio v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 44237, February 28,
1989, 170 SCRA 729.