Acabal v. Acabal (2005)

Leonardo Acabal vs. Villaner Acabal

G.R. No. 148376

Pontente: Justice Carpio-Morales

FACTS

·      Villaner Acabal’s (respondents) parents owned a parcel of land in Barrio Tanglad, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental, containing around 18.15 hectares. Villaner’s parents transferred for P2,000 ownership to him and his wife Justinia Lipajan, who at the time of this case and sometime after the foregoing transfer, has died.

·      On April 1990, Villaner executed a deed conveying the property to Leonardo. However, Villaner later claims that he executed a “Lease Contract” to Leonardo and not a “Deed of Absolute Sale” as it appears in the records.

·      Meanwhile, Leonardo asserts that he had validly transferred the said said property to Ramon Nicolas on May 19, 1990 as he had become the absolute owner and assers thatVillaner executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for a consideration of P10,000.00 which the former had already paid.

·      The 8 heirs of Justinia Lipajan impleaded with petitioner.

·      During the trial, Villaner testified the following; he assumed that the document he signed was for a Lease Contract, it was witnessed by two employees the trial court and that he was not present when the document was notarized.

·      The RTC dismissed the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and stated that the deed of sale as “simulated and fictitious.”

·      Villaner’s co-heris claim that as co-oweners of the property, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Villaner in favor of Leonardo does not bind them as they did not consent for such undertaking.

ISSUE/S

·      Whether or not the deed of sale was valid

·      Whether or not the property in question is conjugal property

RATIONALE

·      As a result of the death of Justiniana, the regime of co-ownership arose between Villaner and his co-heirs. Villaner sold the entire property without obtaining the consent of the other co-owners. The failure to deny the genuineness and due action of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it when evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration arises. HOWEVER, the party who alleges the wrong will bear the burden of proof. In this case, the respondent, Villaner, failed to adequately prove that the petitioner falsified the deed of sale. Furthermore, Nicolas’ claim of buying the land in good faith is irrelevant.

·      YES. There is no question that the property is conjugal. The property formed part of the conjugal property between Villaner and his wife and upon the latter’s death the conjugal property was dissolved. Under the Article 160 of the Civil Code, the properties acquired during the marriage is presumed to form part of the conjugal property unless proven otherwise. Upon the death of the spouse, the shares of the conjugal property will be divided between the surviving spouse and the deceased spouse’ heirs. Villaner only owned 5/9 of the shares of the property and did not have the authority or ownership to sell the rest of the property, only his.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals February 15, 2001 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 56148 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another is rendered declaring the sale in favor of petitioner Leonardo Acabal and the subsequent sale in favor of petitioner Ramon Nicolas valid but only insofar as five- ninths (5/9) of the subject property is concerned.