34.

VDA Reyes Vs CA

Facts:

During his lifetime, one Gavino Reyes owned a parcel of land of approximately 70 hectares, more or
less, located at Sangayad, Ulong-Tubig, Carmona, Cavite. He sought to bring said land under the
operation of the Torrens System of registration of property. Unfortunately, he died in 1921 without
the title having been issued to him. The application was prosecuted by his son, Marcelo Reyes, who
was the administrator of his property.

In 1936 the above property subdivided by Gavino's heirs. It appears therein that two lots, one of
which is Lot No. I A-14, were allotted to Rafael Reyes, Sr., one of Gavino's children. Per testimony of
Juan Poblete, the children thereafter secured tax declarations for their respective shares.

In 1941, or about twenty (20) years after the death of Gavino, the original certificate of title for the
whole property — OCT No. 255 — was issued. It was, however, kept by Juan Poblete, son-in-law of
Marcelo Reyes, who was by then already deceased. The heirs of Gavino were not aware of this fact.

On 3 December 1943, Rafael Reyes, Sr. sold a parcel of land to private respondent Dalmacio
Gardiola. According to the vendee, this parcel corresponds to Lot No. 1-A-14 of the subdivision plan
aforestated. The deed of sale, however, did not specifically mention Lot No. 1-A-14. The vendee
immediately took possession of the property and started paying the land taxes therein.

On 21 October 1967, when the heirs of Gavino Reyes executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate based on the aforestated subdivision plan, the lot that was intended for Rafael Reyes, Sr.,
who was already deceased, was instead adjudicated to his only son and heir, Rafael Reyes, Jr. (the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein). Private respondent Rosario Martillano signed the
deed in representation of her mother, Marta Reyes, one of the children of Gavino Reyes.

As a result of the Extrajudicial Settlement, OCT RO-255 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, several
transfer certificates of title covering the subdivided lots were issued in the names of the respective
adjudicatees. One of them is TCT No. 27257 in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr. covering Lot No. 1-A-
14. The Transfer Certificates of Title were, however, kept by one Candido Hebron.

After obtaining the Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot No. 1-A-14 from Hebron, pursuant to the
aforesaid order in Civil Case No. 1267, petitioners herein, as successors-in-interest of Rafael Reyes,
Jr., filed on 14 March 1983 with the Regional Trial Court the above-mentioned Civil Case No. RTC-
BCV-83-17 against private respondents (defendants therein) for recovery of possession or, in the
alternative, for indemnification, accounting and damages. They allege therein that after "having
definitely discovered that they are the lawful owners of the property," (Lot No. 1-A-14), they,
"including Rafael Reyes, Jr., during his lifetime, made repeated demands to (sic) defendants to
surrender the possession of and vacate the parcel of land belonging to the former, but defendants
refused to vacate and surrender the possession of the said land to herein plaintiff

In their answer, private respondents deny the material averments in the complaint and assert that
they are the owners of the lot in question, having bought the same from Rafael Reyes, Sr., that the
issuance of TCT No. 27257 is null and void, for such sale was known to Rafael Reyes, Jr.; that they
have been in possession of the property and have been paying the land taxes thereon; and that
petitioners are barred by prescription and/or laches.
trial court concluded that petitioners' "title over the subject property is valid and regular and
thus they are entitled to its possession and enjoyment,"

CA Reversed the decision if the trial court and declared the appellants to be the lawful
owners of the lot identified as Lot No. 1-A-14 in TCT No. 27257.

Issue: WON the Oral partition and the subsequent sale of the real property in dispute valid?

Ruling:

The court ruled in affirmative. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the partition made by the
children of Gavino Reyes in 1936, although oral, was valid and binding. There is no law that requires
partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

In Barcelona, et al. vs. Barcelona, et al., supra, provides the reason why oral partition is valid and
why it is not covered by the Statute of Frauds: partition among heirs or renunciation of an inheritance
by some of them is not exactly a conveyance of real property for the reason that it does not involve
transfer of property from one to the other, but rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right of
property by the heir renouncing in favor of another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance.

Additionally, the validity of such oral partition in 1936 has been expressly sustained by this Court in
the Resolution of 20 August 1990 in G.R. No. 92811.25

But even if We are to assume arguendo that the oral partition executed in 1936 was not valid for
some reason or another, We would still arrive at the same conclusion for upon the death of Gavino
Reyes in 1921, his heirs automatically became co-owners of his 70-hectare parcel of land. The
rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. The
estate of the decedent would then be held in co-ownership by the heirs. The co-heir or co-
owner may validly dispose of his share or interest in the property subject to the condition
that the portion disposed of is eventually allotted to him in the division upon termination of
the co-ownership.

In the case at bar, the lot sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola is his
share in the estate of his deceased father, Gavino Reyes. It is the same property which was
eventually adjudicated to his son and heir, Rafael Reyes, Jr., represented in turn by his heirs-
petitioners herein-in the extrajudicial settlement of 1967.

The participation of private respondent Rosario Gardiola in the Extrajudicial Settlement did not place
private respondents in estoppel to question the issuance of TCT No. T-27257. As correctly
maintained by private respondents, she signed it in representation of her deceased mother, Marta
Reyes, a daughter and an heir of Gavino Reyes. She did not sign for and in behalf of her husband,
Dalmacio Gardiola, vendee of the share of Rafael Reyes, Sr.

The same did not operate to divest the vendee of the share of Rafael Reyes, Sr. in the estate
of Gavino. Petitioners, as mere successors-in-interest of Rafael Reyes, Jr., son of Rafael
Reyes, Sr., can only acquire that which Rafael, Jr. could transmit to them upon his death. The
latter never became the owner of Lot No. 1-A-14 because it was sold by his father in 1943.
The issuance of TCT No. T-27257 in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr., in so far as Lot No. 1-14-A
is concerned, was clearly erroneous because he never became its owner. An extrajudicial
settlement does not create a light in favor of an heir. As this Court stated in the Barcelona case, it is
but a confirmation or ratification of title or right to property. Thus, since he never had any title or
right to Lot No. 1-14-A, the mere execution of the settlement did not improve his condition,
and the subsequent registration of the deed did not create any right or vest any title over the
property in favor of the petitioners as heirs of Rafael Reyes, Jr. The latter cannot give them
what he never had before. Nemo dare potest quod non habet.

There is one more point that should be stressed here. Petitioners' immediate predecessor-in-
interest, Rafael Reyes, Jr., never took any action against private respondents from the time his
father sold the lot to the latter. Neither did petitioners bring any action to recover from private
respondents the ownership and possession of the lot from the time Rafael Reyes, Jr. died. As
categorically admitted by petitioners in their complaint and amended complaint, it was only in or
about September 1969 when, after the delivery of TCT No. 27257 by Candido Hebron to them, that
they definitely discovered that they were the owners of the property in question. And yet, despite full
knowledge that private respondents were in actual physical possession of the property, it was only
about thirteen and one-half (13 1/2) years later that they decided to file an action for recovery of
possession. As stated earlier, the original complaint was filed in the trial court on 14 March 1983.
There was then absolutely no basis for the trial court to place the burden on private respondents to
bring an action for reconveyance within four (4) years from their discovery of the issuance of the
transfer certificate of title in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr.

The instant petition then is without merit.