445 Phil.

97

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 121069, February 07, 2003

BENJAMIN CORONEL AND EMILIA MEKING VDA. DE

CORONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. FLORENTINO
CONSTANTINO, AUREA BUENSUCESO, AND THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

DE CIS ION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

This refers to the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court
of Appeals, dated March 27, 1995, in CA-G.R. CV No. 44023[1] which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 8, dated
April 12, 1993 in Civil Case No. 105-M-91[2]; and the resolution of said
appellate court, dated July 4, 1995, denying the motion for reconsideration of
its decision.

The factual background of the case is as follows:

The subject property consists of two parcels of land situated in Sta. Monica,
Hagonoy, Bulacan, designated as Cadastral Lots Nos. 5737 and 5738. The
property is originally owned by Honoria Aguinaldo. One-half (1/2) of it was
inherited by Emilia Meking Vda. de Coronel together with her sons Benjamin,
Catalino and Ceferino, all surnamed Coronel. The other half was inherited by
Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso.

On February 20, 1991, Constantino and Buensuceso filed a complaint for

declaration of ownership, quieting of title and damages with prayer for writ of
mandatory and/or prohibitory injunction with the Regional Trial Court of
Bulacan (Branch 8) against Benjamin, Emilia and John Does, docketed as
Civil Case No. 105-M-91. Plaintiffs allege that: on April 23, 1981, Jess C.
Santos and Priscilla Bernardo purchased the property belonging to Emilia and
her sons by virtue of a deed of sale signed by Emilia; on June 21, 1990,
Santos and Bernardo in turn sold the same to Constantino and Buensuceso
by virtue of a compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 8289-M; they are the
owners of the subject property and defendants have illegally started to
introduce construction on the premises in question; and pray that “defendants
respect, acknowledge and confirm the right of ownership of the plaintiffs to
the share, interest and participation of the one-third (1/3) portion of the above
described property”.

After defendants filed their Answer, pre-trial ensued wherein the parties
stipulated that: (1) the property in question was previously owned by Honoria
Aguinaldo, one-half (1/2) of which was inherited by the defendants while the
other half was inherited by the plaintiffs from the same predecessor; (2) it
was admitted by counsel for the defendants that there was a sale between
Jess Santos and the plaintiffs covering the subject property; and (3) that there
was no evidence presented in Civil Case No. 8289-M by either of the parties
and that the decision therein was based on a compromise agreement. [3]

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the
plaintiffs, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby made in favor of plaintiffs,

the Court hereby declares plaintiffs as the sole and absolute
owners of the properties covered by Tax Declarations Nos. 28960
and 28961 of Hagonoy, Bulacan, and orders the defendants to
respect, acknowledge and confirm the right of ownership of
plaintiffs over the whole property described above, to remove
whatever improvements introduced by them thereon, and to pay
the plaintiffs, solidarily and severally P10,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and costs of suit.

“SO ORDERED.”[4]

On appeal brought by defendants, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision

of the lower court and denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

Hence, herein petition brought by defendants, raising the following issues:

“I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT [OF] SALE

 EXECUTED BY A PARENT-CO-OWNER, IN HER OWN
BEHALF, IS UNENFORCEABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE
SHARES OF HER CO-HEIRS-CHILDREN;

“II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE MINOR CHILDREN CAN RATIFY

UNAUTHORIZED ACTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS;

“III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CO-HEIRS ARE INDISPENSABLE

DEFENDANTS IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF
OWNERSHIP AND QUIETING OF TITLE;

“IV.

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEED OF SALE WHICH IS A

PRIVATE DOCUMENT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED
WHEN THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS-
PETITIONERS ADMITTED ONLY ITS EXISTENCE BUT
NOT ITS CONTENTS.”[5]

The third issue was raised by the petitioners for the first time with the Court
of Appeals. They claim that the complaint should have been dismissed
because private respondents failed to implead the heirs of Ceferino and
Catalino who died in 1983 and 1990, [6] respectively, in their complaint as
indispensable parties. We do not agree.

A careful reading of the “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan” which is a private

document, not having been duly notarized, shows that only the share of
Emilia in the subject property was sold because Benjamin did not sign the
document and the shares of Ceferino and Catalino were not subject of the
sale. Pertinent portions of the document read as follows:

“KASULATAN NG BILIHANG PATULUYAN

“PANIWALAAN NG LAHAT:

“Kaming mag-iinang Emilia Micking Vda. Coronel at Benjamin M.

Coronel kapwa may sapat na gulang, Pilipino, naninirahan sa
nayon ng Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, sa kasulatang ito ay
malaya naming:

“P I N A T U T U N A Y A N

“Na, kami ay tunay na nagmamay-ari ng isang lagay na lupang

Bakuran na minana namin sa aming Lolong yumaong Mauricio
Coronel, na ang ayos, takal at kalagayan ay ang sumusunod:

“ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 5737

“Bakuran sa nayon ng Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan na may

sukat na 416 Square Meters ang kabuuan 208 Square Meters Lot
A-1 ang kalahati nito na kanilang ipinagbibili.

“x x x xxx xxx

“Na, dahil at alang-alang sa halagang DALAWAMPU’T LIMANG

LIBONG PISO (P25,000) salaping Pilipino, na aming tinanggap sa
kasiyahang loob namin, buhat sa mag-asawang Jess C. Santos at
Prescy Bernardo, kapwa may sapat na gulang, Pilipino at
naninirahan sa nayon ng Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, sa bisa
ng kasulatang ito, ay aming isinasalin, inililipat at ipinagbibili ng
bilihang patuluyan ang lahat ng aming dapat na makaparte sa
lupang Bakuran Nakasaad sa dakong unahan nito, sa nabanggit na
Jess C. Santos at Prescy Bernardo o sa kanilang tagapagmana at
kahalili.

“Na, ako namang Jess C. Santos, bilang nakabili, ay kusang loob

ding nagsasaysay sa kasulatang ito na ako ay kasangayon sa lahat
ng dito’y nakatala, bagaman ang lupang naturan ay hindi pa
nahahati sa dapat magmana sa yumaong Honoria Aguinaldo.

“Na, sa aming kagipitan inari naming ipagbili ang aming karapatan

o kaparte na minana sa yumaong Guillermo Coronel ay
napagkasunduan namin mag-iina na ipagbili ang bakurang ito na
siyang makalulunas sa aming pangangailangan x x x.”

“Na, kaming nagbili ang magtatanggol ng katibayan sa

pagmamayari sa lupang naturan, sakaling may manghihimasok.
 SA KATUNAYAN NITO, kami ay lumagda sa kasulatang ito sa
bayan ng Malabon, Rizal ngayong ika-23 ng Abril, 1981.

(Signed) (Signed)
EMILIA MICKING Vda. CORONEL JESS C. SANTOS
Nagbili Nagbili

(Unsigned) (Signed)
BENJAMIN M. CORONEL PRISCILLA BERNARDO
Nagbili Nakabili”[7]

Thus, it is clear, as already stated, that petitioner Benjamin did not sign the
document and that the shares of Catalino and Ceferino in the subject property
were not sold by them.

Since the shares of Catalino and Ceferino were not sold, plaintiffs
Constantino and Buensuceso have no cause of action against them or against
any of their heirs. Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, indispensable parties are parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. In the present case, the heirs of
Catalino and Ceferino are not indispensable parties because a complete
determination of the rights of herein petitioners and respondents can be had
even if the said heirs are not impleaded.

Besides, it is undisputed that petitioners never raised before the trial court the
issue of the private respondents’ failure to implead said heirs in their
complaint. Instead, petitioners actively participated in the proceedings in the
lower court and raised only the said issue on appeal with the Court of
Appeals. It is a settled rule that jurisdictional questions may be raised at any
time unless an exception arises where estoppel has supervened. [8] In the
present case, petitioners’ participation in all stages of the case during trial,
without raising the issue of the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over
indispensable parties, estops them from challenging the validity of the
proceedings therein.

Further, the deed of sale is not a competent proof that petitioner Benjamin
had sold his own share of the subject property. It cannot be disputed that
Benjamin did not sign the document and therefore, it is unenforceable against
him.

Emilia executed the instrument in her own behalf and not in representation of
her three children.

Article 493 of the Civil Code states:

“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 the 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.”

Consequently, the sale of the subject property made by Emilia in favor of

Santos and Bernardo is limited to the portion which may be allotted to her
upon the termination of her co-ownership over the subject property with her
children.

As to the first, second and fourth issues – it has been established that at the
time of execution of the “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan” on April 23,
1981[9], the subject property was co-owned, pro-indiviso, by petitioner
Emilia together with her petitioner son Benjamin, and her two other sons,
Catalino and Ceferino. No proof was presented to show that the co-
ownership that existed among the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino and herein
petitioners has ever been terminated.

Applying Articles 1317 and 1403 of the Civil Code, the Court of Appeals
ruled that through their inaction and silence, the three sons of Emilia are
considered to have ratified the aforesaid sale of the subject property by their
mother.

Articles 1317 and 1403 (1) of the Civil Code provide:

“Art. 1317. No one may contract in the name of another without

being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to
represent him.

“A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has

no authority or legal representation or who has acted “beyond his
 powers shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or
impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed,
before it is revoked by the other contracting party.

“Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they

are ratified:

“(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who
has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers.

xxx xxx x x x”

We do not agree with the appellate court. The three sons of Emilia did not
ratify the sale. In Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot[10] we held that:

“Ratification means that one under no disability voluntarily adopts

and gives sanction to some unauthorized act or defective
proceeding, which without his sanction would not be binding on
him. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts
to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and
becomes the authorized act of the party so making the ratification.

No evidence was presented to show that the three brothers were aware of the
sale made by their mother. Unaware of such sale, Catalino, Ceferino and
Benjamin could not be considered as having voluntarily remained silent and
knowingly chose not to file an action for the annulment of the sale. Their
alleged silence and inaction may not be interpreted as an act of ratification on
their part.

We also find no concrete evidence to show that Ceferino, Catalino and

Benjamin benefited from the sale. It is true that private respondent
Constantino testified that Benjamin took money from Jess Santos but this is
mere allegation on the part of Constantino. No other evidence was presented
to support such allegation. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are
not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court. [11] Neither do the records
show that Benjamin admitted having received money from Jess Santos. Even
granting that Benjamin indeed received money from Santos, Constantino’s
testimony does not show that the amount received was part of the
consideration for the sale of the subject property.
To repeat, the sale is valid insofar as the share of petitioner Emilia Meking
Vda. de Coronel is concerned. The due execution of the “Kasulatan ng
Bilihang Patuluyan” was duly established when petitioners, through their
counsel, admitted during the pre-trial conference that the said document was
signed by Emilia. [12] While petitioners claim that Emilia erroneously signed it
under the impression that it was a contract of mortgage and not of sale, no
competent evidence was presented to prove such allegation.

Hence, Jess C. Santos and Priscilla Bernardo, who purchased the share of
Emilia, became co-owners of the subject property together with Benjamin
and the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino. As such, Santos and Bernardo could
validly dispose of that portion of the subject property pertaining to Emilia in
favor of herein private respondents Constantino and Buensuceso.

However, the particular portions properly pertaining to each of the co-owners

are not yet defined and determined as no partition in the proper forum or
extrajudicial settlement among the parties has been effected among the
parties. Consequently, the prayer of respondents for a mandatory or
prohibitory injunction lacks merit.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals

are AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. Plaintiffs-private respondents Florentino Constantino and Aurea

Buensuceso are declared owners of one-half (1/2) undivided portion of
the subject property plus the one-fourth (¼) undivided share of
defendant-petitioner Emilia Meking Vda. de Coronel; and, defendant-
petitioner Benjamin Coronel together with the heirs of Catalino Coronel
and the heirs of Ceferino Coronel are declared owners of one-fourth
(¼) share each of the other one-half (1/2) portion of the subject
property, without prejudice to the parties entering into partition of the
subject property, judicial or otherwise.

2. The order of removal of the improvements and the award of the

amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney’s fees and
costs of suit are DELETED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

[1]Entitled, “Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso, Plaintiffs-

Appellees, vs. Benjamin Coronel, Emilia Meking Vda. De Coronel and John
Does, Defendants-Appellants”.

[2]Entitled, “Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso, Plaintiffs, vs.

Benjamin Coronel, Emilia Meking Vda. De Coronel, and John Does,
Defendants.”

[3] RTC Decision, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 170-172.

[4] Ibid., p. 177.

[5] Rollo, p. 26.

[6] Appellants’ Reply Brief, CA Rollo, p. 96.

[7] Exhibit “H”, Folder of Exhibits, p. 168.

[8] Bayoca vs. Nogales, 340 SCRA 154, 169 (2000).

[9] Supra, note 7.

[10] 329 SCRA 78, 94 (2000).

[11] Manzano vs. Perez, Sr., 362 SCRA 430, 439 (2001).

[12] See TSN, March 5, 1991, OR, p. 31.