Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sps. Coja vs. CA Full Case
Sps. Coja vs. CA Full Case
Court of
Appeals, et al.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 37583 dated February 5, 2001 and the
Resolution2 dated November 5, 2001 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Luz Aquillo Victor (hereafter Luz) and Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. (hereafter Feliciano Jr.),
both deceased, were the legitimate children of the late spouses Feliciano Aquillo, Sr.
(hereafter Feliciano Sr.) and Lorenza Mangarin Aquillo (hereafter Lorenza). 3 During
their marriage, Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza acquired a 120-square meter lot located at
Poblacion, Mandaon, Masbate, upon which they built their conjugal home.4 The subject
lot was covered by Tax Declaration No. 11515 issued in the name of Feliciano Sr.
After the death of Lorenza, Feliciano Sr. cohabited with Paz Lachica and lived at the
aforesaid house. However, after Lorenzas death, her heirs failed to partition their
hereditary shares in their inheritance.
On February 27, 1960, while Lorenza was cohabiting with Feliciano Sr., Paz Lachica
purchased a 192-square meter lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 02115 from the heirs
of Juan Rivas.6 She later sold 40.10 square meters of the property to Isabel L. de Real
leaving her with only 151.9 square meters.7
On July 7, 1965, or two (2) days before he died, Feliciano Sr. married Paz Lachica. 8 After
Feliciano Sr. died, his heirs also failed to partition among themselves their hereditary
shares in their inheritance.
Sometime in 1969, Paz Lachica was issued Tax Declaration No. 44249over the remaining
151.9 square meters of the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 02115. The aforesaid
Tax Declaration was later cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 3443-Rev.10 On September
10, 1973, Tax Declaration No. 351411 was issued, effectively canceling Tax Declaration
No. 3443-Rev. Also, in said Tax Declaration No. 3514, the area originally covered by Tax
Declaration No. 3443-Rev was increased from 151.9 square meters to 336 square
meters, and it included the 120-square meter property originally covered by Tax
Declaration No. 1151. It also contained an annotation at the back stating "Revised as per
request of the owner to include the excess area for taxation purposes."12Thereafter, Tax
Declaration No. 3514 was cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 1558,13 which was later
cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 1946,14and later cancelled by Tax Declaration No.
2038.15
On December 18, 1986, Paz Lachica and herein petitioners, Spouses Charlito Coja and
Annie Mesa Coja, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale16wherein the former sold the 336-
square meter parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2038 to the latter.
Consequently, Tax Declaration No. 494617 was issued in the name of petitioners,
canceling Tax Declaration No. 2038.
Sometime in 1987, Charlito Coja filed an application for the issuance of title with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, Masbate, Masbate (now Masbate City) docketed
as LRC No. N-365.18 Luz, being one of the heirs of Feliciano Sr., opposed the application
for registration.19Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the
application. The OSG alleged, among other things, that the applicant or his
predecessors-in- interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the subject land within the period required by law; and that the
documents attached to or alleged in the application do not constitute competent and
sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land or of an open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of an
owner.20
During the pendency of the case, Luz died. She was substituted by her spouse,
Quinciano Victor, Sr., and her children, Lorna, Antonio, Quinciano Jr., and Susana, all
surnamed Victor.
In their Answer, defendants therein alleged that Paz Lachica acquired the subject
property before her marriage to Feliciano Sr. and that she had been in actual and
physical possession of the same for more than fifteen (15) years before she sold the
property to the Spouses Coja; that they acquired the property by purchasing it from Paz
Lachica; that they are buyers in good faith and for value; and that the property in
question was the paraphernal property of Paz Lachica and, therefore, plaintiffs therein
have no right and interest over the same.24
The parties failed to settle their respective differences and a joint trial ensued.
On March 11, 1992, the RTC rendered a decision25 against the plaintiffs-oppositors and
in favor of the defendants-applicants, the decretal portion of which reads:
1. Ordering the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 3904 with costs
against the plaintiffs-oppositors;
3. Declaring the title of the applicants, spouses Charlito Coja and Annie Mesa and
Sancho Mesa, over the property designated as Psu-05-005736 together with all
the improvements thereon, CONFIRMED and REGISTERED pursuant to the
provisions of P.D. 1529.
Once this decision becomes final and executory, let the corresponding decree of
registration issue.
SO ORDERED.26
The RTC opined that since the land in question is registered in the name of Paz Lachica
alone, it is assumed that it is not part of the conjugal partnership properties of Feliciano
Sr., and Lorenza, for if it was their conjugal property, it should have been registered in
their names. As such, when the Spouses Coja purchased the property from Paz Lachica,
they were of the honest belief that the latter was the true and lawful owner. Likewise, on
the basis of the evidence adduced, the RTC held that defendants-applicants possess
good title proper for registration and confirmation.27
Aggrieved, plaintiffs-oppositors appealed from the decision to the CA, assigning the
following errors:
[2] THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE LAND
IN QUESTION IS NOT THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OF THE
COUPLE, THE LATE SPOUSES FELICIANO AQUILLO AND LORENZA
MANGARIN
On February 5, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision 29 reversing and setting aside the
decision of the RTC, the pertinent portion of which reads:
1. The sale of the property by Paz Lachica to Spouses Charlito Coja and Annie
Mesa Coja insofar as the shares of appellants is (sic) concerned is NULLIFIED;
4. The application for registration of title by Charlito and Annie Coja in L.R.C.
No. N-365 is denied; and
SO ORDERED.30
The CA concluded that the property formerly covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151, with
an area of 120 square meters, is the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza
having been acquired during their marriage. Under the law, upon the death of Lorenza,
one-half of said property, or 60 square meters, was transmitted to her heirs, namely
Feliciano Sr., Feliciano Jr., and Luz, at 20 square meters each, while the remaining one-
half pertained to Feliciano Sr. alone as his share in the conjugal property. Upon the
death of Feliciano Sr., his rights over the property, consisting of his inheritance from his
wife and his share in the conjugal partnership, or a total of 80 square meters, were
transmitted to his heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and his widow, Paz Lachica. Thus, Paz
Lachica is entitled to only 26.6666 square meters and the heirs of Feliciano Jr. and Luz
are entitled to the remaining 93.3333 square meters of the subject property. Therefore,
Paz Lachica had no authority to sell their portions of the property.
Applicants-appellees therein filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the
Resolution31 dated November 5, 2001.
Petitioners argue that respondents failed to establish their case on the basis of the
evidence they presented during the trial. Respondents only presented Tax Declaration
No. 1151 which had never been updated since 1945 up to Feliciano Sr.s death. In
addition, his alleged successors-in-interest have not caused the revision of the said tax
declaration nor paid the taxes to the government up to the present and hence the same
cannot be considered proof of ownership. Since Feliciano Sr. is not the owner of the
property in question, the same cannot be inherited by the respondents. Moreover, no
survey of the property had been made in the name of Feliciano Sr.32
Petitioners add that the subject property was the paraphernal property of Paz Lachica
since she purchased the property before she married Feliciano Sr. Finally, petitioners
maintain that they are purchasers in good faith and for value since the subject property
was covered by a tax declaration in Paz Lachicas name when they bought it from her.33
The property subject matter of the contract of sale between the Spouses Coja and Paz
Lachica, is a 336-square meter parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No.
2038.34 This includes the property bought by Paz Lachica from the heirs of Juan Rivas,
some other parcels of land, and the 120-square meter lot purchased by Feliciano Sr. and
Lorenza during their marriage.
Article 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife.
All properties acquired during the marriage are thus disputably presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership. As a condition for the operation of above article, in favor of the
conjugal partnership, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove that the
property was acquired during the marriage.35
The CA declared that the 120-square meter lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of
Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza because the spouses acquired it during the subsistence of their
marriage and the property was in fact declared for taxation purposes during the said
period. Thus, the statutory presumption set forth in Article 160 of the Civil Code became
operative. Having been acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza,
the subject 120-square meter portion of the property sold by Paz Lachica to the Spouses
Coja is presumed to be the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.
The presumption may be rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and convincing
evidence. There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses,
and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.36
Petitioners insist that the property subject of the sale was exclusively owned by Paz
Lachica having been purchased prior to her marriage with Feliciano Sr. The argument is
not supported by evidence. While it may be correct to argue that the 216-square meter
portion of the 336-square meter subject of the sale was exclusively owned by Paz
Lachica, the same cannot be sustained as to the 120-square meter portion originally
covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151. Paz Lachica claims ownership over the property in
question on the basis only of a tax declaration issued in her name. But that is Tax
Declaration No. 3514 which was belatedly issued in the name of Paz Lachica to include
the 120-square meter lot originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151. Revision was
done upon Paz Lachicas request after the death of Feliciano Sr. The revision of the tax
declaration or the issuance of a new one in her name, did not operate and transfer title
of the subject property to her. The property remained as one that formed part of the
conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.
Upon the death of Lorenza, the conjugal partnership was terminated. As a result, one
half of the property was automatically reserved in favor of the surviving spouse,
Feliciano Sr. as his share in the conjugal partnership. The other half, which is the share
of Lorenza, was transmitted to Lorenzas heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and her husband
Feliciano Sr., who is entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child.37
x x x. Under Article 996 of the Civil Code, upon the death of Lorenza Mangarin,
one-half of said property, or 60 square meters, is transmitted to her heirs,
namely: Feliciano Aquillo, Sr., Feliciano Aquillo, Jr., and Luz Aquillo, at 20
square meters each, while the remaining one-half is transmitted to Feliciano
Aquillo, Sr. Upon the death of Feliciano Aquillo, Sr., his rights over the property,
consisting of the 20 square meter-inheritance from his late wife and his 60
square meter-share in the conjugal partnership, or a total of 80 square meters
were transmitted to his heirs, namely: Feliciano Aquillo, Jr., Luz Aquillo, and his
widow, Paz Lachica. The surviving spouse is entitled to the same share as that of
the legitimate children, to the portion of one-third each or 26.6666 square meters
each x x x. Thus, as a result of the death of Feliciano Aquillo, Sr., a regime of co-
ownership exists among Feliciano, Jr., Luz Aquillo, and Paz Lachica, with respect
to the undivided 80 square meters of the property covered by Tax Declaration
No. 1151.
The 120 square meters less the hereditary share of Paz Lachica which is 26.6666
square meters, or the 93.3333 square meters of the property covered by Tax
Declaration No. 1151, belong to the appellants, being the heirs of the late
Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. and Luz Aquillo. x x x.38
Considering that Paz Lachica owns only 26.6666 square meters of the 120-square meter
property and the remaining 93.3333-square meter portion thereof is owned by the
respondents, the former could only validly sell the portion which rightfully belonged to
her. However, considering that Paz Lachica, the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses
Coja, was a co-owner of the subject 120-square meter property; and considering further
that partition of the property is wanting, this Court is precluded from directing the
Spouses Coja to return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is
the pronouncement on this issue in De Guia v. Court of Appeals39 citing Hermogena G.
Engreso with Spouse Jose Engreso v. Nestoria de la Cruz and Herminio de la Cruz:40
A co-owner may file an action for recovery of possession against a co-owner who takes
exclusive possession of the entire co-owned property. However, the only effect of such
action is a recognition of the co-ownership. The courts cannot proceed with the actual
partitioning of the co-owned property.41 In fine, judicial or extrajudicial partition is
necessary to effect physical division of the subject 120-square meter property.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.