134. Anzures v.

Sps Ventanilla o Subsequently, a Deed of Absolute Sale over an Unregistered Land was
G.R. No. 222297 executed in favor of Erlinda and Carolina.
July 9, 2018 o These two documents were notarized.
SPV - Based on the foregoing, as between the Waiver of Rights over Unregistered Parcel
Topic: Co-ownership of Land and the Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land on one hand, and the
Petitioners: Fortunato Anzures Pagpapamana sa Labas ng Hukuman na may Pagtalikod sa Bahagi ng Lupa at
Respondents: Sps. Erlinda Ventanilla and Arturo Ventanilla Bilihang Tuluyan sa Lupa on the other, the two former documents prevail because
Ponente: Gesmundo they bore the rubber stamp of the notary public and the signatures appearing
thereon were similar with each other.
FACTS - On October 31, 2008, Carolina and Erlinda executed a "Pagkakaloob ng Bahagi ng
- The respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioner. Lupa na may Kasunduan," whereby the two gave 1/3 of the subject property to
o They alleged that they were the owners of a residential house in Brgy. their brother, Emiliano
o The three siblings agreed to place the property in the name of Carolina.
Sta. Ines, Bulakan, Bulacan, and the property stands on a 289-sqm parcel
of land registered in the name of petitioner and his wife Carolina. o Although the property would be registered in her name, the three of
o By virtue of a deed of donation, petitioner and his wife donated 144-sqm them would still be the co-owners of the property.
of the land to respondents - Emiliano waived his right in favor of Carolina and Erlinda, thus, cementing the co-
o Erlinda indicated to partition the property, but the house constitutes a ownership of the two sisters.
- Carolina then executed a deed of donation, which donated 144 square meters of
stumbling block on the partition
the subject property to Erlinda as an acknowledgement of their co-ownership
o By owners of the property, respondents merely tolerated the possession
thereof.
of the petitioners. They demanded that the petitioner vacate, but to no
o The donation does not appear to have been registered, but it is a
avail.
recognition that they are both coowners with equal shares.
- Petitioner averred that he and his late spouse Carolina were the owners of the
residential house as well as the 289sqm parcel of land, having bought the same
Carolina and Erlinda are co-owners of the house subject of litigation
from Erlinda as evidenced by a Pagpapamana sa Labas ng Hukuman na may
- Being co-owners of the property, they are also the co-owners of the improvement
Pagtalikod sa Bahagi ng upa at Bilihang Tuluyan sa Lupa.
thereon, including the subject house.
o He denied the genuineness of the Deed of donation, since Carolina was
- Respondents cannot rely on the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver
mentally and physically incompetent at the time of its execution.
ofRights whereby Filomena and Rosalina waived their rights over the house in favor
- MTC granted the complaint for unlawful detainer, ordering the petitioner to vacate
of Erlinda.
the residential house and surrender the same to the respondents.
o Filomena and Rosalina no longer had the right to convey the house as
- RTC affirmed
they were no longer the owners thereof.
- CA affirmed:
o They already sold the property together with the improvements to the
o Petitioner's occupancy was through their tolerance. A person who
two sisters, Carolina and Erlinda.
occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission,
o In fact, the title has been placed in Carolina's name.
without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action
for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. Petitioner cannot claim sole ownership either
o With regard to the forgery of the deed of donation, forgery cannot be - There is no evidence of forgery as to the Deed of Donation
o Here, not a modicum of evidence was adduced by petitioner to
presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence.
substantiate his claim of forgery.
ISSUE: W/N respondents have a cause of action to eject petitioner from the subject property o No sufficient and convincing proof was proffered to demonstrate that the
- NO signature of his wife Carolina on the Deed of Donation was not hers, and
therefore forged.
HELD: - There were two (2) other documents that would disprove his claim.
- The preponderance of the evidence shows that the property was originally owned o First, the Pagkakaloob ng Bahagi ng Lupa na may Kasunduan, dated
by one Vicenta Galvez. After her death, Filomena Rodriguez Rivera, Enriqueta executed by the siblings Erlinda and Carolina with their brother, Emiliano,
Rodriguez and Rosalina Rodriguez, claiming to be her sole heirs, executed a o Second, the Pagwawaksi ng Karapatan sa Pag-aari ng Bahagi ng Lupa,
"Waiver of Rights over the Unregistered Parcel of Land" in favor of their nieces, where Emiliano waived his 1/3 share in favor of his two siblings, thereby
Erlinda Rodriguez and Carolina Rodriguez. returning his share to his two sisters.
 o In these documents, petitioner was a signatory.

o Petitioner is estopped from questioning them.

Being a co-owner, petitioner cannot be ordered to vacate the house

- In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with
each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the
whole property.
o Each coowner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation
than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners.
o The underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the
respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner
exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro
indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.
- Ultimately, respondents do not have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on
tolerance because the latter is also entitled to possess and enjoy the subject
property.
o Corollarily, neither of the parties can assert exclusive ownership and
possession of the same prior to any partition.

The remedy of the respondents is partition

- The parties, being co-owners of both the land and the building, the remedy of the
respondents is to file an action for partition.
- Article 494 of the New Civil Code reads: No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in
the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the
thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 24, 2015 Decision and the December 18,
2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 136514, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The complaint for unlawful detainer is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of
the appropriate action.