Heirs of Palomares v. Vinzon

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 194599. September 18, 2013.]

HEIRS OF ANGEL PALOMARES, NAMELY: CANDELARIA GUISANDE-PALOMARES, SANTIAGO G. PALOMARES, AND MIGUEL G. PALOMARES, petitioner, vs. DEMETRIO VINZON, SUBSTITUTED BY JOVITA PALOMARES VINZON, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 194599 (Heirs of Angel Palomares, namely: Candelaria Guisande-Palomares, Santiago G. Palomares, and Miguel G. Palomares v. Demetrio Vinzon,*substituted by Jovita Palomares Vinzon). * — On January 5, 1938 Cayetana Duran vda. de Palomares executed a will instituting as her universal heirs Tecla, Remedios, Angel, Pilar, Jose, Ramon, and Tomas, all children of her son Jose. More than 10 years later or on July 26, 1948, the above heirs executed an Escritura de Reparticion confirming the distribution of their grandmother's estate, including those pertaining to Pilar Palomares, one of the heirs, namely, the agricultural land in Burabod, Pamplona, Camarines Sur and the residential-commercial lot along Mabini Street in Naga City. Pilar was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 378 in her name for the Mabini Street property. It described her status as "married to Demetrio Vinzon." DHESca

During their marriage, the spouses Demetrio Vinzon and Pilar Palomares Vinzon constructed a building on Pilar's Mabini Street lot, the subject of the litigation. They occupied and used a portion of the building as their residence and leased the remaining parts to third parties. Jose, Pilar's younger brother, acted as the administrator of the property and took charge of collecting the rents.

On May 7, 1985 Pilar died intestate. Demetrio, her husband, tried to get the rental incomes from Jose but was surprised when he was informed that Pilar had executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the property on September 30, 1981 in favor of her brother, Angel Palomares, for P50,000.00, resulting in the cancellation of OCT 378 and the issuance of TCT 13471 in Angel's name on April 29, 1982.

On September 15, 1986 Demetrio filed a complaint against Angel and Jose for annulment of the sale and turnover of the undelivered rentals with damages. Demetrio alleged that the sale was simulated and that Pilar's signature on the deed of sale had been forged. He also averred that he never gave his marital consent to the sale.

To refute Demetrio's claim, Angel presented a deed of sale of interest, rights, and ownership covering the subject property dated June 11, 1985. Demetrio purportedly executed the document to evidence his sale to Angel of all his interests over the property for P7,500.00. Angel also maintained the validity of Pilar's deed of absolute sale and the authenticity of her signature on it.

On June 30, 1994 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, rendered a decision dismissing the case. Upon petitioners' motion for reconsideration with respect to their counterclaim, the RTC modified its decision by ordering the partition of the property situated in Burabod, Pamplona, Camarines Sur. cHESAD

Aggrieved, Demetrio appealed the dismissal of the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the pendency of the appeal, Demetrio, Angel, and Jose passed away. Respondent Jovita Palomares Vinzon substituted Demetrio in the action. On the other hand, Angel's widow, petitioners Candelaria Guisande-Palomares and their children Santiago G. Palomares and Miguel G. Palomares substituted Angel. Jose and his heirs did not appear to pursue any interest in the case.

Meantime, Demetrio's heirs moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. On September 23, 2002 the CA granted the motion and remanded the case to the RTC for new trial. At the trial, Demetrio's heirs presented Cayetana Palomares who testified that she was the eldest niece of the Palomares clan and that she was present when Pilar and her siblings discussed the simulation of the sale of the subject property to Angel. Cayetana said that the clan did not want Demetrio to inherit any property from their family because he had been maltreating Pilar. They thus decided to simulate Pilar's sale of the subject property to Angel, who was at that time, a General in the Philippine Constabulary.

Angel's heirs, on the other hand, presented Celedonia Mariano who testified that she personally processed the transfer of the title and the tax declaration from Pilar's name to that of Angel. She said that Jose's wife and son, together with Pilar and two other witnesses, went to the notary public to have the deed of sale notarized. Mariano claimed that the document was even translated into Tagalog so Pilar could fully understand its contents. Angel paid Pilar the price of the land at that time. EHSCcT

After new trial, the RTC reiterated and affirmed its amended decision dated October 12, 1994 in favor of Angel and Jose. Undaunted, Demetrio's heir appealed it to the CA in CA-G.R. CV 91299. On September 24, 2010 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Angel's heirs filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same, hence the present petition.

Angel's heirs fault the CA for deciding the case on the basis of the paraphernal nature of the subject property when this fact was not brought up during the trial nor was it raised as an issue before the CA.

But in answering the complaint, 1 Angel himself alleged that the property in question was Pilar's paraphernal property. This is judicial admission that binds Angel and his successors. The CA was within its power to inform itself of such judicial admission. The fact that the property was Pilar's paraphernal property is material to the issue presented in the case of whether or not the deed of sale she executed in Angel's favor was invalid and did not bind her husband Demetrio or their children. CSIDEc

It is beyond dispute that Demetrio and Pilar were married on June 9, 1944, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Accordingly, the Civil Code governed their union. Under the second paragraph of Article 158 of the Civil Code, land belonging exclusively to one spouse shall become conjugal upon construction of a building on it at the expense of the partnership, subject to reimbursement to the spouse who owned the land.

Here, the evidence shows that Pilar inherited the land from her grandmother. Consequently, she brought it into the marriage as her paraphernal property. Admittedly, however, the spouses constructed a building on the land out of funds belonging to both of them. As the Court held in Embrado v. Court of Appeals, 2 the paraphernal land becomes conjugal, without awaiting reimbursement before or at the liquidation of the partnership, upon the construction of the building on it at the expense of the partnership. Thus, the subject property and the building constructed on it by spouses Demetrio and Pilar became conjugal by operation of law.

Since the property became conjugal, Article 172 of the Civil Code applied. It states that the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent. Since Pilar sold the property to Angel without Demetrio's consent, that sale was invalid and did not bind Demetrio or his heirs.

Further, as the CA held, the preponderance of evidence shows that Pilar executed a mere simulated sale in Angel's favor. There is ample evidence that (1) the Palomares clan wanted to deprive Demetrio of any future right to the property given his maltreatment of Pilar; (2) Pilar and Demetrio remained in actual physical possession of the property even after the supposed sale of the same to Angel; (3) Angel was in Australia on the supposed date of the sale; and (4) Angel paid nothing for the property. This made for a sham deed of absolute sale.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the September 24, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 91299. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., Acting Member, per Special Order 1541 [Revised] dated September 9, 2013.)

SO ORDERED." SAHIaD

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

*Also referred to as "Vinsons" & "Vinzons" in some parts of the record.

1.Rollo, p. 56.

2.G.R. No. 51457, June 27, 1994, 233 SCRA 335, 342.