Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City

TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION

HEIRS OF SPS. ANASTACIO APOLINAR AND CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN

VICENTA GACAYAN APOLINAR NAMELY:
Members:
CONCEPCION APOLINAR, GERONIMA
APOLINAR, DOMINADOR APOLINAR CAMELLO, J.,Ch.,
REPRESENTED BY JIMMY APOLINAR, SINGH &
ATAL-PAO, JJ.
FRUCTOSA APOLINAR REPRESENTED BY
ABSALON MORALES, AVELINA G.
APOLINAR, ANSELMO G. APOLINAR, Promulgated:
ALFENIANA APOLINAR, CRISPIN G.
APOLINAR, RODOLFO APOLINAR AND
FLORENCIO G. APOLINAR, FEBRUARY 10, 2017
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

- versus -

HEIRS ALFONSO
OF GUERRERO
REPRESENTED BY HERMINIA G. MARIO,
JUANITA GUERRERO, HEIRS OF ALEXANDER
GUERRERO REPRESENTED BY MRS. LEONOR
C. GUERRERO IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY,
HEIRS OF THE LATE EUSEBIO DULDULAO
REPRESENTED IN THIS ACT BY BERNARDO
DULDULAO, FELISA ASUNCION DULDULAO
IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY, AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF
SULTAN KUDARAT REPRESENTED BY ATTY.
MANUEL M. GUERRERO AS THE REGISTRAR,
Defendants-Appellants.

D ECISION

ATAL-PAO, J.:

Before Us is the ordinary appeal1 filed respectively by plaintiffs,

heirs of Spouses Anastacio Apolinar and Vicenta Gacayan, and defendants,
heirs of Alfonso Guerrero, assailing the Judgment dated February 9, 2010 2
of Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City (RTC), the dispositive
portion of which states:
1
Records, p. 119.
2
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 2 of 22
Decision

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing

considerations, the court hereby renders judgment as
follows:

1. Declaring the sale of the undivided

half portion of Lot No. 5101,
Pls-72 covered by OCT
No. (V-439) P-67 as null and void;

2. Declaring as null and void the

transfer to Juanita Guerrero,
married to Alfonso Guerrero of Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72 by virtue of the
duplicate copy of the Deed of Sale
(Exhibit A), Exhibit Z-3, and
Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-16004, (Exhibit D),
Exhibit Z-10 covering the said
lot;

3. Ordering the defendant heirs of

Alfonso and Juanita Guerrero to
surrender TCT No. T-16004 to the
Registry of Deeds for the Province
of Sultan Kudarat for the eventual
cancellation thereof;

4. Ordering the plaintiffs to execute in

favor of defendant heirs of Alfonso
and Juanita Guerrero a registrable
document over half undivided
portion of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72;

5. Ordering the said defendant heirs to

pay plaintiffs five hundred eighty
cavans of palay at fifty kilos each
or its cash equivalent as rent on the
half undivided portion of Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72 reckoned from
April 13, 1981 and up to the
issuance of this Judgment,
including its legal interests thereon
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 3 of 22
Decision

reckoned from the finality hereof

and until full payment thereof;

6. Ordering the said defendant heirs to

pay plaintiffs the amount of twenty
thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) as
attorney's fees and a like amount as
exemplary damages, including
legal interests thereon reckoned
from April 1, 1992 when the instant
action was initiated in court and
until full payment thereof, and

To pay the costs.

For lack of merit, the counterclaim the

defendants had interposed in their Answers are, as it
is, hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The relevant facts culled from the records of the case are as
follows:

On April 1, 1992, plaintiffs filed a Complaint3 before the RTC for

cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16004,
declaration of nullity of Deeds of Absolute Sale of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72
and Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. (V-439) P-67, reconveyance of possession and delivery of certificate
of title covering repurchase under Section 119 of Act no. 141 as
amended, accounting of fruits and/or rents, damages and attorneys fees
against defendants.

Plaintiffs alleged that their deceased parents, Spouses Anastacio

Apolinar (Anastacio) and Vicenta Gacayan (Vicenta), are the registered
owners of two parcels of land consisting of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72 with an
area of 97,603 sq. m. and Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 with an area of
99,297 sq. m., both located in Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat and embraced

3
Records, pp. 1-23.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 4 of 22
Decision

in OCT No. (V-439) P-674 pursuant to Free Patent Grant No. V-7705.
Plaintiffs' mother, Vicenta, died on May 14, 1959.5

On May 21, 1968, their father, Anastacio, mortgaged Lot

No. 5101, Pls-72 to defendant Juanita Guerrero (Juanita) as security for
his loan of P5,000.00.6

After Anastacio's death on February 17, 1970, plaintiffs

approached defendant Spouses Juanita and Alfonso Guerrero to
negotiate the redemption or sale of the mortgaged lot. Since the Spouses
Guerrero signified their interest to purchase the property, plaintiffs
alleged that they left a copy of an undated Deed of Absolute Sale with
handwritten notes of their conditions for approval of the sale.7

On June 7, 1980, the plaintiffs wrote to defendant

Spouses Guerrero to once again negotiate the redemption or the sale of
Lot No. 5101, Pls-72.8 Since defendant Spouses ignored their letter, the
plaintiffs filed a complaint before the office of the Barangay Chairman
of Maligaya, Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat on February 27, 1981 for
Unconsummated Sale of a Certain Piece of Land. 9 A Certification to File
Action was subsequently issued due to defendant Spouses' failure to
appear at the hearing.10

Sometime in 1988, plaintiffs discovered that the title for Lot

No. 5101, Pls-72 had already been transferred in the name of defendant
Juanita. The Registry of Deeds used a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated February 21, 196911 which contained the signature of plaintiffs'
deceased mother, Vicenta, as basis to partially cancel OCT
No. (V-439) P-67 and issue TCT No. T-16004 12 to defendant Juanita.
Thus, plaintiffs filed the present complaint against defendants before the
RTC.

4
Records, pp.13-14.
5
Records, p. 12.
6
Records, p. 16.
7
Records, p. 15.
8
Records, p. 17.
9
Records, pp. 18-19.
10
Records, p. 20.
11
Records, p. 22.
12
Records, p. 21.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 5 of 22
Decision

On February 9, 2010, the RTC issued the assailed Decision

declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 21, 1968 to be valid
in so far as it disposed of Anastacio's share or one-half of Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72. The RTC opined that Anastacio could validly dispose
of his conjugal share in Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 despite the absence of a
judicial or extra-judicial partition of Vicenta's estate. The RTC further
ordered the plaintiffs to execute a registrable document, covering
one-half portion of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72, in favor of defendants after
finding that all the elements of a valid sale to be present.

Dissatisfied, defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on

February 19, 2010.13

On February 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Motion for

Reconsideration14 which the RTC denied in its Order dated
September 29, 2010,15 hence, plaintiffs also appealed16 from the same
judgment assigning the following errors:17

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN

NOT FINDING THAT ITS DECLARATION OF
THE NULLITY OF THE DEED OF SALE
NECESSITATES THE RECONVEYANCE OF
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION NOT ONLY
THE ONE-HALF PORTION OF LOT NO. 5101,
PLS-72 BUT THE ENTIRE PORTION THEREOF;

II.

THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT INCLUDING IN
ITS DECISION THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE
OWNERSHIP OF LOT NO. 5100, PLS-72. THIS
13
Records, pp. 659-330.
14
Records, pp. 669-681.
15
Records, p. 710.
16
Records, pp. 714-716.
17
Rollo, p. 60.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 6 of 22
Decision

LOT IS ALSO ONE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER

OF THE COMPLAINT, HENCE, IT MUST
LIKEWISE BE RECONVEYED IN FAVOR OF
THE PLAINTIFFS SINCE IT WAS THE FINDING
OF THE HONORABLE COURT THAT THERE
WAS NO PROPER SETTLEMENT OF THE
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE VICENTA G.
APOLINAR;

III.

THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED

WHEN, EVEN GRANTING IN ARGUENDO
THAT THE HEIRS MAY VALIDLY SELL THEIR
INCHOATE RIGHTS OVER THE PORTION OF
LOT NO. 5100, THEIR SHARE MUST BE
LIMITED ONLY TO THE PORTION THAT
BELONGS TO THEM;

IV.

THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN

THE GIVING OF THE AWARD OF ACTUAL
DAMAGES BECAUSE, THE AMOUNT
AWARDED BY THE HONORABLE COURT
MUST LIKEWISE BE ADJUSTED TO CONFORM
TO THE AREA WHICH IS LEGALLY AND
LAWFULLY PERTAINING TO THE PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLANTS.

Defendants, on the other hand, raised the following issues:18

1. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AND THIRD

CAUSES OF ACTION HAD PRESCRIBED;

2. WHETHER THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF LOT

NO. 5101, PLS-72 EXECUTED BY ANASTACIO
18
Rollo, pp. 132-133.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 7 of 22
Decision

APOLINAR, WHICH IS HIS CONJUGAL SHARE, TO

SPS. JUANITA AND ALFONSO GUERRERO DATED
FEBRUARY 21, 1968 IS VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF VICENTA
GACAYAN-APOLINAR FILED BY THE HEIRS;

3. WHETHER THE SALE OF DESIGNATED PORTIONS

OF LOT NO. 5100, PLS-72 BY THE CHILDREN OF
ANASTACIO APOLINAR TO DEFENDANTS JUANITA
GUERRERO AND ALFONSO GUERRERO AND
EUSEBIO DULDULAO WHICH THE LATTER SOLD
TO ALEXANDER GUERRERO IS VALID IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF
VICENTA GACAYAN-APOLINAR BY THE HEIRS.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE -

4. GRANTING THAT THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF

PLAINTIFFS DID NOT PRESCRIBE AND IN THE
REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE OF LOT NO. 5101, PLS-72 DATED
FEBRUARY 21, 1968 EXECUTED BY ANASTACIO
APOLINAR IS DECLARED NULL AND VOID,
WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS' CONTINUOUS
POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION OF LOT
NO. 5101, PLS-72 FROM 1968 UP TO THE PRESENT,
BY VIRTUE OF THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT DATED
MAY 21, 1968 (EXHIBIT F OF THE COMPLAINT) IS
WARRANTED.

5. WHO AMONG THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO

DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES?

Plaintiffs assert that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void for being a
forged document, containing the signature of their deceased mother,
Vicenta, who had died years prior to its alleged execution on
February 21, 1968. They argue that the nullification of the Deed of
Absolute Sale not only affects a portion of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 but the
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 8 of 22
Decision

entire property. As such, the RTC should have ordered the reconveyance
of the entire area of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 to them.

Plaintiffs contend that the RTC erred in declaring the sale, as to

Anastacio's conjugal portion in Lot No. 5101, Pls-72, valid. They aver
that any disposition of the unsettled intestate estate of the surviving
spouse without prior settlement of the same is null and void. 19 Moreover,
plaintiffs claim that while Anastacio previously prepared an undated
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of defendant Juanita, he did not deliver
the Deed to defendant Juanita until she would pay in full the agreed
purchase price of P25,000.00.20 They insist that Anastacio would not
have executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated May 21, 1968 21
over the lot if he had already sold this to defendants.

Plaintiffs further assert that the RTC failed to pass upon the
question of ownership and possession of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72. They
claim that their co-heirs never sold nor transferred their rights over Lot
No. 5100, Pls-72 to defendants. Assuming arguendo, that their co-heirs
could validly dispose of their inchoate share in Lot No. 5100, Pls-72
prior to a proper partition, they are still entitled to 82,506 sq. m.,
representing Anastacio's and the other heirs' shares in Lot
No. 5100, Pls-72.

Lastly, plaintiffs contend that the actual damages awarded by the

RTC should be proportionately increased given that they are entitled to
the whole area or 99,297 sq. m. of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 and to
82,506 sq.m. of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72.
Defendants, for their part, argue that plaintiffs' cause of action for
declaration of nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
February 21, 1968 has already prescribed. Since plaintiffs' action is
based on fraud, it must be filed within four years from registration of the
Deed of Absolute Sale with the Registry of Deeds as provided under
Article 139122 of the Civil Code.
19
Citing Corpuz v. Corpuz, et al., 97 Phil. 655, Ocampo v. Potenciano, 89 Phil 159; PNP v. CA,
G.R. No. L-344040, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207.
20
Rollo, p. 42.
21
Records, p. 16.
22
Article 1391 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 9 of 22
Decision

According to defendants, 10 years and 9 months had elapsed from

the time of registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
February 21, 1968 and issuance of TCT No. T-16004 on June 23, 1981
until the filing of plaintiffs' complaint on April 1, 1992. On the other
hand, 21 years and 3 months had passed from the time of Anastacio's
death on February 17, 1970 until the filing of plaintiffs' complaint on
April 1, 1992. As such, plaintiffs' cause of action under Articles 1391 23
and 114424 of the Civil Code has clearly prescribed.

Moreover, plaintiffs' right to repurchase Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 as

provided under Section 11925 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended, has already prescribed given that the right must be exercised
within five years from the date of execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale.

Defendants maintain that Anastacio's sale of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72

despite the absence of the judicial or extrajudicial settlement of Vicenta's
estate is valid.26 They contend that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
February 21, 1968 met all the requisites for a valid sale. Anastacio's
execution of the Deed was even witnessed by some of his children,
herein plaintiffs and was duly notarized by a notary public.

This period shall begin: In cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence,

from the time the defect of the consent ceases.

In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same.

And when the action refers to contract entered into by minors or other
incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases.

23
Id.
24
Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1144. The following actions must be commenced within ten years from
the time the right of action accrues:

(1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
25
Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended provides:

Sec. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or
homestead patent provisions, when proper shall be subjected to repurchase by the
applicant, his widow or legal heirs within a period of five (5) years from the date of
conveyance.
26
Citing Heirs of Protacio Go, et al. v. Ester L. Servacio and Rito Go, G.R. No. 157537,
September 7, 2011.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 10 of 22
Decision

Defendants posit that Anastacio's total share of the conjugal

properties, consisting of Lot Nos. 5101 and 5100, Pls-72, would be
108,295 sq.m. following Article 99627 of the Civil Code.28 Considering
that Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 has a total area of 99, 297 sq. m. only, the RTC
should have awarded the entire lot to defendants.

Lastly, defendants insist that the various deeds of sale purportedly

executed by some of the plaintiffs, namely; Rodolfo, 29 Concepcion,30
Fructuosa,31 Dominador,32 Alfeniana33 and Anselmo, in favor of Eusebio
Duldulao and defendant Spouses Guerrero, pertaining to Lot
No. 5100, Pls-72, are valid unless found to be in excess of their aliquot
share in which case, the defendants become trustees in so far as the
excess areas are concerned.

The issues for resolution boil down to the following: 1.) Whether
or not plaintiffs' action is barred by prescription; 2.) Whether or not
Anastacio and Vicenta's heirs may validly sell their share in the Lot
Nos. 5101 and 5100, Pls-72 pending liquidation and partition; and
3.)Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 21, 1968
executed by Anastacio in favor of defendant Juanita is valid.

Our Ruling

Plaintiffs' action is
imprescriptible.

27
Article 996 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are

left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the
children.
28
Rollo, p. 138.
29
Records, pp. 243-245.
30
Records, p. 242.
31
Records, p. 241.
32
Records, p. 233.
33
Records, p. 235.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 11 of 22
Decision

It is settled that the right to file an action for declaration of nullity

of a void contract, as in this case, does not prescribe.34

Plaintiffs' action for reconveyance of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 is

anchored on the ground that defendants' certificate of title over the lot
was obtained by means of a simulated deed of sale containing the
signature of their deceased mother, Vicenta. Such action amounts to a
declaration of inexistence of a void contract, which under Article 1410
of the Civil Code35 does not prescribe. Hence, the fact that the alleged
Deed of Absolute Sale was registered on June 23, 1981 while the action
to have it declared void was filed only on April 1, 1992 is of no moment.
To reiterate, an action to declare the nullity of of void contract does not
prescribe.

Anastacio and the other heirs

may sell their share of the
properties in the dissolved
conjugal partnership pending
liquidation and partition.

Plaintiffs contend that Anastacio and their other co-heirs could not
validly dispose of any portion of Lot Nos. 5101 and Lot 5100, Pls-72
prior to liquidation and partition of Vicenta's estate. We disagree.

It must be noted that Anastacio and Vicenta were married prior to

the Family Code's effectivity on August 3, 1998. Nonetheless, the rules
found in Chapter 4, Title IV of the Family Code are still applicable to the
case as provided in Article 105 36 of Family Code. Under Article 126(1) 37

34
Santos v. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 133895, October 2, 2001 citing Lacsama, et al. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 121658, March 27, 1998.
35
Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a
contract does not prescribe.

36
Article 105 of the Family Code states:

Art. 105. In case the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that the
regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during
marriage, the provisions in this Chapter shall be of supplementary application.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 12 of 22
Decision

of the Family Code, the conjugal partnership of Anastacio and Vicenta

was dissolved upon Vicenta's death on May 14, 1959.

Article 13038 of the Family Code, requires the liquidation of their

conjugal partnership upon Vicenta's death and prohibits any disposition
or encumbrance of their conjugal property prior to the conjugal
partnership liquidation.

This rule, however, cannot be applied to the present case since the
provisions of the Family Code provides that it shall be "without
prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil
Code or other laws."39
In Acabal v. Acabal,40 the Supreme Court held that the properties
of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of
co-ownership among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased
spouse until final liquidation and partition. The surviving spouse,
however, has an actual and vested one-half undivided share of the
The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains
already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code without prejudice
to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as
provided in Article 256. (Italics supplied)

37
Article 126 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 126. The conjugal partnership terminates:

(1) Upon the death of either spouse;

(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
(4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under
Articles 134 to 138. (175a)
38
Article 130 of the Family Code states:

ARTICLE 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal
partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of
the estate of the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall

liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within
one year from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of said period no
liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal
partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without

complying with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete
separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage.
(n)

39
Domingo v. Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2006 citing Article 105 of the Family Code.
40
G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 13 of 22
Decision

properties which does not consist of determinate and segregated

properties until liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership.

Following Acabal, an implied co-ownership ensued among

Vicenta's heirs, including Anastacio, with respect to Vicenta's share of
the conjugal partnership until final liquidation and partition. Anastacio,
on the other hand, owns one-half of the original conjugal partnership
properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.

Article 996 of the Civil Code further provides that [i]f a widow
or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the
children.As such, Anastacio is entitled not only to one-half of the
original conjugal partnership properties but is also entitled to equally
share in Vicenta's estate with the other heirs, herein plaintiffs.

Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership states:

Article 493. 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. (Italics supplied)

Thus, while Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any

specific portion of the conjugal properties without an actual partition
being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree, he still had the
right to freely sell and dispose of this undivided interest in Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72. Consequently, the RTC correctly ruled that Anastacio's
sale of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 to defendant Juanita was not totally void for
Anastacio's rights or a portion thereof were thereby effectively
transferred, making the defendant Juanita a co-owner of the subject
property to the extent of Anastacio's interest. This result conforms with
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 14 of 22
Decision

the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must be

recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (qundo res valet ut
ago, valeat quantum valere potest).41

A careful reading of the cases cited42 by plaintiffs show that the

Supreme Court recognized the surviving spouse's right to sell the
conjugal property, but such sale may only convey title, to the extent of
the surviving spouse's share in the land, with the result that the legal
heirs of the deceased spouse cannot be deemed to have divested their
title to their share in the property.

Defendant Juanita would be a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs

of Anastacio in respect of any portion that might belong to the co-heirs
after liquidation and partition. The observations of Justice Paras cited in
the case of Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr. v. Servacio43 are instructive:

. . . [I]f it turns out that the property alienated

or mortgaged really would pertain to the share of the
surviving spouse, then said transaction is valid. If it
turns out that there really would be, after liquidation,
no more conjugal assets then the whole transaction is
null and void. But if it turns out that half of the
property thus alienated or mortgaged belongs to the
husband as his share in the conjugal partnership, and
half should go to the estate of the wife, then that
corresponding to the husband is valid, and that
corresponding to the other is not. Since all these can
be determined only at the time the liquidation is over,
it follows logically that a disposal made by the
surviving spouse is not void ab initio. Thus, it has
been held that the sale of conjugal properties cannot
be made by the surviving spouse without the legal
requirements. The sale is void as to the share of the
deceased spouse (except of course as to that portion
of the husband's share inherited by her as the
surviving spouse). The buyers of the property that

41
See Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr. v. Servacio, G.R. No. 15737, September 7, 2011 cited in Domingo v.
Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016.
42
Corpuz v. Corpuz, et al., G.R. No. L-7495, September 30, 1955, 097 Phil 655; PNP v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. L-344040, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207.
43
Heirs of Protacio Go, Sr. v. Servacio, G.R. No. 15737, September 7, 2011.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 15 of 22
Decision

could not be validly sold become trustees of said

portion for the benefit of the husband's other heirs,
the cestui que trust ent. Said heirs shall not be barred
by prescription or by laches.

Considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

February 21, 1968 is valid to the extent of Anastacio's undivided interest
in Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 and given that defendant Juanita has, by
operation of law, become a co-owner thereof, we do not find the need, as
herein ordered by the RTC, for plaintiffs to execute another deed of sale
conveying Anastacio's undivided portion to defendant Juanita. Instead,
defendant Juanita's recourse as co-owner of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72, is an
action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.44

The simulation of Vicenta's

signature does not automatically
render the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated February 21, 1968 void.

Plaintiffs argue that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

February 21, 1968 is void because Vicenta's signature thereon was
clearly forged, having died on May 14, 1959 or before its alleged
execution. We disagree.

In Isabela Colleges Inc. v. The Heirs of Nieves Tolentino-Rivera,

45
et al. the Supreme Court clarified that the simulation of a spouse's
signature in a deed of sale disposing of conjugal property does not
automatically render such deed void, to wit:

The fact that Nieves Tolentino's signature in

the deed of sale is a forgery does not, however, render
the deed of sale void. For the land was conjugal
property and, under the Spanish Civil Code, the
wife's consent to the sale is not required. Therefore,
that her signature is a forgery is determinative only of
Nieves Tolentino's lack of consent but not of the

44
Id.
45
G.R. No. 132677, October 20, 2000.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 16 of 22
Decision

validity of the sale. Art. 1413 of the Spanish Civil

Code provides:

In addition to his powers as

manager the husband may for valuable
consideration alienate and encumber the
property of the conjugal partnership
without the consent of the wife.

Nevertheless, no alienation or
agreement which the husband may make
with respect to such property in
contravention of this Code or in fraud of
the wife shall prejudice her or her heirs.

As the husband may validly sell or dispose of

conjugal property even without the wife's consent, the
absence of the wife's consent alone does not make the
sale "in fraud" of her.

In this case, both law46 and jurisprudence47 clearly recognize

Anastacio's right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in
Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 without Vicenta's consent. Hence, whether or not
Vicenta's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 21, 1968
is forged is inconsequential in determining the validity thereof.
Otherwise stated, the fact that Vicenta's signature is forged does not
immediately render the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 21, 1968
void.

The Deed of Absolute Sale dated

February 21, 1968 is a perfected
contract of sale, to the extent of
Anastacios' undivided interest in
Lot No. 5101, Pls-72.
Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, a contract of sale is
perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Thus, for a
contract of sale to be valid, all the following essential elements must
46
See Article 493 of the Civil Code.
47
Domingo v. Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 220274, April 20, 2016.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 17 of 22
Decision

concur: a) consent or meeting of the minds; b) determinate subject

matter; and c) price certain in money or its equivalent.48

In this case, there is no controversy as to the determinate subject

matter, i.e., Lot No. 5101, Pls-72. This leaves us to resolve whether there
is concurrence of the remaining elements.

As regards consent, jurisprudence provides that [w]hen there is

merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no
contract.49 The decision to accept a bidder's proposal must be
communicated to the bidder.50 However, a binding contract may exist
between the parties whose minds have met, although they did not affix
their signatures to any written document, 51 as acceptance may be
expressed or implied.52 It can be inferred from the contemporaneous
and subsequent acts of the contracting parties.53

As for the price, fixing it can never be left to the decision of only
one of the contracting parties.54 But a price fixed by one of the
contracting parties, if accepted by the other, gives rise to a perfected
sale.55

Notably, plaintiffs admit that Anastacio agreed to sell Lot

No. 5101, Pls-72 for the amount of P25,000.00 to defendant Juanita. 56
Pursuant thereto, Anastacio executed an undated Deed of Absolute Sale,
witnessed by four of his children and herein plaintiffs, Rodolfo,
Froctusa, Geronima and Dominador.57 According to plaintiffs, the Deed
would only be dated when the full amount of the consideration is
delivered.58 They contend that the sale did not materialize because
Anastacio did not deliver the Deed of Absolute Sale to defendant
48
Navarra v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 172674, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 562, 574.
49
Manila Metal Container Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, 540 Phil. 451, 471 (2006).
50
The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Asset Builders Corporation, 466 Phil. 751, 768 (2004).
51
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Medrano, G.R. No. 167004, February 7, 2011,
641 SCRA 559, 567 citing Traders Royal Bank v. Cuison Lumber Co., Inc., G.R. No. 174286, June 5, 2009,
588 SCRA 690, 701, 703.
52
CIVIL CODE, Article 1320.
53
Jardine Davies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 204, 214 (2000).
54
Bank of Commerce v. Manalo, 517 Phil. 328, 347 (2006).
55
Id.
56
Rollo, p.42.
57
Id.
58
Rollo, p. 86.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 18 of 22
Decision

Juanita. Plaintiffs also submitted as evidence, the Receipt dated

April 16, 196859 which showed that Juanita paid P11,300.00 of the
agreed purchase price for Lot No. 5101, Pls-72.

However, the delivery of a deed of sale to the vendee is not an

element in the perfection of a contract of sale. It bears stressing that a
contract of sale is perfected by mere consent, upon a meeting of the
minds of the offer and the acceptance thereof based on the subject
matter, price and terms of payment, as in this case. The records as
admitted by plaintiffs and the evidence submitted by both parties
establish that Anastacio agreed to sell, and defendant Juanita agreed to
purchase, Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 for the determinate price of P25,000.00.
Clearly, there is concurrence of all the essential elements of a contract of
sale consent, subject matter and price, proving the existence of a
perfected sale between Anastacio and defendant Juanita.

Moreover, Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that when the
sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract,
if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be
inferred. A perusal of the undated Deed of Absolute Sale 60 executed by
Anastacio in favor of defendant Juanita show that this was duly
notarized by a Notary Public, Rolando G. Recinto. Thus, despite the lack
of actual delivery of the deed of sale to defendant Juanita, there is
already constructive delivery of the subject matter of the contract of sale
to the extent of Anastacio's undivided interest in Lot
No. 5101, Pls 72.

Furthermore, it is settled that the the failure of the buyer to pay the
purchase price within the stipulated period does not by itself bar the
transfer of ownership or possession of the property sold, nor ipso facto
rescind the contract.61 Such failure will merely give the vendor the
option to rescind the contract of sale judicially or by notarial demand as

59
Records, p. 246.
60
Records, p.15.
61
Arra Realty Corp. v. Guarantee Development Corp. & Insurance Agency, G.R. No. 142310,
September 20, 2004.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 19 of 22
Decision

provided for by Article 159262 of the New Civil Code.63 The records do
not show that plaintiffs availed of such remedies. Nonetheless, the
failure of defendant Juanita to pay the full amount of the agreed
purchase price does not by itself, render the Deed of Absolute Sale void.

In view of the foregoing and considering that no evidence was

submitted by plaintiffs to prove otherwise, the RTC correctly found the
Deed of Absolute Sale valid to the extent of Anastacio's undivided
interest in Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 consisting of his conjugal share or one
half of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 (49,648 sq. m.)64 and his share as Vicenta's
heir65 (4,513 sq. m.).66

It bears stressing that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by

Anastacio only disposed of his undivided interest in Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72. As such, defendants' claim that they are entitled to
Anastacio's share in all the conjugal properties, consisting of Lot
Nos. 5101 and 5100, Pls-72 cannot be given any merit.

Moreover, defendants' claim that they have acquired ownership

over the whole area of Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 by virtue of acquisitive
prescription is also bereft of merit. Well-settled is the jurisprudential rule
that no title to registered land in derogation of the rights of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.67
Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also
against his hereditary successors.68 It is undisputed that Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72 is a titled property covered by OCT
No. (V-439) P-6769 in the name of Anastacio married to Vicenta
Gacayan.

62
Article 1592 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been
stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the
contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the
period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either
judicially or by a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
63
Id.
64
Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 has a total area of 99,297 sq.m.
65
See Art. 996 of the Civil Code.
66
49,648 sq.m. equally divided among Anastacio and his ten children. See Rollo, p.58.
67
De Ungria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011.
68
Id.
69
Rollo, pp. 11-14.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 20 of 22
Decision

On the other hand, plaintiffs insist that their co-heirs, Rodolfo, 70

Concepcion,71 Fructuosa,72 Dominador,73 Alfeniana74 and Anselmo never
sold nor transferred their rights over Lot No. 5100, Pls-72 to defendants.
However, the duly notarized Deeds of Absolute Sale executed by above
named plaintiffs in favor of Eusebio Duldulao and defendant Juanita
sufficiently prove that they had already ceded their respective interests in
Lot No. 5100, Pls-72. Being consensual, such contracts of sale have the
force of law between the contracting parties and they are expected to
abide in good faith with their respective contractual commitments.75

Notably, apart from their self-serving denials as to the execution of

the various deeds of sale, plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence,
testimonial or documentary, to prove the invalidity of the deeds of sale.
Neither did plaintiffs file an action for annulment of sale.

Instead, what they profess is that there should have been prior
partition of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72 among Vicenta's heirs in order for the
sale to adversely affect the property. However, as discussed above, the
fact that Lot No. 5100, Pls-72 has yet to be partitioned among Vicenta's
heirs does not affect the validity of their sale. Just as Anastacio has a
right to sell and dispose of his undivided interest in Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72, the above named plaintiff-heirs, as co-owners, may
also validly and legally dispose of their respective shares in Lot
No. 5100, Pls-72 pending partition76 and even without the consent of all
the other co-heirs.77 Moreover, the sale effectively made defendant
Juanita a co-owner of Lot No. 5100, Pls-72 to the extent of the above-
named heirs' aliquot interests consisting of 4,436 sq.m. each.78

WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by both parties is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The Decision dated February 9, 2010 of Regional Trial
Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City is MODIFIED as follows:

70
Records, pp. 243-245.
71
Records, p. 242.
72
Records, p. 241.
73
Records, p. 233.
74
Records, p. 235.
75
Agasen vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 504 (2000) citing Fule vs. Court of Appeals,
286 SCRA 698 (1998).
76
See Article 493 of the Civil Code.
77
See Recio v. Heirs of Spouses Altamirano, G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013.
78
Domingo v. Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 21 of 22
Decision

1. Declaring the sale pertaining to plaintiff heirs' undivided

interests, consisting of 4,513.50 sq.m. each, in Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72 covered by OCT No. (V-439) P-67 as null
and void.

2. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs twenty (20) cavans

of palay at fifty kilos each per hectare per year as rent on
their undivided shares in Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 consisting of
an aggregate area of 45,135 sq.m., 79 reckoned from
April 13, 1981 and up to the issuance of this Judgment,
including legal interest of 6% per annum 80 reckoned from
the finality hereof and until full payment thereof.

The RTC's order for plaintiffs to execute in favor of defendant

heirs, a registrable document over the half undivided portion of Lot
No. 5101, Pls-72 is DELETED. All other orders, except as those
modified above, issued by the RTC in its Decision dated
February 9, 2010 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

(ORIGINAL SIGNED)
PERPETUA T. ATAL-PAO
Associate Justice

79
Pursuant to Article 996 of the Civil Code, plaintiff-heirs, including Anastacio, are entitled to a share
of 4,513.5 sq.m. each on Lot No. 5101, Pls-72 after deducting Anastacio's conjugal share or half portion of
49,648.5 sq.m.
80
See Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 03469-MIN Page 22 of 22
Decision

WE CONCUR:

(ORIGINAL SIGNED) (ORIGINAL SIGNED)

EDGARDO A. CAMELLO MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice Associate Justice

C E R T I F I CAT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.

(ORIGINAL SIGNED)
EDGARDO A. CAMELLO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twenty-second Division