Celestino Balus vs. Saturnino Balus & Leonarda Balus Vda.
de Calunod Here, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it
(2010)
Rule 45 | Peralta, J.
Pet and Res are sibs
September 6, 1978 – Mom Sebastiana died
January 3, 1979 – Dad Rufo mortgaged a land which he owns exclusively
November 20, 1981 – Cert of Sale for Bank bec failed to pay, foreclosed, sold,
and won highest bidder award.
January 25, 1984 – Definite Deed of Sale for Bank bec not redeemed
July 6, 1984 – Dad Rufo died
October 10, 1989 – Pet and Res executed EJS, including the land already sold to
the Bank and an acknowledgment of its mortgage to and intention to redeem
the same from the bank.
1992 – Res bought it back
October 12, 1992 – Deed of Sale by Bank in favor of Res but Pet refused to
surrender possession and instead sought reinforcement of the extrajudicial
settlement by paying his just share of the repurchase price. Hence, Res filed this
complaint for recovery of possession and damages.
RTC for Pet Cel – Pet Cel’s right to repurchase recognized is by the EJS of Estate
executed before Res Sat and Leo bought the land; Res Sat and Leo to execute
Deed of Sale
CA reversed – Pet Cel to surrender possession to Res Sat and Leo; Since not
redeemed, co-ownership was extinguished.
W/N co-ownership continued to exist even after the period of redemption and
consolidation of title in favor of the bank and after it was eventually bought
back by Res Sat and Leo by virtue of EJS executed prior to the repurchase – No.
Court rules for Res.
Pet’s argument: Res knew of the arrangement. EJS provides that the parties
agreed to continue = binding contract (Art. 1159).
Pet and Res are arguing at the wrong premise that at the time of execution of
EJS, the subject property formed part of the estate of their father.
Def Deed of Sale already issued for bank on January 25, 1984 (almost 6 months
before dad died) = bank acquired exclusive ownership of the subject land
during dad’s lifetime.
The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from
the moment of his death. The inheritance of a person consists of the property
and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well
as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.
only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer
formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim = never inherited by
Pet and Res = wrong in assuming they became co-owners of the same.
Any issue arising from the supposed right of petitioner as co-owner of the
contested parcel of land is negated by the fact that, in the eyes of the law, the
disputed lot did not pass into the hands of petitioner and respondents as
compulsory heirs of Rufo at any given point in time.
Anent the argument that EJS is an independent contract which gives Pet the
right to enforce the same – Arts. 1315 (perfected by mere consent; bound by
express stip and all consequences) and 1306 (parties may establish SCTC).
Here, nothing in the EJS indicates any express stipulation for petitioner and
respondents to continue with their supposed co-ownership of the contested lot.
In interpreting, intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial
consideration which is determined from express terms and contemporaneous
and subsequent acts (here, no co-ownership to begin with/nor a property to
partition since never part of the estate of deceased dad; alleged intent negated
by the fact that he had the chance to buy back but never did. After the bank
acquired, it offered to sell to Pet but did not accept. EJS shows that at the time of
its execution, parties were not aware that it was already exclusively owned by
the bank. But lack of knowledge Bank does not give them the right or the
authority to unilaterally declare themselves as co-owners of the disputed
property; otherwise, the disposition of the case would be made to depend on
the belief and conviction of the party-litigants and not on the evidence adduced
and the law and jurisprudence applicable thereto. Intent to continue co-
ownership also negated by statement in EJS that they intend to divide the
property by assigning to each of them a specific 1/3 portion.
Partition – segregation/conveyance of a determinate portion of a property
owned in common; seeks to severe individual interests of each co-owner and
vest in each a sole estate giving each one a right to enjoy without supervision or
interference = ends co-ownership = negates Pet’s claim of intent to continue co-
ownership.
CA affirmed.