Villanueva vs.

Spouses Branoco Digest

G.R. No. 172804.January 24, 2011
GONZALO VILLANUEVA, represented by his heirs,
petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FROILAN and LEONILA
BRANOCO, respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Gonzalo, here represented by his heirs, sued spouses Froilan
and Leonila Branoco in the RTC of Naval, Biliran for the
recovery of a parcel of land in Leyte. He claimed ownership
over the property through purchase from Vere who in turn
purchased the property from Rodrigo in 1970. The
respondents in this case claimed ownership in their answer
through purchase in 1983 from Rodriguez to whom Rodrigo
donated the property in 1965.

Petition is DENIED.

Balus vs. BalusG.R. No. 168970January 15, 2010

Facts: Herein petitioner and respondents are the children of the
spouses Rufo and Sebastiana Balus.
On January 3,1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land, which he
owns, as asecurity for a loan he obtained from the Rural Bank
of Maigo, Lanao del Norte. Rufo failed to pay his loan.
As a result, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and was
sold to the bank as the sloe bidder at a public auction held for
that purpose. The property was not redeemed within the period
allowed by law. More than two years after the auction, or on
January 25, 1984, the sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale
in favor of the Bank.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, saying that by

the time Rodriguez sold the property to the respondents in this
case she had no title to transfer because the donation to her by
Rodrigo was deemed cancelled when Rodrigo decided to sell
the property to Vere instead.

Thereafter, anew title was issued in the name of the Bank. On

October 10, 1989, herein petitioner and respondents executed
an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each of
them a specific one-third portion of the subject property
consisting of 10,246 square meters.

The respondents brought the case up to the Court of Appeals,

which granted their appeal. It found the following factors
pivotal to its reading of the Deed as donationintervivos: (1)
Rodriguez had been in possession of the Property as owner
since 21 May 1962, subject to the delivery of part of the
produce toApoyAlve; (2) the Deeds consideration was not
Rodrigos death but her "love and affection" for Rodriguez,
considering the services the latter rendered; (3) Rodrigo
waived dominion over the Property in case Rodriguez
predeceases her, implying its inclusion in Rodriguezs estate;
and (4) Rodriguez accepted the donation in the Deed itself, an
act necessary to effectuate donationsintervivos, not
devises.Accordingly, the CA upheld the sale between
Rodriguez and respondents, and, conversely found the sale
between Rodrigo and petitioners predecessor-in-interest,Vere,
void for Rodrigos lack of title.

The Extrajudicial Settlement also contained provisions

wherein the parties admitted knowledge of the fact that their
father mortgaged the subject property to the Bank and that
they intended to redeem the same at the soonest possible time.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners title is superior to that of

respondents.
HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.
CIVIL LAW Property; donations
It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed naked title to
Rodriguez under a perfected donationintervivos.
First.Rodrigo stipulated that "if the hereinDonee predeceases
me, the [Property] will not be reverted to the Donor, but will
be inherited by the heirs of xxxRodriguez," signaling the
irrevocability of the passage of title to Rodriguezs estate,
waiving Rodrigos right to reclaim title.
Second. What Rodrigo reserved for herself was only the
beneficial title to the Property, evident from Rodriguezs
undertaking to "give one [half] xxxof the produce of the land
toApoyAlveduring her lifetime." Indeed, if Rodrigo still
retained full ownership over the Property, it was unnecessary
for her to reserve partialusufructuaryright over it.
Third.The existence of consideration other than the donors
death, such as the donors love and affection to thedoneeand
the services the latter rendered, while also true of devises,
nevertheless "corroborates the express irrevocability of
xxx[intervivos] transfers." Thus, the CA committed no error in
giving weight to Rodrigos statement of "love and affection"
for Rodriguez, her niece, as consideration for the gift, to
underscore its finding.

Three years after the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement,

herein respondents bought the subject property from the Bank.
On October 12, 1992, a Deed of Sale of Registered Land was
executed by the Bank in favor of respondents. Subsequently, a
TCT was issued in the name of respondents.
Meanwhile, petitioner continued possession of the subject lot.
On June 27, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for Recovery
of Possession and Damages against petitioner, contending that
they had already informed petitioner of the fact that they were
the new owners of the disputed property, but the petitioner still
refused to surrender possession of the same to them.
The RTC held that the right of petitioner to purchase from the
respondents his share in the disputed property was recognized
by the provisions of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate,
which the parties had executed before the respondents bought
the subject lot from theBank.
Aggrieved by the Decision of the RTC, herein respondents
filed an appeal with the CA. The CA ruled that when
petitioner and respondents did not redeem the subject property
within the redemption period and allowed the consolidation of
ownership and the issuance of a new title in the name of the
Bank, their co-ownership was extinguished. Hence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue: Whether or not co-ownership by him and respondents
over the subject property persisted even after the lot was
purchased by the Bank and title thereto transferred to its name,
and even after it was eventually bought back by the
respondents from the Bank.
Held: The court is not persuaded. At the outset, it bears to
emphasize that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that
the subject property was exclusively owned by petitioner and
respondents' father,
Rufo, at the time that it was mortgaged in 1979. This was
stipulated by the parties during the hearing conducted by the
trial court on October 28, 1996. Evidence shows that a
Definite Deed of Sale was issued in favor of the Bank on
January 25, 1984, after the period of redemption expired.

There is neither any dispute that a new title was issued in the
Bank's name before Rufo died on July 6, 1984.
Hence, there is no question that the Bank acquired exclusive
ownership of the contested lot during the lifetime of Rufo. The
rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the
moment of his death. In addition, 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.
In the present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject
property during his lifetime, it 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. Stated differently,
petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from
their father.
Furthermore, petitioner's contention that he and his siblings
intended to continue their supposed co-ownership of the
subject property contradicts the provisions of the subject
Extrajudicial Settlement where they clearly manifested their
intention of having the subject property
divided or partitioned by assigning to each of the petitioner
and respondents a specific 1/3 portion of the same.
Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a
determinate portion of the property owned in common. It
seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-owner,
vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific property and
giving each one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision
or interference from the other.
In other words, the purpose of partition is to put an end to coownership, an objective which negates petitioner's claims in
the present case.