LEONARDO ACABAL and RAMON NICOLAS, petitioners, vs.

VILLANER ACABAL, EDUARDO ACABAL, SOLOMON ACABAL, GRACE ACABAL, MELBA ACABAL, EVELYN ACABAL, ARMIN ACABAL, RAMIL ACABAL, and BYRON ACABAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 148376 - March 31, 2005 arpio-Mora!es, J.

FACTS: "#!e$andro #ca%a! and &e!icidad 'a!asa%as, o(ned a parce! o) !and sit*ated in 'arrio +an,!ad, Man$*-od, Ne,ros .rienta!, containin, an area o) 18.15 hectares /ore or !ess, descri%ed in +a0 1ec!aration No. 15856. '- a 1eed o) #%so!*te 2a!e dated 3*!- 6, 1471, his parents trans)erred )or 52,000.00 o(nership o) the said !and to 67i!!aner #ca%a!8, (ho (as then /arried to 3*stiniana 9ipa$an.: .n #pri! 14, 1440, 7i!!aner e0ec*ted the deed in ;*estion, %(hich the !ot (as trans)erred to his nephe( and ,odson 9eonardo #ca%a!, (ho !ater so!d it to Ra/on Nico!as. .n .cto%er 11, 1443 7i!!aner )i!ed a case )or ann*!/ent o) the sa!e to 9eonardo and to Nico!as. 7i!!aner c!ai/ed that he did not <no( the contents o) the deed he si,ned, (hich he c!ai/ed (as a 1eed o) 2a!e =ear!ier in the proceedin,s he said it (as a 9ease ontract>. +he R+ dis/issed the co/p!aint. 7i!!aner appea!ed to the #, (ho reversed the R+ and he!d that the deed in ;*estion (as si/*!ated and )ictitio*s. 9eonardo and Ra/on th*s appea!ed to the 2 on certiorari.

ISSUE: 1> ?@N the deed is va!id 2> ?@N the propert- in ;*estion is con$*,a! propert-

HELD/RATIO: 1> AB2. +he )ai!*re to den- the ,en*ineness and d*e e0ec*tion o) an actiona%!e doc*/ent does not prec!*de a part- )ro/ ar,*in, a,ainst it %- evidence o) )ra*d, /ista<e, co/pro/ise, pa-/ent, stat*te o) !i/itations, estoppe!, and (ant o) consideration. Ct is a %asic r*!e in evidence that the %*rden o) proo) !ies on the part- (ho /a<es the a!!e,ations. C) he c!ai/s a ri,ht ,ranted %- !a(, he /*st prove it %- co/petent evidence, re!-in, on the stren,th o) his o(n evidence and not *pon the (ea<ness o) that o) his opponent. 7i!!aner )ai!ed to prove his a!!e,ations )or he )ai!ed to add*ce evidence to s*pport his c!ai/s o) si/*!ation and !ac< o) <no(!ed,e as to the nat*re o) the deed. 9eonardoDs (itness =the dra)ter o) the act*a! deed> on the other hand (as a%!e to prove that the deed (as d*!- dra)ted, read and si,ned %- 7i!!aner.

"Even assuming that the disposition of the property by Villaner was contrary to law, he would still have no remedy under the law as he and Leonardo were in pari delicto, hence, he is not entitled to afirmative relief one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands !n pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis :

2> AB2. +he iss*e arose (hen 7i!!anerDs co-heirs denied the va!idit- o) the trans)er as to their shares %eca*se the- did not consent to s*ch trans)er. #rt. 160 o) the ivi! ode ,ives rise to a pres*/ption that properties ac;*ired d*rin, the /arria,e are con$*,a!. Cn this case it (as c!ear that 7i!!aner (as /arried (hen he ac;*ired the !and. # ta0 dec!aration or ""r#egistration of the properties in the name of the husband does not destroy the conjugal nature of the properties $hat is material is the time when the land was acquired by Villaner, and that was during the lawful e%istence of his marriage to Justiniana:. Epon his (i)eDs death, the con$*,a! partnership (as disso!ved and 7i!!aner %eca/e entit!ed to a F *ndivided share. +he other share accr*ed to 3*stinianaDs heirsG 7i!!aner and their 8 chi!dren. +he- are no( the co-o(ners o) the !ot in ;*estion. "$ith respect to Justiniana&s one'half share in the conjugal partnership which her heirs inherited, applying the provisions on the law of succession, her eight children and Villaner each receives one'ninth ()*+, thereof -aving inherited one'ninth ()*+, of his wife&s share in the conjugal partnership or one eighteenth ()*)., of the entire conjugal partnership and is himself already the owner of one half ()*/, or nine'eighteenths (+*).,, Villaner&s total interest amounts to ten'eighteenths ()0*)., or five'ninths (1*+, $hile Villaner owns five'ninths (1*+, of the disputed property, he could not claim title to any definite portion of the community property until its actual partition by agreement or judicial decree 2rior to partition, all that he has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the property Villaner, however, as a co'owner of the property has the right to sell his undivided share thereof:, %- virt*e o) N 443H %*t s*ch sa!e (i!! on!- %e va!id as to the portion pertainin, to 7i!!aner. In effect, the !"e# ec$%e& a c$' $(ne# $f the )#$)e#t". "The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale or the recovery of possession of the thing owned in common from the third person who substituted the co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares, but the DIVISIO of the common property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-owners who possessed and administered it : +he proper action is partition *nder R*!e 64. +he r*!e in 3ru4 v Leis, (hich he!d that ""w#here a parcel of land, forming part of the undistributed properties of the dissolved conjugal partnership of gains, is sold by a widow to a purchaser who merely relied on the face of the certificate of title thereto, issued solely in the name of the widow, the purchaser acquires a valid title to the land even as against the heirs of the deceased spouse : does not app!- %eca*se the !and s*%$ect o) that case (as *nre,istered. "5he issue of good faith or bad faith of a buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land but not where the property is an unregistered land :

DIS*OSITION ?IBRB&.RB, the petition is GR#N+B1. +he o*rt o) #ppea!s &e%r*ar- 15, 2001 1ecision in #-G.R. 7 No. 56148 is RB7BR2B1 and 2B+ #2C1B and another is rendered dec!arin, the sa!e in )avor o) petitioner 9eonardo #ca%a! and the s*%se;*ent sa!e in )avor o) petitioner Ra/on Nico!as va!id %*t on!- inso)ar as )ive-ninths =5@4> o) the s*%$ect propert- is concerned.

No prono*nce/ent as to costs.