Você está na página 1de 2

81. Manacling vs. Bun, G.R. No. 27876, April 22, 1992. Ruling: PAULINO M.

Ruling: PAULINO M. CASTRILLO and FELICISIMA CASTRILLO,

Facts: • Estoppel is unavailable as an argument against the vs.


administratrix of the estate and against the children.
On June 12, 1947, Margarita Suri Santos died intestate, leaving THE COURT OF APPEALS, DOROTEO DIMARANAN and
several parcels of land containing 7,401 square meters more or The court reiterated the ruling in Boñaga vs. Soler, "that a DOLORES MASIPAG DIMARANAN,
less. She was survived by her husband Severo Maneclang and 9 decedent's representative is not estopped to question the validity
children. On July 30, 1947, a petition for the settlement of her of his own void deed purporting to convey land; and if this be true This case is before us on appeal by certiorari from the decision of
estate was filed by Hector S. Maneclang, one of her legitimate of the administrator as to his own acts, a fortiori, his successor can the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Court of First Instance of
children, with the Court of First Instance at Dagupan City, not be estopped to question the acts of his predecessor are not Laguna in Civil Case No. B-29.
Pangasinan. At the time of the filing of the petition, 7 of her 9 conformable to law."
children were below the age of 18 but no guardian ad litem was The pertinent facts, as found by the appellate court, are as follows.
appointed by the court for the minor children. • The children who were already of legal age at the time
of sale were already barred by laches Lot No. 188 was acquired by Crispina Miranda. In 1924 she
On 2 September 1949, Pedro M. Feliciano, the administrator of executed an affidavit (Exh. A) affirming that the lot was not hers
the intestate estate filed a petition asking the court to give him the It took (12) years, 10 months and 24 days from the sale before an alone but belonged in common to her and her two sisters,
authority to dispose of so much of the estate that is necessary to action for annulment was filed. Four of the children were already Telesfora and Isabel Miranda.
meet the debts enumerated in the petition. While notice thereof of legal age when deed of sale was executed. Their inaction and
delay constituted laches. This conclusion will not apply to the Crispina sold a portion of the lotto the spouses Aquilino Almoro
was given to the surviving spouse, Severo Maneclang, through his
minor children at the time of the sale. Neither delay nor negligence and Marcela Alzona.
counsel, Atty. Teofilo Guadiz, no such notice was sent to the heirs
of Margarita. could be attributed to them as a basis for laches. Accordingly, the
Isabel sold her share to Doroteo Dimaranan, respondent.
estate is entitled to recover 5/9 of the questioned property.
On September 9, 1949, despite the absence of notice to the heirs,
Crispina executed a document stating that she was the owner of
the intestate court issued an Order granted Feliciano’s petition. • The City of Dagupan is a buyer in good faith.
lot No. 188 and selling two portions thereof: one, containing 252
While the order granting the motion for authority to sell was square meters, to Isabel Miranda and another to the spouses
Following the order Oscar Maneclang, the new administrator
actually issued on September 9, 1949, the same was secured Almoro and Alzona. According to the trial court, that document
executed a deed of sale in favor of the City of Dagupan,
during the incumbency of the then judicial administrator Pedro was evidently intended to ratify and confirm Isabel's rights and
represented by its mayor, a portion consisting of 4,415 square
Feliciano. Even if it is to be assumed that Mayor Fernandez and interest as well as the previous sale to the said spouses.
meters of the lot. This sale was approved by the intestate court on
15 March 1954. Councilor Guadiz induced Oscar Maneclang to sell the property,
The spouses sold the portion they had purchased from Crispina
the fact remains that there was already the order authorizing the
in 1929 to Jose V. Garcia.
The City of Dagupan immediately took possession of the land and sale. Having been issued by a Judge who was lawfully appointed
constructed thereon a public market It has been in continuous and to his position, he was disputably presumed to have acted in the
Crispina Miranda died but the lot continued to be registered in her
uninterrupted possession of the property since the construction of lawful exercise of jurisdiction and that his official duty was
name. On the strength of the conveyance by her to the spouses
the market. Some other parcels of land belonging to the intestate regularly performed.
Almoro and Alzona and of that by the latter to Jose V. Garcia, the
estate were sold by the administrator pursuant of the same
said certificate of title was cancelled and another one No. 20733
authority previously granted. We find no circumstance in this case to have alerted the vendee,
was issued. This was likewise immediately cancelled and
the City of Dagupan, to a possible flaw or defect in the authority of
replaced in the names of Crispina Miranda, as owner of 505
On 28 September 1965, the new judicial administratrix of the the judicial administrator to sell the property. Since good faith is
square meters, and of Jose V. Garcia, as owner of 85 square
intestate estate, Adelaida S. Maneclang, daughter of the late always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part
meters.
Margarita filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan an of the possessor rests the burden of proof, it was incumbent upon
action for the annulment of the sales made by the previous the administrator to established such proof, which We find to be
After the death of Jose V. Garcia, his widow and son, executed a
administrator pursuant to the order cancellation of titles, recovery wanting.
deed of partition, certificate of title No. 8418.
of possession and damages against the vendees Juan T. Baun
and Amparo Baun, etc and the City of Dagupan. However, Article 528 of the Civil Code provides that: "Possession
On April 26, 1955 Doroteo Dimaranan (vendee of Isabel Miranda)
acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the
filed a petition in the original registration record praying that Jose
case and from the moment facts exist which show that the
V. Garcia be cancelled and another one issued, containing the
possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly
names of the new owners (including petitioner with respect to the
Issue/s: or wrongfully." The filing of a case alleging bad faith on the part of
share acquired by him).
a vendee gives cause for cessation of good faith.
1. W/N the plaintiff is in estoppel in assailing the legality
The heirs of Crispina Miranda, Paulino and Felicisima Castrillo,
of the sale Upon the filing of the Answer, the City of Dagupan already
now petitioners, signed a deed of partition of that portion of lot still
became a possessor in bad faith.
2. W/N the defendant City of Dagupan is a purchaser in registered in the said decedent's name. As a result transfer
good faith and for value certificate of title No. 8418 was cancelled and in lieu thereof
certificate No. 9178 (Laguna) was issued, with the two petitioners
82. Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964. appearing as owners.

Republic of the Philippines On March 14, 1956 Doroteo Dimaranan and his wife commenced
the present action to have themselves declared as owners to
compel the defendants, the Castrillos and the Garcias, to execute of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others. Thus,
the corresponding deed of conveyance in their favor; to obtain the as a general rule, no one of them may acquire exclusive
cancellation of the existing certificate of title and the issuance of a ownership of the common property through prescription, for
new one with their names entered therein; and to recover possession by one trustee alone is not deemed adverse to
damages. the rest.

On the defenses raised by said defendants, and reiterated before Respondents' cause of action accrued only in 1955, when
us now as sole ground for review by petitioners Paulino and petitioners executed a deed of partition and on the strength
Felicisima Castrillo, is that the action was barred by the statute of thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in the name of
limitations. Crispina and the issuance of a new one wherein they appear as
the new owners of 252-1/2 square meters each, thereby in effect
The trial court, decided in favor of the plaintiffs therein on denying or repudiating the ownership of respondent Dimaranan
November 2, 1956. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of over his 1/3 share in the entire lot. It was only then that the statute
Appeals and is reproduced textually in its decision. of limitations started to run for purposes of the action instituted by
him and by his wife for a declaration of the existence of the co-
Petitioners contend that respondents' cause of action arose from ownership and of their rights thereunder.
the documents which were executed in 1924, 1932 and 1934,
respectively; and that the period during which the action could
have been filed was ten years thereafter, or until 1944 uner
section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), which was the
law on prescription in force prior to the effectivity of the new Civil
Code in 1950.

Whether or not the prescription barred the respondents’ cause of


action thus arising estoppel?

The Court of Appeals applied the principle of estoppel in this case,


specifically Article 1434 of the Civil Code which reads.

ART. 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells
and alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor
acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the
buyer or grantee.

In applying the foregoing provision the Court of Appeals


proceeded on the hypothetical assumption that when Isabel
Miranda sold her 1/3 share of lot No. 188 to Doroteo Dimaranan
in 1932 she was not yet the owner thereof and that she acquired
ownership only when her sister Crispina executed a formal deed
of sale in her favor 1934, covering an area of 252 square meters.

In the second place, if anybody at all may be heard to challenge


the application of the doctrine of estoppel in favor of respondents,
it is only the party against whom it may be invoked - in this case
the vendor, Isabel Miranda, from whom they acquired the disputed
property Crispina Miranda having conveyed the same to Isabel
neither she nor her successors may raise the point to the own
advantage. For them to do so would in effect be to deny the lights
of Isabel Miranda herself, acquired by virtue of two documents
executed by Crispina in her favor, one in 1929 (Exh. A) and the
other in 1934 (Exh. C). This, obviously, petitioners cannot be
permitted to do.

This case presents still another aspect. When Crispina Miranda


executed the affidavit marked Exhibit A in 1929, affirming the
fact that lot No. 188 was owned not only by her but also by
her two sisters, she recognized the existence of a co-
ownership between them. It did not matter that the certificate
of title was in Crispina's name alone. Co-ownership is a form