Alejandrino vs CA

Facts
Jacina Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos ( Alejandrino Spouses) left their 6 named children
Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia, Laurencia and Abundio a 219 SM Lot identified as 2798
covered by TCT 19658

- Petitioner Mauricia( ne of the children) Allegedly purchased

o 12.17 SM of Gregorio
o 36.5 of Ciriaco’s share
o 12.17 SM of Abundios share

A total of 97.43 SM including her own share of 36.5 SM.

HOWEVER LICERIO NIQUE (respondent) also purchased portions of property to wit

- 36.5 SM from Laurencia

- 36.5 SM from Gregorio “ through Laurencia”
- 12.17 SM from Abundio also “ through Laurencia”
- 36.5 SM from Marcelino

A total of 121. 67 SM of Alejandrino property.

Laurencia ( seller of most of the 121.67 SM) questioned the sale in an action for quieting of title
and damages against respondent. CIVIL CASE NO CEB 7038 ( MO BALIK NI SA UBOS)

RTC- sided with respondent

Laurencia withdrew appeal to CA

SEPARATE CASE NI SIYAAA ANG CASE KARON KAY GIKAN NI MAURICIA

Mauricia filed a complaint for redemption and recovery of properties with damages against
private respondent Nique.

- Nique never notified Mauricia of the purchase of 121.67 SM of undivided lot

- Did not give petitioner Mauricia the preemptive right to buy the area as a co-owner
of the same lot.
- He is willing to deposit 29k (acquisition cost of the portion purchased by respondent
Nique)
 - Demanded from nique 24.34 SM of land that he claimed as his own but actually
belongs to her

CIVIL CASE CEB 7038( katong gi file ni laurencio sa babaw) Nique filed a motion for segregation
of the 146 SM portion of the property and declared by trial court as his own by virtue of the
purchase) ( remember nga daog siya ani nga case)

Petitioner Mauricia Questioned this order( stated above) of the lower court in a petitioner for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction

CA dismissed

KARON MAO NANI ANG CASE SA SC

Mauricia contends that

- lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the segregation of the property
since the same was not decreed in its judgement which had long become final and
executory ( since katong pag quiet title nga gi file ni laurencio nga pilde sila wala man
didto ang judgement nga pag segregate sa land)
- Partiioner of the property cannot be effected because nique is also defendant in CEb
11673 ( karon na case)

ISSUE
WON the heir of the Alejandrino property, Laurencia may validly sell specific portions
thereof to a third party

Art 1078 provides that where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the
decedent is BEFORE PARTITION owned in common by such heirs subject to the payment of the
debts. Kato na dayon discussion na atong nahibawan sa co-ownership sa property na maka
exercise sila sa pro indiviso share as long as not injure interest blab la bla

1088 provides that should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger BEFORE
the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of ONE MONTH
from the time there were notified in WRITING of the sale by the vendor

In the instant case, Laurencia was within her hereditary rights in selling her pro indiviso
share in Lot no 2798 However, because the property had not yet been partitioned , no
particular portion of the property could be identified as yet.
Since a co- owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property without
consent of the other co-owners is VOID. However ONLY THE RIGHTS OF THE CO-OWNER-
SELLER are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.

The legality of the Laurencia’s alienation was decided in CEB 7038. The decision had become final.
When private respondent filed a motion for segregation of the portions of the property, he was
in effect calling for the PARTITION of the property. However, under the law, partition of the
property may only be effected by

1. The heirs themselves extrajudicially

2. The court in an ordinary action for partition or in admin proceedings
3. Testator himself
4. Person designated by testator

The trial court MAY NOT therefore order partition of an estate in an action for quieting of title.
As there are no pending admin proceedings, the property of the Alejandrino spouses can only
be partitioned by the heirs themselves in an extrajudicial settlement of estate. However,
evidence on the extrajudicial settlement of estate was offered before the trial court and it
became the basis for the order for segregation of the property sold to private respondent.
Petitioner Mauricia does not deny the fact of the execution of the deed of extrajudicial
settlement of the estate. She only questions its validity on account of the absence of
notarization of the document.

Nag hisgot na ug ROC nga ang notarization sa deed of extrajudicial kay ma himo siyang
public document pero substantive provision on the civil code mo prevail in essence kani na
provision kay when a co-owner sells his inchoate right he expresses his intention to put an end
to indivision among co heirs.

In effect laurencia expressed her intention to terminate the co-ownership by selling her
share to private respondent
No need na notarized, both of them acquired share of their brothers, only two of them
needed to settle the estate

The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by Mauricia and Laurencia evidence their
intention to partition the property.

The court found that Laurencia transmitted her rights over the portion she acquired
form her brothers to Nique. The sale was made AFTER the execution of the deed of extrajudicial
settlement. The extrajudicial settlement of estate having constitute a partition of the property.
Laurencia VALIDLY TRANSFERRED ownership over the 146 SM
 LIU VS LOY
FACTS

Teodoro Vano, atty in fact of Jose Vaño sold 7 lots of Banilad estate to Benito Liu and Cirilo
Pangalo

Sold to benito Liu Lot no 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 12 for P 4,900 paid DP of 1k
Sold to Cirilo Pangalo Lot no 14 and 15 of Block 11 for P1,967.50 paid 400 for DP

Jose Vaño passed away

Benito Liu paid installment totaling 2,900 leaving a balance of 1000, stopped payment because
Teodoro admitted his inability to transfer the lot titles. Teodoro informed frank , brother of
Benito, that SC declared valid the will of his father Jose Vano. Teodoro could transfer the title to
the buyer’s name upon payment of the balance of the purchase price.

Frank failed to reply, sent another letter reminding him of the balance. After 9 years frank
respondent through a letter that he was ready to pay the balance of the price.

Requested the execution of a dead of sale in his name and delivery of titles.

Benito Liu sold to Frank Liu Lots no 5 6 13 14 and 15 of block 12 ( so kato tanan iya gi palit)
Frank assumed balance of 1k.

Cirilo Pangalo likewise sold to Frank the two lots No 14 and 15 ( kato sad gi palit sauna)

Frank reiterated in a letter his request for the execution of the dead of sale covering the 7 lots.
Also requested construction of subdivision road. Allegedly Send another letter which enclosed a
check for P. 1417 which is the total balance sa kato kang Benito ug Cirilo

Frank did not offer in evidence the letter or the check. Wa jud tagda si frank.

On August 19, 1968 , Teodoro Sold to Teresita Loy LOT NO 6 for 3930 entered in the Rod Sales
book on Feb 24, 1969

December 1968 Frank Liu filed a complaint against Teodoro for specific performance civil case no
6300

December 1968 Filed with RoD a notice of lis pendens due to the pendency of civil case no 6300.
RoD denied the registration of lis pendens on the ground that the property is under
administration and said claim must be filed in court

On December 1969 Teodoro sold Alfredo Loy LOT NO 5 for P 3910 Rod entered this sale in
daybook on January 16, 1970.
Na dismiss toh ang case na gi file ni Frank case No 6300 on the ground that it should have been
filed with the probate court. So mao toh ni file na sad siyag lain case sa probate court na

Teodoro Vano died. Widow Milagros Vano succeeded as admin of the estate of Jose Vano

The probate court approved the claim of Frank Liu. Milagros executed a deed of conveyance in
favor of Frank liu in compliance with the probate courts order. The deed of conveyance included
lots sold to Alfredo and Teresita Loy

The probate court upon an ex parte motion filed by Teresita Loy issued an order approving the
sale hasta kang Alfredo na approve sad WTF

Rod of Cebu cancelled the TCT in name of Estate of Jose Vano covering Lot 5 and lot 6 and issued
new title to Teresita and Alfredo.

Milagros Vano filed a motion for recon sa katong mga orders sa probate court nga I approve ang
sale ana siya nga ni comply naman sya atong ihatag kang frank liu. She also stated that no one
notified her of the motion of the Loys and if she was notified she would have objected to the sale
of the same lots.

Frank Liu filed a complaint for reconveyance or annulment of title (katong lot sa mga Loys) Civil
case 15342

Probate court denied MR of Milagros on the ground na naka file na ug conflicting claim si Frank
Liu.

RTC dismissed complaint ni Frank Liu.

CA affirmed RTC

5 issues

Whether there was a valid cancellation of the contract to sell

There was no valid cancellation of the contract to sell because there was no written notice of the
cancellation to Benito Liu or Frank Liu. There was no implied cancellation of the contract to sell.

The only action that Teodoro wold take if Frank did not reply was that Teodoro would directly
write to Benito Liu and Cirilo Pangalo. The letter does not mention anything about rescinding or
cancelling the contract to sell.

Although the law allows the extra judicial cancellation of a contract to sell upon failure of one
party to comply with his obligation NOTICE OF SUCH CANCELLATION MUS STILL BE GIVEN TO THE
PARTY WO IS AT FAULT. The fact that Teodoro advised frank to file his claim with private court
not conduct of one who supposedly unilaterally rescinded the contract with frank Liu
Nevertheless, the subsequent approval by the probate court of the sale of Lot no 5 and 6 to Frank
rendered moot any question on the continuing validity of the contract to sell

Whether the lis pendens in the davao case served as notice to the loys

It did not. The Rod of Cebu denied registration of lis pendens, and frank Liu did not appeal to the
LRC to keep alive the Lis pendens. Frank Lius Failure to appeal and denial of the registration
rendered the lis pendens ineffective. The court in davao eventually dismissed Frank Liu complaint
on Oct 3, 1970

Whether the registration by the Loys of their contract of sale made them first registrants in good
faith to defeat prior buyers.

The registration did not defeat the right of prior buyers because the person who signed the Loys’
contract was not the registered owner. The registered owner of the lot was the “ estate of Jose
Vaño” Teodoro Vano was the seller in the contract of sale with the Loys. The rule is well settled
that ONE WHO BUYS FROM A PERSON IS NOT THE REGISTERED OWNER IS NOT A PURCHASER IN
GOOD FAITH.

The loys were under notice to inquire why the land was not registered in the name of the person
who executed the contracts of sale. The contract of the Loys did not convey ownership of the
lots to them since they would only be binding upon approval of the sale by probate court.

Whether the probate court ex parte approval of the contract of the Loys was valid?

ROC states that court can authorize conveyance of realty if notice of the application for that
purpose has been given personally or by mail to all persons interested and such further notice
has been given by, publication or otherwise

In this case, the Loys did not notify the administratrix of the motion and hearing to approve
the sale of the lots to them. The administratrix who already signed the deed of sale to frank
as directed by the same court. Objected to the sale of the same lots. The failure to notify
administratrix and other interested persons rendered the sale to loys VOID.

The wife of the deceased Teodoro, was not notified of the motion and hearing to approve the
sale of the lots to the Loys. Frank Liu did not also receive any notice, although he obviously was
an interested party. The issuance of new titles to the Loys by the Rod DID NOT VEST TITLE to
the Loys because the conveyance was VOID. Since no notice was given to the administratrix
and interested parties
Necessity of court approval of sales

An heir can sell his interest in the estate of decedent, however for such disposition to take effect
against third parties, the court must approve such disposition to protect the rights of the
creditors of the estate. What he can transfer is only the NET estate meaning minus na liabilities
sa estate

Cited case Opulencia VS CA- states that the contract to sell is binding between the parties, but
subject to the outcome of the testate proceedings.

In Alfredo Loy’s case, his seller executed the contract of sale after the death of the registered
owner Jose Vano. The seller was Teodoro who sold the lot in his capacity as sole heir, applying
the case of Opulencia the contract of sale was binding between Teodoro and Alfredo BUT
SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS.

In Frank Liu’s case as successor in interest of Benito, his seller was Jose Vano who during his
lifetime executed the contract to sell.

Frank Liu applied to the probate court for the grant of authority to the administratrix to convey
the lots in accordance with the contract made by the decdent( jose Vano) during his lifetime.
The probate court approved the application. ( naay gi cite na ROC nga dapat mo apply sila sa
probate court para ma approved)

In Teresita Loys case, her seller was the estate of Jose vano. Teodoro Vano executed the
contract of sale in his CAPACITY AS ADMIN OF ESTATE OF JOSE VANO( lahi ni sa kang alfredo
nga as heir na iyang capacity take note) the court held that an administrator without court
authority is void and does not confer on the purchaser a title that is already against a
succeeding administrator. MAO JUD NI SIYA ANG UNDER SA SYLLABUS I THINK KAY SALE OF
ESTATE BY AN ADMINISTRATOR MAN

Discussed Manotok Realty Inc case- which emphasized the need for court approval in the sale by
an administrator of estate property.
“ although the ROC do not specifically state the sale of an immovable property belonging
to an estate of a decedent, in a special proceeding, should be made with the approval of the
court, this authority is necessarily included in its capacity as a probate court. An administrator
cannot enjoy the blanker of authority to dispose of real estate as he pleases , especially where
he ignores specific directives to execute proper documents and get court approval for the sales
validity”

Sec 91 of Act 496 requires court approval for sale of registered land by an executor or
administrator. Also Sec 88 of PD 1529 states that “provided the executor or any interest therein,
upon approval of the court obtained as provided by the ROC”
Clearly both law and jurisprudence expressly require court approval before any sale of estate
property by an executor or administrator can take effect.

Moreover, when the loys filed in March 1976 their ex parte motions there was already a prior
order of the probate court dated February approving the sale to Frank. When probate court
approved the Loy contract it has already lost jurisdiction because the lot is no longer part of
the estate of Jose Vano ( kay na transfer naman ni frank pag approve sa iyahang sale

Whether the loys were in good faith

The loys were not in good faith because they knew that they bought from someone who was not
the registered owner. The TCT was “ estate of Jose Vano” clearly indicating the sale required
probate court approval. Teodoro did not show any court approval to the Loys when they
purchased because there was none. Anyone who buys from a person who is not the registered
owner is not a purchaser in good faith

Contract to sell versus contract of sale

It is immaterial if the prior contract is a mere contract to sell and does not immediately convey
ownership. If it is valid , then it binds the estate to convey the property in upon full payment

In this case, Frank contract to sell became valid and effective upon its execution. The seller Jose
vano was then alive and no need for court approval for the immediate effectivity of the contract
to sell. Compared with the contract of sale to the loys which took place after the death of the
registered owner of the lands. Which requires court approval for the effectivity of the contract
against third parties which the probate court did not GIVE since it failed to notify all interested
parties besides it already lost Its jurisdiction when it approved the sale to frank liu

Ang resolution kay gi reiterate sa court ilang gi pang ingon diri so na denied gihapon silang Loys
Murag mao rani bgo or wa lang ko kita ani sauna