Acabal v. Acabal 2.

Through a Deed of Absolute Sale, the ownership over the land was
GR No. 148376 | March 31, 2005 | Right Over Ideal Share| Carpio-Morales | Da Silva transferred for P2,000 to Villaner Acabal, who was married to Justiniana at
the time.
Petitioner: Leonardo Acabal and Ramon Nicolas
3. Villaner executed the deed in question transferring the ownership of the lot
Respondents: Villaner Acabal, Eduardo Acabal, Solomon Acabal, Grace Acabal,
to his nephew and godson Leonardo Acabal, who sold it later on to Ramon
Melba Acabal, Evelyn Acabal, Armin Acabal, Ramil Acabal and Byron Acabal
Nicolas.
4. On October 11, 1993, Villaner filed a case for annulment of the sale to
Recit-Ready: Villaner’s parents owned a peace of land in Negros Oriental. They
Leonardo and to Nicolas.
sold the same to Villaner through a deed of sale. Villaner’s wife died. Soon after,
5. Villaner claimed that he did not know the contents of the deed he signed,
Villaner sold the entire portion of the land to his nephew Leonardo Acabal, who
which he claimed was a deed of sale.
later sold the same to Ramon Nicolas. Now, Villaner assails the validity of the sale.
a. Earlier on, he said it was a lease contract.
He contended that the sale was void since it was effected through fraudulent
6. The RTC dismissed the complaint, so Villaner appealed to the CA, who
means. He claimed that he did not know the contents of the document he signed,
reversed the RTC and held that the deed in question was simulated and
the same document turning out to be a deed of absolute sale. He claims however,
fictitious.
that assuming arguendo that the sale was valid, the property was conjugal, and
7. Aggrieved, Leonardo and Ramon appealed the decision to the SC.
thus, because of the termination of his marriage by Justiniana’s death, a co-
ownership arose, and he could not dispose of the land in its entirety. The issue in
ISSUE/S:
this case is whether or not the property is conjugal. The Court said yes, the
property is conjugal. Thus when Justiniana died, a co-ownership between her heirs, W/N The property in question is conjugal. Yes.
Villaner and their 8 children, arose. Villaner was entitled to a one half portion plus
one ninth of the wife’s share in the conjugal partnership, while his children were
entitled to one half respectively. Thus, while he owned 5/9 of the co-owned
property, he could not validly claim title to any definite portion of the community RATIO:
property until its actual partition. All he could validly claim title to, is his ideal or
abstract quota, or proportionate share in the co-owned property. Thus, he has the Issue 1: The issue arose when Villaner’s co-heirs denied the validity of the transfer as
right to sell his undivided share in the co-ownership by virtue of Article 493 of the to their shares. Article 160 of the Civil Code gives rise to a presumption that the
New Civil Code. Thus, where a co-owner purports to sell the entirety of a co-owned properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal. In this case, it was clear that
property, as is the case here, the sale cannot be void, but will, instead, be upheld to Villaner was married when he acquired the land. A tax declaration or “registration of
the extent that it may be held valid. Thus, in the case at bar, what Villaner sold is the properties in the name of the husband does not destroy the conjugal nature of the
not the entire land, but merely his undivided aliquot share in the co-owned land, or properties. What is material is the time when the land was acquired by Villaner, and
5/9 of the same. that was during the lawful existence of his marriage to Justiniana.

Doctrine: Thus, where a co-owner purports to sell the entirety of a co-owned Upon his wife’s death, the conjugal partnership was dissolved, and Villaner became
property, as is the case here, the sale cannot be void, but will, instead, be upheld to entitled to a one half undivided share. The other share accrued to Justiniana’s heirs:
the extent that it may be held valid. Villaner and their 8 children. They are now co-owners of the lot in question. They are
now the co-owners of the lot in question. “With respect to Justiniana’s one-half share
in the conjugal partnership which her heirs inherited, applying the provisions on the
FACTS:
law of succession, her eight children and Villaner each receives one-ninth (1/9)
1. Alejandro Acabal and Felicidad Balasbas owned a parcel of land in Barrio thereof. Having inherited one-ninth (1/9) of his wife’s share in the conjugal
Tanglad, Negros Oriental with an area of approximately 18.15 partnership or one eighteenth (1/18) of the entire conjugal partnership and is himself
already the owner of one half (1/2) or nine-eighteenths (9/18), Villaner’s total interest
amounts to ten-eighteenths (10/18) or five-ninths (5/9). While Villaner owns five-
ninths (5/9) 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.

Prior 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”, by virtue of NCC 493; but such sale will only be valid as to
the portion pertaining to Villaner. In effect, the buyer becomes a co-owner of the
property. “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 DIVISION
of the common property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-
owners who possessed and administered it.” The proper action is partition under Rule
69. The rule in Cruz v. Leis, which held 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 apply because the land
subject of that case was unregistered. “The 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.”

Issue 2: