Acabal v. Acabal 3.

Villaner executed the deed in question transferring the ownership of the lot to
GR No. 148376 | March 31, 2005 | Right Over Ideal Share| Carpio-Morales | Da Silva his nephew and godson Leonardo Acabal, who sold it later on to Ramon
Nicolas.
Petitioner: Leonardo Acabal and Ramon Nicolas
4. On October 11, 1993, Villaner filed a case for annulment of the sale to
Respondents: Villaner Acabal, Eduardo Acabal, Solomon Acabal, Grace Acabal,
Leonardo and to Nicolas.
Melba Acabal, Evelyn Acabal, Armin Acabal, Ramil Acabal and Byron Acabal
5. Villaner claimed that he did not know the contents of the deed he signed,
which he claimed was a deed of sale.
Recit-Ready: Villaner’s parents owned a peace of land in Negros Oriental. They sold
a. Earlier on, he said it was a lease contract.
the same to Villaner through a deed of sale. Villaner’s wife died. Soon after, Villaner
6. The RTC dismissed the complaint, so Villaner appealed to the CA, who
sold the entire portion of the land to his nephew Leonardo Acabal, who later sold the
reversed the RTC and held that the deed in question was simulated and
same to Ramon Nicolas. Now, Villaner assails the validity of the sale. He contended
fictitious.
that the sale was void since it was effected through fraudulent means. He claimed
7. Aggrieved, Leonardo and Ramon appealed the decision to the SC.
that he did not know the contents of the document he signed, the same document
turning out to be a deed of absolute sale. He claims however, that assuming
ISSUE/S:
arguendo that the sale was valid, the property was conjugal, and thus, because of the
termination of his marriage by Justiniana’s death, a co-ownership arose, and he
W/N The property in question is conjugal. Yes.
could not dispose of the land in its entirety. The issue in 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, Villaner and their 8 children,
arose. Villaner was entitled to a one half portion plus one ninth of the wife’s share in
RATIO:
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 Issue 1: The issue arose when Villaner’s co-heirs denied the validity of the transfer as
to any definite portion of the community property until its actual partition. All he to their shares. Article 160 of the Civil Code gives rise to a presumption that the
could validly claim title to, is his ideal or abstract quota, or proportionate share in the properties acquired during the marriage are conjugal. In this case, it was clear that
co-owned property. Thus, he has the right to sell his undivided share in the co- Villaner was married when he acquired the land. A tax declaration or “registration of
ownership by virtue of Article 493 of the New Civil Code. Thus, where a co-owner the properties in the name of the husband does not destroy the conjugal nature of the
purports to sell the entirety of a co-owned property, as is the case here, the sale properties. What is material is the time when the land was acquired by Villaner, and that
cannot be void, but will, instead, be upheld to the extent that it may be held valid. was during the lawful existence of his marriage to Justiniana.
Thus, in the case at bar, what Villaner sold is not the entire land, but merely his
undivided aliquot share in the co-owned land, or 5/9 of the same. Upon his wife’s death, the conjugal partnership was dissolved, and Villaner became
entitled to a one half undivided share. The other share accrued to Justiniana’s heirs:
Doctrine: Thus, where a co-owner purports to sell the entirety of a co-owned Villaner and their 8 children. They are now co-owners of the lot in question. They are
property, as is the case here, the sale cannot be void, but will, instead, be upheld to now the co-owners of the lot in question. “With respect to Justiniana’s one-half share
the extent that it may be held valid. 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 (1/9) thereof.
FACTS: Having inherited one-ninth (1/9) of his wife’s share in the conjugal partnership or one
eighteenth (1/18) of the entire conjugal partnership and is himself already the owner
1. Alejandro Acabal and Felicidad Balasbas owned a parcel of land in Barrio of one half (1/2) or nine-eighteenths (9/18), Villaner’s total interest amounts to ten-
Tanglad, Negros Oriental with an area of approximately 18.15 eighteenths (10/18) or five-ninths (5/9). While Villaner owns five-ninths (5/9) of the
2. Through a Deed of Absolute Sale, the ownership over the land was transferred disputed property, he could not claim title to any definite portion of the community
for P2,000 to Villaner Acabal, who was married to Justiniana at the time. 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: