CASE DIGEST: Anzures v. Spouses Ventanilla

 

FORTUNATO ANZURES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ERLINDA VENTANILLA and ARTURO VENTANILLA, respondents

G.R. No. 222297          |          July 9, 2018

FACTS:

On Oct. 12, 2012, respondents filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Fortunato Anzures. In their complaint, respondents alleged, among others, that they were the owners of a residential house situated in Barangay Sta. Ines, Bulakan, Bulacan; that the house had been declared for taxation purposes in their names for the year 2012; that the property stands on a 289 square meters parcel of land under OCT No. 2011000008  registered in the names of petitioner and his wife Carolina Anzures (Carolina); that later, by virtue of a Deed of Donation, petitioner and his wife Carolina donated 144 square meters portion of the land in favor of respondents; that Erlinda Ventanilla “indicated to partition the said property,” but the house situated on said property constitutes a stumbling block on the partition of the said property; that being the owners of the property, respondents merely tolerated the occupation of the property by petitioner; that they demanded he vacate the house to give way to the subdivision and partition of the property but to no avail.

In his Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner averred that he and his late spouse Carolina were the owners of the residential house; that he was also the registered owner of the 289 square meters parcel of land, having bought the same from Erlinda Ventanilla for P150,000.00; that his possession and ownership of the land was evidenced by OCT No. 2011000008; that he was the rightful owner of the residential house as shown by the tax receipts confirming the religious payments he made from 1998 to 2011.

Petitioner also denied the genuineness and authenticity of the deed of donation because at that time, Carolina was mentally and physically incompetent to execute the same. He contended that he had no knowledge of the deed and he never affixed his signature thereon.

Evidence shows that the property was originally owned by one Vicenta Galvez, who died intestate on October 6, 1967. After her death, her sole heirs, executed a “Waiver of Rights over the Unregistered Parcel of Land” in favor of their nieces, Erlinda Rodriguez and Carolina Rodriguez on May 31, 2000.

To confirm and firm up the waiver and transfer, they also executed a “Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land” in favor of Erlinda and Carolina. In said document, the three sold, transferred and conveyed, absolutely and unconditionally, the subject “parcel of land with improvements” to the two, “their heirs or assigns, free from all liens and encumbrances.”

On October 31, 2008, Carolina and Erlinda executed a “Pagkakaloob ng Bahagi ng Lupa na may Kasunduan,” whereby the two gave 1/3 of the subject property to their brother, Emiliano; the three siblings agreed to place the property in the name of Carolina; and that they stated that although the property would be registered in her name, the three of them would still be the co-owners of the property. Emiliano later waived his right over the property in favor of Carolina and Erlinda, thus, cementing the co-ownership of the 2 sisters.

On September 23, 2010, the property was placed under the operation of the Torrens system of land registration. Pursuant to their agreement, it was registered in the name of “Carolina R. Anzures, Filipino, na may sapat na gulang, kasal kay Fortunato Anzures.”

On March 21, 2011, Carolina executed a deed of donation, which donated 144 square meters of the subject property to Erlinda as an acknowledgement of their co-ownership thereof. The donation does not appear to have been registered, but it is a recognition that they are both co -owners with equal shares.

On October 11, 2011, Filomena and Rosalina executed an “Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights,” whereby they waived their rights over the house in favor of Erlinda.

On the basis of this extrajudicial settlement of estate with waiver of rights, the respondents claim that they are the owners of the house; that the petitioner is occupying the house by virtue of their tolerance; that they have demanded that he vacate the same; and that despite demands, he refused to do so. As petitioner refuses to vacate the premises, respondents claim they were constrained to file an action for unlawful detainer.

ISSUE:

whether or not respondents have a cause of action to eject petitioner from the subject property

RULING:

From the documentary records, the property is co-owned by Carolina and Erlinda. Being co-owners of the property, they are also the co- owners of the improvement thereon, including the subject house. This is clear from the Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land dated August 2, 2000, executed in favor of Erlinda and Carolina, whereby the three heirs of Vicenta Galvez, namely, Filomena Rodriguez Rivera, Enriqueta Rodriguez and Rosalina Rodriguez sold, transferred and conveyed, absolutely and unconditionally, the subject “parcel of land, with improvements” to the “two,” “their heirs or assigns, free from all liens and encumbrances.”

Respondents cannot rely on the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights dated October 11, 2011, whereby Filomena and Rosalina waived their rights over the house in favor of Erlinda. On said date, Filomena and Rosalina no longer had the right to convey the house as they were no longer the owners thereof. As evidenced by the August 2, 2000 deed of sale of unregistered land, they already sold the property together with the improvements to the two sisters, Carolina and Erlinda. In fact, the title has been placed in Carolina’s name, pursuant to their agreement.

Being a co-owner of the property as heir of Carolina, petitioner cannot be ejected from the subject property. In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the whole property. Each co owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.

Ultimately, respondents do not have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on tolerance because the latter is also entitled to possess and enjoy the subject property. Corollarily, neither of the parties can assert exclusive ownership and possession of the same prior to any partition. If at all, the action for unlawful detainer only resulted in the recognition of co-ownership between the parties over the residential house.

The parties, being co-owners of both the land and the building, the remedy of the respondents is to file an action for partition. Article 494 of the New Civil Code reads:

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.