CORNELIO PAMPLONA alias GEMINIANO PAMPLONA and Pamplona, et al.

, Defendants-Appellants,” affirming the decision

APOLONIA ONTE, petitioners, vs. VIVENCIO MORETO, of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch I at Biñan.
VICTOR MORETO, ELIGIO MORETO, MARCELO MORETO, The facts, as stated in the decision appealed from, show that:
PAULINA MORETO, ROSARIO MORETO, MARTA MORETO, “Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and
SEVERINA MENDOZA, PABLO MENDOZA, LAZARO wife. During their marriage, they acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495,
MENDOZA, VICTORIA TUIZA, JOSEFINA MORETO, 4545, and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate, situated in
LEANDRO MORETO and LORENZO MENDOZA, respondents. Calamba, Laguna, containing 781-544 and 1,021 square meters
respectively, and covered by certificates of title
Property; Sale;  Equity; Laches; Estoppel; The petitioners are ________________
estopped from assailing the reality of the sale of conjugal estate made by
their widowed father where for years they and the vendees have been  Second Division: Perez, J., ponente; Reyes, J., concurring and Enriquez, J.,
1

neighbors each believing that the area occupied by the private concurring in the result.
respondents-vendees was the one so sold and petitioners had not
questioned the sale made by their father of the area in 778
________________
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
*
 FIRST DIVISION Pamplona vs. Moreto
776 issued in the name of “Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica
Maniega.”
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED“The spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega begot
during their marriage six (6) children, namely, Ursulo, Marta, La
Pamplona vs. Moreto Paz, Alipio, Pablo, and Leandro, all surnamed Moreto.
question.—Again, there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses “Ursulo Moreto died intestate on May 24, 1959 leaving as his
Cornelio Pamplona and Apolonia Ante as well as that of their son Rafael
heirs herein plaintiffs Vivencio, Marcelo, Rosario, Victor, Paulina,
Pamplona, including the concrete piggery coral adjacent thereto, stood on
the land from 1952 up to the filing of the complaint by the private Marta and Eligio, all surnamed Moreto.
respondents on July 25, 1961, or a period of over nine (9) years. And “Marta Moreto died also intestate on April 30, 1938 leaving as
during said period, the private respondents who are the heirs of Monica her heir plaintiff Victoria Tuiza.
Maniega as well as of Flaviano Moreto who also died intestate on August “La Paz Moreto died intestate on July 17, 1954 leaving the
12, 1956, lived as neighbors to the petitioners-vendees, yet lifted no finger following heirs, namely, herein plaintiffs Pablo, Severina, Lazaro,
to question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land and Lorenzo, all surnamed Mendoza.
purchased by the Pamplonas, so that We are persuaded and convinced to “Alipio Moreto died intestate on June 30, 1943 leaving as his
rule that private respondents are in estoppel by laches to claim half of the
heir herein plaintiff Josefina Moreto.
property in dispute as null and void. Estoppel by laches is a rule of equity
which bars a claimant from presenting his claim when, by reason of “Pablo Moreto died intestate on April 25, 1942 leaving no
abandonment and negligence, he allowed a long time to elapse without issue and as his heirs his brother plaintiff Leandro Moreto and the
presenting the same. (International Banking Corporation vs. Yared, 59 other plaintiffs herein.
Phil. 92). “On May 6, 1946, Monica Maniega died intestate in Calamba,
Same; Same; A co-owner has the right to sell his portion of the co- Laguna.
owned property. The sale of a particular lot thus co-owned by one co- “On July 30, 1952, or more than six (6) years after the death
owner where within his right pro-indiviso is valid in it’s en-tirety.—We of his wife Monica Maniega, Flaviano Moreto, without the
reject respondent Court’s ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and
consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife Monica, and before
invalid as to the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto,
the vendor, had the legal right to more than 781 sq. meters of the any liquidation of the conjugal partnership of Monica and
communal estate, a title which he could dispose, alienate in favor of the Flaviano could be effected, executed in favor of Geminiano
vendees-petitioners. The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the Pamplona, married to defendant Apolonia Onte, the deed of
moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated absolute sale (Exh. “1”) covering lot No. 1495 for P900.00. The
the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, deed of sale (Exh. “1”) contained a description of lot No. 1495 as
protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they having an area of 781 square meters and covered by transfer
acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation and possession, We certificate of title No. 14570 issued in the name of Flaviano
rule that a factual partition or termination of the co-ownership, although
Moreto, married to Monica Maniega, although the lot was
partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but
also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the acquired during their marriage. As a result of the sale, the said
vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale certificate of title was cancelled and a new transfer certificate of
executed by said vendor Flaviano Moreto. title No. T-5671 was issued in the name of Geminiano Pamplona
Same; Same; Succession;  Heirs are obliged to deliver land sold by married to Apolonia Onte (Exh. “A”).
their parents to the vendee thereof.—Under Article 776, New Civil Code, “After the execution of the above-mentioned deed of sale
the inheritance which private respondents received from their deceased (Exh. “1”), the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia
parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and 779
obligations which were not extinguished by their
777 VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980
Pamplona vs. Moreto
VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980 Onte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as
Pamplona vs. Moreto Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land
parents’ death. And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona. Shortly thereafter, Rafael
the contract of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect Pamplona, son of the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private Onte, also built his house within lot 1496 about one meter from its
respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted boundary with the adjoining lot. The vendor Flaviano Moreto and
the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters the vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all the time that the
to the petitioners (which was the original obligation of their predecessor
portion of 781 square meters which was the subject matter of their
Flaviano Moreto) and not only onehalf thereof. Private respondents must
comply with said obligation. The records reveal that the area of 781 sq. sale transaction was No. 1495 and so lot No. 1495 appears to be
meters sold to and occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as the subject matter in the deed of sale (Exh. “1”) although the fact
of the filing of the complaint in 1961 had been re-surveyed by private land is that the said portion sold thought of by the parties to be lot No.
surveyor Daniel Aranas. Petitioners are entitled to a segregation of the area 1495 is a part of lot No. 1496.
from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9843 covering Lot 1496 and they “From 1956 to 1960, the spouses Geminiano Pamplona and
are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in Apolonio Onte enlarged their house and they even constructed a
their name based on the relocation survey. piggery corral at the back of their said honse about one and one-
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeals. half meters from the eastern boundary of lot 1496.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. “On August 12, 1956, Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In
     E.P. Caguioa for petitioners. 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the
     Benjamin C. Yatco for respondents. premises where they had their house and piggery on the ground
that Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to
Geminiano Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal
GUERRERO, J.: partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife and the latter was
already dead when the sale was executed without the consent of
This is a petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the decision the plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica. The spouses Geminiano
of the Court of Appeals  in CA-G.R. No. 35962-R, entitled
1

Pamplona and Apolonia Onte refused to vacate the premises

“Vivencio Moreto, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees vs. Cornelio occupied by them and hence, this suit was instituted by the heirs of
Monica Maniega seeking for the declaration of the nullity of the and becomes the property of a community, by operation of law, between
deed of sale of July 30, 1952 above-mentioned as regards one-half the surviving spouse and the heirs of the
of the property subject matter of said deed; to declare the plaintiffs ________________
as the rightful owners of the other half of said lot; to allow the
plaintiffs to redeem the one-half portion thereof sold to the 2
 Records, pp. 12-17.
defendants ‘After payment of the other half of the purchase price’;
to order the defendants to vacate the portions occupied by them; to 782
order the defendants to pay actual and moral damages and 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs; to order the defendants to pay
plaintiffs P120.00 a year from August 1958 until they have Pamplona vs. Moreto
780 deceased spouse, or the exclusive property of the widower or the widow, if
he or she be the heir of the deceased spouse. Every co-owner shall have
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived therefrom,
Pamplona vs. Moreto and he therefore may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question.”
vacated the premises occupied by them for the use and occupancy (Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, 17 Phil. 107)
of the same.
“The defendants claim that the sale made by Flaviano Moreto In Borja vs. Addision, 44 Phil. 895, 906, the Supreme Court said
in their favor is valid as the lot sold is registered in the name of that “(t)here is no reason in law why the heirs of the deceased wife
Flaviano Moreto and they are purchasers believing in good faith may not form a partnership with the surviving husband for the
that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold. management and control of the community property of the
“After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and 4545 made by marriage and conceivably such a partnership, or rather community
agreement of the parties, it was found out that there was mutual of property, between the heirs and the surviving husband might be
error between Flaviano Moreto and the defendants in the formed without a written agree-ment.” In Prades vs. Tecson, 49
execution of the deed of sale because while the said deed recited Phil. 230, the Supreme Court held that “(a)lthough, when the wife
that the lot sold is lot No. 1495, the real intention of the parties is dies, the surviving husband, as administrator of the community
that it was a portion consisting of 781 square meters of lot No. property, has authority to sell the property without the concurrence
1496 which was the subject matter of their sale transaction. of the children of the marriage, nevertheless this power can be
“After trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive waived in favor of the children, with the result of bringing about a
part thereof being as follows: conventional ownership in common between the father and
‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs declaring children as to such property; and any one purchasing with
the deed of absolute sale dated July 30, 1952 pertaining to the eastern knowledge of the changed status of the property will acquire only
portion of Lot 1496 covering an area of 781 square meters null and void as
the undivided interest of those members of the family who join in
regards the 390.5 square meters of which plaintiffs are hereby declared the
rightful owners and entitled to its possession. the act of conveyance.”
The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern one-half (1/2) of It is also not disputed that immediately after the execution of
1781 square meters of Lot 1496 measuring 390.5 square meters of which the sale in 1952, the vendees constructed their house on the eastern
defendants are declared lawful owners and entitled to its possession. part of Lot 1496 which the vendor pointed out to them as the area
After proper survey segregating the eastern one-half portion with an sold, and two weeks thereafter, Rafael who is a son of the vendees,
area of 390.5 square meters of Lot 1496, the defendants shall be entitled to also built his house within Lot 1496. Subsequently, a cemented
a certificate of title covering said portion and Transfer Certificate of Title piggery coral was constructed by the vendees at the back of their
No. 9843 of the office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna shall be
house about one and one-half meters from the eastern boundary of
cancelled accordingly and new titles issued to the plaintiffs and to the
defendants covering their respective portions. Lot 1496. Both vendor and vendees believed all the time that the
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5671 of the office of the Register of area of 781 sq. meters subject of the sale was Lot No. 1495 which
Deeds of Laguna covering Lot No. 1495 and registered in the name of according to its title (T.C.T. No. 14570) contains an area of 781
Cornelio Pamplona, married to Apolonia Onte, is by virtue of this decision sq. meters so that the deed of sale between the parties identified
ordered cancelled. The defendants are ordered to surrender to the office of and described the land sold as Lot 1495. But actually, as verified
the Register of Deeds of Laguna the owner’s duplicate of Transfer later by a surveyor upon agreement of the parties during the
Certificate of Title No. 5671 within thirty (30) days after this decision shall 783
have become final for cancellation in accordance with this decision.
VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980
781
Pamplona vs. Moreto
VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980 proceedings of the case below, the area sold was within Lot 1496.
Pamplona vs. Moreto Again, there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses
‘Let copy of this decision be furnished the Register of Deeds for the Cornelio Pamplona and Apolonia Onte as well as that of their son
province of Laguna for his information and guidance. Rafael Pamplona, including the concrete piggery coral adjacent
‘With costs against the defendants.’ 2
thereto, stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing of the
complaint by the private respondents on July 25, 1961, or a period
The defendants-appellants, not being satisfied with said judgment, of over nine (9) years. And during said period, the private
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment, respondents who are the heirs of Monica Maniega as well as of
hence they now come to this Court. Flaviano Moreto who also died intestate on August 12, 1956, lived
The fundamental and crucial issue in the case at bar is whether as neighbors to the petitioners-vendees, yet lifted no finger to
under the facts and circumstances duly established by the question the occupation, possession and ownership of the land
evidence, petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the purchased by the Pamplonas, so that We are persuaded and
property in litigation, or only one-half of the same. convinced to rule that private respondents are in estoppel by laches
There is no question that when the petitioners purchased the to claim half of the property in dispute as null and void. Estoppel
property on July 30, 1952 from Flaviano Moreto for the price of by laches is a rule of equity which bars a claimant from presenting
P900.00, his wife Monica Maniega had already been dead six his claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he
years before, Monica having died on May 6, 1946. Hence, the allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same.
conjugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica (International Banking Corporation vs. Yared, 59 Phil. 92)
Maniega had already been dissolved. (Article 175, (1) New Civil We have ruled that at the time of the sale in 1952, the conjugal
Code; Article 1417, Old Civil Code). The records show that the partnership was already dissolved six years before and therefore,
conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and the estate became a co-ownership between Flaviano Moreto, the
divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The necessary surviving husband, and the heirs of his deceased wife, Monica
proceedings for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership were Maniega. Article 493 of the New Civil Code is applicable and it
not instituted by the heirs either in the testate or intestate provides as follows:
proceedings of the deceased spouse pursuant to Act 3176 “Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of
amending Section 685 of Act 190. Neither was there an extra- the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment,
deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for partition brought except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation
for the purpose. Accordingly, the estate became the property of a or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the
community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination
of the co-ownership.”
his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the concept of a
co-ownership. We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of
“The community property of the marriage, at the dissolution of this bond the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto
by the death of one of the spouses, ceases to belong to the legal partnership
pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by him
Pamplona vs. Moreto
to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built
784 filing of the complaint in 1961 had been re-surveyed by private
land surveyor Daniel Aranas. Petitioners are entitled to a
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
Pamplona vs. Moreto 9843 covering Lot 1496 and they are also entitled to the issuance
their house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name based on the
likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery. relocation survey.
Petitioners point to the fact that spouses Flaviano Moreto and WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
Monica Maniega owned three parcels of land denominated as Lot judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification
1495 having an area of 781 sq. meters, Lot 1496 with an area of in the sense that the sale made and executed by Flaviano Moreto in
1,021 sq. meters, and Lot 4545 with an area of 544 sq. meters. The favor of the petitioners-vendees is hereby declared legal and valid
three lots have a total area of 2,346 sq. meters. These three parcels in its entirely.
of lots are contiguous with one another as each is bounded on one Petitioners are hereby declared owners in full ownership of
side by the other, thus: Lot 4545 is bounded on the northeast by the 781 sq. meters at the eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied
Lot 1495 and on the southeast by Lot 1496. Lot 1495 is bounded by said petitioners and whereon their houses and piggery coral
on the west by Lot 4545. Lot 1496 is bounded on the west by Lot stand.
4545. It is therefore, clear that the three lots constitute one big The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby ordered to
land. They are not separate properties located in different places segregate the area of 781 sq. meters from Certificate of Title No.
but they abut each other. This is not disputed by private 9843 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the
respondents. Hence, at the time of the sale, the co-ownership petitioners covering the segregated area of 781 sq. meters.
constituted or covered these three lots adjacent to each other. And No costs.
since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half proindiviso of the SO ORDERED.
entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect      Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De
legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ. concur.
the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some
Decision affirmed with modification.
392 sq. meters belonging to him at the time of the sale.
Notes.—The passage of title by delivery may be made
We reject respondent Court’s ruling that the sale was valid as
although the price of the subject of the sale is not yet fully paid.
to one-half and invalid as to the other half for the very simple
(Philippine Suburden Development Corp. vs. Auditor General, 63
reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal right to
SCRA 397).
more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he
A sale of a parcel of land by the husband is deemed fraudulent
could dispose, alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners. The
if made about seven months after a judgment was rendered against
title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner
the vendor for support of his wife and the vendor has not paid any
as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the
part of the judgment. (Cabalan vs. Sadorra, 64 SCRA 310).
boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without
The sale of land acquired under a free patent is subject to
objection, protest or complaint by the other co-owners, on the
redemption within five years from the execution of the deed of
contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation
sale. (Uy Lee vs. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 196).
and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of 787
the co-ownership, although partial was created, and barred not
only the vendor, Flaviano Moreto, but also his heirs, the private
respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees-
VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980
petitioners any right or title in People vs. Pampaluna
785 Where the surviving spouse sold under a pacto de retro a conjugal
VOL. 96, MARCH 31, 1980 lot, what she validly disposed of under the said sale was only her
conjugal share in the lot plus her successional right as heir.
Pamplona vs. Moreto (Yturralde vs. Court of Appeals, 43 SCRA 313).
derogation of the deed oaf sale executed by said vendor Flaviano There is a presumption that property is conjugal if acquired
Moreto. during marriage. (Laluan vs. Malpaya, 65 SCRA 494).
Equity commands that the private respondents, the successors The decisive factor in the determination of whether a parcel of
of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and Monica land acquired by way of homestead is conjugal property of the
Maniega be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by Flaviano first or second marriage, is not necessarily the time of the issuance
Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of P900.00 of the homestead patent but the fulfillment of the requirements of
and which he, including his children, benefitted from the same. the Public Land Law for the acquisition of such right to the patent.
Moreover, as the heirs of both Monica Maniega and Flaviano (Vda. de Delizo vs. Delizo, 69 SCRA 216).
Moreto, private respondents are duty-bound to comply with the Where a parcel of Friar Land was acquired during coverture
provisions of Articles 1458 and 1495, Civil Code, which is the by installment payments were completed by husband after the
obligation of the vendor of the property of delivering and death of his wife, equitable and legal title being vested in the
transfering the ownership of the whole property sold, which is purchaser in the date of the purchase, such property is conjugal it
transmitted on his death to his heirs, the herein private having been acquired during coverture. (Balicudiong vs.
respondents. The articles cited provide, thus: Balicudiong, 39 SCRA 386).
“Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates
A friar land bought during marriage is conjugal property
himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and
the other party to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. although registered only in the name of the widow. (Pugeda vs.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.” Trias, 5 SCRA 617).
“Art. 1495. The vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and
deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale.” ——o0o——
Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private
respondents received from their deceased parents and/or
predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and
obligations which were not extinguished by their parents’ death.
And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract
of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private
respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is
transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole
area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original
obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-
half thereof. Private respondents must comply with said
obligation.
The records reveal that the area of 781 sq. meters sold to and
occupied by petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the
786
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED