Gacos v. Court of Appeals August 3, 1992 Medialdea, J. Facts: =
lease = sold Petrona Gacos Marcial Olaybal "i#encia Prieto
osario
Gacos
Arnul!o
$ucia Gacos %on be&al! o! Petrona' (eodol!o Mendones
Prieto
Gabitos
s)ouses
*ladio Gacos o+ned unregistered unregistered land easuring -,/0 2. &en &e +as ill during 193 or 193-, &e #erbally adudicated to &is t&ree daug&ters %Petrona, %Petrona, Fortunata, $ucia' t&eir res)ecti#e res)ecti#e in&eritance s&ares by di#iding t&e )ro)erty lines !ro !ro east to +est and assigned t&e nort&ernost nort&ernost to Fortunata, t&e iddle to $ucia, and t&e sout&ernost to Petrona. Petrona. Petrona iediately too )ossession and occu)ied &er s&are +&ile &er sisters only did so a!ter t&eir !at&er died in 1934. 5n 19/0, Petrona Gacos o6ered to sell to Marcial Olaybal %&er ne)&e+7 in7la+, Fortunata8s son7in7la+' )art o! &er s&are. (&e transaction +as consuated in a docuent *scritura "enta "enta Absoluta describing t&erein t&erein t&e 2 land in&erited by Petrona Petrona Gacos as containing an area o! 2,42 . Marcial Olaybal iediately too )ossession o! t&e land and declared it in &is nae under (a ;eclaration onstantino, and ?enain, all surnaed ?riones. ?e!ore &er deat&, Petrona Gacos instructed &er sister $ucia, +&o adinistered &er reaining reaining )ro)erty, to sell t&e sall area on t&e east !or !uneral e)enses and no#ena. $ucia sold a!oreentioned a!oreentioned area %0/ 2' to (eodol!o Mendones, +&o too )ossession o! t&e land and declared t&e sae in &is nae. 5n May 19, $ucia Gacos on &er o+n be&al! and in re)resentation re)resentation o! Petrona Petrona Gacos, and Jose >abal, in be&al! o! &is dead ot&er, Fortunata Gacos, eecuted an Agreeent o! Partition o! eal Pro)erty, !orally con@ring con@ring +&at +as a))ortioned to t&e by t&eir !at&er as t&eir res)ecti#e res)ecti#e s&ares in t&e -,0/ 2 land.
On or about ;eceber 19, Marcial Olaybal o6ered to sell to *ncarnacion Gacos t&e )arcel o! land &e boug&t !ro Petrona Gacos. &en t&e sale +as consuated, t&e nae osario Gacos %*ncarnacion8s sister' a))eared as t&e #endee. (&e )ro)erty sold +as described as containing an area o! 2,2 2. osario Gacos too )ossession o! t&e land and registered t&e deed o! absolute sale and declared t&e sae in &er nae. 5n 19-4, osario Gacos eecuted a docuent ca)tioned ati@cation o! O+ners&i) o! ealtyB consolidating into one )arcel o! land !or taation )ur)oses t&e !our sall adoining )arcels o! land. 5n 1943, osario Gacos sold t&e contiguous land to &er ne)&e+, Arnul!o Prieto %son o! *ncarnacion'. Arnul!o Prieto too )ossession o! t&e land and declared t&e sae in &is nae. 5n Marc& 194, Arnul!o Prieto entered into a lease contract +it& &is sister "i#encia Prieto, allo+ing &er to use t&e land !or &er o+n )ur)oses. "i#encia Prieto t&en constructed a rice ill. 5n August 194, t&e c&ildren o! Petrona Gacos %$eonora, oloon, >onstantino, ?enain' eecuted a ;eed o! *tra7Judicial ettleent adudicating onto t&esel#es t&e 1C3 undi#ided )ortion o! t&e 2,2/2 2 o! t&eir ot&er8s s&are o! in&eritance a!ter $eonora +as in!ored in 1942 by $ucia Gacos t&at a )ortion o! t&e land &ad been sold to *ncarnacion Gacos e#en t&oug& osario Gacos a))eared in t&e deed o! sale as t&e #endee, and t&at a rice ill &ad been constructed. Civil Case No. 1008
(&e c&ildren o! Petrona Gacos %all surnaed ?riones' @led a co)laint in t&e >F5 o! orsogon seeing to reco#er t&e 1,32 2 land !ro de!endants osario Gacos and Arnul!o Prieto, alleged to be t&e renant o! t&e 2,2/2 2 land Petrona Gacos in&erited !ro &er !at&er a!ter s&e sold a )ortion to Marcial Olaybal. (&ey allege t&at osario Gacos &ad no la+!ul aut&ority to sell t&e land to Arnul!o Prieto, +&o des)ite deands ade, re!used to return t&e sae to t&e ?rioneses. ;e!endants allege t&at +&at Petrona sold to Marcial Olaybal +asn8t a )ortion o! &er land, but t&e entire t&ing. (&us, t&ere is no renant. (&ey also contend t&at since )lainti6s are no longer o+ners o! t&e land in dis)ute since 19/0, t&ey &a#e no legal rig&t to inter#ene in t&e eecution o! t&e said ati@cation o! O+ners&i) by osario GacosD t&at because o! t&e continued )ossession !or 24 years o! t&e land by Arnul!o Prieto and t&at o! &is )redecessor7in7interest osario Gacos, +&ate#er rig&ts )lainti6s &ad &a#e already been barred by acEuisiti#e )rescri)tion.
Civil Case No. 1049
)ouses Arnul!o Prieto and enita >&ua Prieto @led a co)laint +it& t&e >F5 o! orsogon seeing to reco#er !ro (eodol!o Mendones and "isitaction ?orrega and s)ouses Jesus and Merced Gabitos t&e 0/ 2 )ortion o! t&e &ereditary s&are o! Petrona Gacos +&ic&, according to )lainti6s, suc& &ereditary )ortion +as entirely sold to Marcial Olaybal. (&ey claied t&at t&e eastern )ortion +as !raudulently and +it&out aut&ority sold by $ucia Gacos to (eodol!o Mendones +&o sold it to s)ouses Gabitos +&o t&en constructed a residential &ouse t&at bloced !ro )ublic #ie+ t&e Prieto ice Mill and daaged t&eir business. ;e!endants counter t&at Marcial Olaybal couldn8t &a#e sold t&e entirety o! t&e &ereditary estate because +&at +as sold +as 0-- 2 o! t&e total area o! 2,2/2 2D t&at t&e Mendoneses acEuired t&at 0/ 2 )ortion in good !ait& and !or #alueD t&at t&e Mendoneses &a#e t&e rig&t to legally sell t&e sae to t&e GabitosD t&at t&e Gabitos &a#e t&e rig&t to t&e eercise o! t&eir rig&t o! doinion o#er t&e lot by building a &ouse t&ereon. >F5 o! orsogon rendered t&e decision in >i#il >ase i#il >ase ourt o! A))eals, +&ic& ared t&e >F58s decision. (&e otion !or reconsideration +as denied, &ence t&e instant )etition. 5ssueCs: 7
&et&er or not Petrona Gacos sold &er entire )ro)erty to Marcial Olaybal. %
ulingCatio: 5n dis)uting t&e @ndings o! t&e >ourt o! A))eals, )etitioners argued t&at t&e *scritura "enta Absoluta bet+een Petrona Gacos and Marcial Olaybal clearly indicate t&at t&e )ro)erty con#eyed is t&e entire lot. They contend that in delineating the boundaries of the property sold, the boundaries indicated in the deed of sale as enclosing the land and indicating its limits put its identication beyond doubt and not the area mentioned in its description. (&e arguent +ould &a#e merit if the boundaries of the land claimed by petitioners to have been sold to them in its entirety were
certain and denite. This is not true in the instant case t&e boundaries gi#en don8t coincide +it& t&e boundaries described in t&e ;eed o! Absolute ale bet+een Marcial Olaybal and osario Gacos. (&ey don8t e#en coincide +it& t&e boundaries o! Petrona Gacos8 &ereditary s&are. (&e boundaries described in t&e *scritura "enta Absoluta are #ague. (&e #ariance in t&e boundaries and t&e stateent o! t&e area %a di6erence o! 1,19 2' )ut to doubt t&e identity o! t&e land sold by Petrona Gacos to Marcial Olaybal. (&e rule t&us enunciated in t&e cases cited by )etitioners doesn8t a))ly.
Recourse by the trial court therefore to other proofs was warranted under the rules on interpretation of written agreements under Rule 1!, "ection #, paragraph $a% in relation to Article 1# of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals correctly relied on Ta& 'eclaration (o. )*+# +&ic& Marcial Olaybal &isel! eecuted +&ere &e declared t&at t&e land in dis)ute &ad an area o! 0-- 2 as well as the s-etch plan and the eld sheet s)eci!ying t&e area o! 0-- 2 in bot& docuents, subitted by Marcial Olaybal. (&e >ourt o! A))eals also relied on /arcial 0laybals testimony during the trial t&at &e boug&t only 0-- 2 !ro Petrona Gacos %admission of a party to a relevant fact under Rule 1!, "ection 22 of the Rules of Court'. (&e boundaries stated in the 'eed of Absolute "ale between /arcial 0laybal and Rosario Gacos indicates t&at to t&e +est o! t&e area +ere t&e &eirs o! Petrona Gacos, +&ic& clearly indicates t&at Petrona Gacos didn8t sell &er entire s&are to Marcial Olaybal, neit&er did &e sell t&e entire )ro)erty to osario Gacos !or &e can8t sell +&at &e doesn8t o+n.
3etitioners also claimed that the sale of the disputed land is a sale for lump sum, not at t&e rate )er unit under Article 1/2 o! t&e >i#il >ode +&ere the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it e&ceeds the area or number specied in the contract. The "upreme Court nds Articles 1#2 and 1#+ of the (ew Civil Code more applicable.
Art. 1342. Ho+e#er general t&e ters o! a contract ay be, t&ey s&all not be understood to co)re&end t&ings t&at are distinct and cases t&at are di6erent !ro t&ose u)on +&ic& t&e )arties intended to agree. %1203' Art. 1340. &en it is absolutely i)ossible to settle doubts by t&e rules establis&ed in t&e )receding articles, and t&e doubts re!er to incidental circustances o! a gratuitous contract, t&e least transission o! rig&ts and interests s&all )re#ail. 5! t&e contract is onerous, t&e doubt s&all be settled in !a#or o! t&e greatest reci)rocity o! interests. 5! t&e doubts are cast u)on t&e )rinci)al obect o! t&e contract in suc& a +ay t&at it cannot be no+n +&at ay &a#e been t&e intention or +ill o! t&e )arties, t&e contract s&all be null and #oid. %1209'
The 4scritura 5enta Absoluta was consummated in favor of a close relative. Thus, in accordance with Article 1#+, said contract should be interpreted as to e6ect the least possible transmission of rights or interests. Petrona couldn8t &a#e sold &er entire )ro)erty since s&e and &er c&ildren +ere staying on it +it& &er sister $ucia. Petitioners argue t&at t&eir continual )ossession in good !ait& and in t&e conce)t o! an o+ner +it& a ust title !or 24 years ri)ened into o+ners&i) by acEuisiti#e )rescri)tion. 3ossession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right must be possession under claim of title or it must be adverse. Acts o! )ossessory c&aracter )er!ored by one +&o &olds by ere tolerance o! t&e o+ner are clearly not )ossession under clai o! title and don8t start t&e running o! t&e )eriod o! )rescri)tion. Possession o! )etitioners8 )redecessors7in7interest o! t&e unsold )ortion can8t be c&aracteriIed as ad#erse )ossession in good !ait&. osario Gacos ne+ and recogniIed t&e sale by $ucia Gacos to (eodol!o Mendones o! t&e eastern )ortion. Petitioners ne#er raised any obection on t&e eercise o! (eodol!o o! &is doinical rig&ts o#er t&e said eastern )ortion.