G.R. No. 112954 (2000)
Topics:
Administrator of estate, void transactions, forgery
Summary:
Petition for review on certiorari assailing CA Decision that modified RTC ruling regarding seven parcels of land in Capiz. In 1990, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, laches, and prescription. In 1992, CA set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action except with regards to a specified portion of the subject lot, thereby declaring partition and conveyance to Ricardo Distajo with other heirs of Illuminada Abiertas (petitioners), while also declaring that the rest of the property belongs to Lagrimas Distajo (respondent).
Doctrines:
- Void transactions, exceptions
- Forgery
Facts:
During the lifetime of Iluminada Abiertas, she appointed her son Rufo Distajo as the administrator of her parcels of land in Capiz. In 1954, she sold Lot 1018-A to her other children, namely Raul, Ricardo, Ernesto, Federico, and Eduardo Distajo. In the succeeding years, she sold Lot Nos. 1018, 1046, and 1047 in favor of Rufo, and 1057 to Rufo’s daughter, Rhodora Distajo.
Meanwhile, Iluminada’s brother died leaving behind his children, Teresita, Alicia, Josefa, and Luis Abiertas. Teresita paid for the real estate taxes of the properties inherited from her father: Lot Nos. 1001, 1048, 1049, and a portion of 1047. In 1954 and 1965, Teresita sold Lot No. 1001 and Lot Nos. 1048, 1049, and a portion of Lot No. 1047, respectively, all to Rufo Distajo.
After purchasing the parcels of land, Rufo took possession of the property and paid the corresponding real estate taxes. Rhodora likewise paid for the real estate taxes of Lot No. 1057.
When Iluminada died in 1971, Zacarias Distajo, Pilar Distajo-Tapar, and Rizaldo Distajo, demanded possession of the seven parcels of land from Rufo and his wife Lagrimas, to which the spouses refused.
This prompted Ricardo and the other heirs of Iluminada to file a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership of Lot No. 1018, partition of Lot Nos. 1001, 1018-B, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1057, and damages.
Issue:
Whether an administrator is prohibited from acquiring the subject properties
Ruling:
No. The petitioners aver that the sale to Rufo as administrator is void for being contrary to the general rule under Article 1491 which provides that the following cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;” x x x
However, the Court explained that the prohibition against agents purchasing property in their hands for sale or management is not absolute. The exception provides that the transaction is allowed if the principal consents to the sale of the property in the hands of the agent or administrator.
In this case, Iluminada signed the deeds of sale, thereby showing that she gave consent to the sale of the properties in favor of Rufo whom she has appointed administrator of the properties. Thus, the consent of the principal Iluminada removes the transaction out of the prohibition contained in Article 1491(2).
Also, the allegations that Rufo has employed fraudulent machinations to obtain Iluminada’s consent to the sale or the allegation that Rufo forged Illuminada’s signature are not established by evidence, thus holds no merit. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. In this case, the petitioners failed to adduce evidence of such forgery or fraud.