Cid vs. Peralta

A co-parcener who does not possess absolute ownership of property cannot validly convey the whole to a third party, and such transferee acquires no right enforceable against the true co-owners. A tax-sale purchaser likewise ceases to have any claim over the property once the original owner repurchases the tax-sold portion, and cannot thereafter seize other portions of the co-owned land that were never put up for sale.

Severino P. Cid, Estanislao Nicolas, Gregorio Guerrero, and Fernando Bonoan were co-owners of a rural estate in San Julian de Culao, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, with a total approximate area of 28 hectares, 54 ares, and 60 centares. Dorotea Bonoan, daughter of the deceased co-owner Fernando Bonoan, was merely a co-parcener with her mother, brothers, and sisters in her father's share of the common property. Abraham Peralta had at one point acquired a portion of the land at a public tax sale due to Guerrero's delinquency, but Guerrero subsequently repurchased that portion and was reinstated as owner. The land had been assessed partly in the name of Cid, partly in the name of Fernando Bonoan, and partly in the name of Guerrero.

The plaintiffs—Severino P. Cid y Mata, Estanislao Nicolas y Juan, and Gregorio Guerrero y Mata—together with the heirs of Fernando Bonoan, were co-owners of a tract of land situated in San Julian de Culao, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, with a total approximate area of 28 hectares, 54 ares, and 60 centares, bounded on the north by Celestino Almazan and a ditch, on the northeast by one Epifanio, on the east by a stony tract, on the southeast by Domingo Caluya, on the south by Benigno Villanueva, and on the west by Esteban Castro and his co-heirs. The tillable portion was cultivated by the owners through laborers, while the remainder was sandy and stony. The land had suffered damage from two floods, in 1872 and 1882, which rendered it temporarily untillable, but the owners persisted in its cultivation through their employees.

In 1902, the land was assessed solely in the name of Severino P. Cid, who paid the corresponding tax. In 1907, a part of the land was assessed in the name of Fernando Bonoan, who paid the tax, while another part was assessed in the name of Gregorio Guerrero. Because Guerrero failed to pay the tax on his portion, that part was attached and sold at public auction to Abraham Peralta. Guerrero subsequently repurchased the property and was placed in possession thereof. Notwithstanding the repurchase, Peralta persisted in seizing the entire property, including the part assessed in the name of Fernando Bonoan, which had never been put up for sale.

Thereafter, Dorotea Bonoan, daughter of the deceased Fernando Bonoan, brought an action for recovery against Peralta as detainer of the whole property. Before the hearing, however, the parties compromised the suit by dividing the disputed land between themselves almost equally—Peralta keeping one-half and Bonoan retaining the other. This compromise, entered into on April 28, 1908, and submitted to the Court of First Instance on July 7 of the same year, was made to the detriment of the other co-owners, who endeavored to present claims as interveners, and also of Dorotea Bonoan's own co-heirs—the children of the deceased Fernando Bonoan—with whom she shared rights in her father's portion.

On August 1, 1908, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for recovery of possession, alleging that Peralta had unlawfully taken possession of the property about August 1903 and continued to hold one-half under the compromise, while Bonoan held the other half. They sought delivery of the land and damages of 600 uyones of rice valued at P600. The defendants denied the allegations, contending that the land had belonged exclusively to Dorotea Bonoan from time immemorial, that Peralta had acquired rights by cultivating approximately 12 hectares and 50 ares at his own expense for more than ten years, and that the land had been twice inundated and converted into a sandbank. The trial court, on September 2, 1910, found that the land belonged to the plaintiffs and sentenced the defendants to deliver it, without express finding as to costs. Fausta de Castro, the widow of Fernando Bonoan and mother of Dorotea Bonoan, testified for the plaintiffs, affirming their right and ownership in the disputed land.

• Exclusive Ownership of Bonoan: Defendants maintained that the land described in the complaint had belonged exclusively to Dorotea Bonoan from time immemorial.
• Acquisition by Cultivation: Defendants argued that Peralta acquired a right in the land more than ten years prior by having brought under cultivation approximately 12 hectares and 50 ares at his own expense, which right was recognized by Bonoan in the compromise of April 23, 1908.
• Destruction of Original Property: Defendants contended that the land was twice inundated and completely converted into a sandbank, once in 1872 and again in 1882, and had remained uncultivated and sandy, such that if the plaintiffs ever had property in the area, it would be the stony tract and not the portion Peralta had cultivated.

• Co-ownership and Unlawful Possession: Plaintiffs alleged that they had been the owners of the land for more than twenty years and that Peralta had unlawfully taken possession about August 1903 without their knowledge and over their objections.
• Incapacity of Bonoan to Convey: Plaintiffs maintained that Dorotea Bonoan was only a co-parcener of the plaintiffs and had a mother, brothers, and sisters with rights in the part she held, such that she could not dispose of the land, rendering the compromise conveyance to Peralta invalid.

• Validity of Conveyance by Co-parcener: Whether Dorotea Bonoan, as a mere co-parcener, could validly convey the entire disputed property to Abraham Peralta through a compromise agreement.
• Effect of Tax Sale and Repurchase: Whether Peralta retained any right to possess the land after Guerrero repurchased the portion previously sold at public auction.
• Right of Recovery of Possession: Whether the plaintiffs, as co-owners, are entitled to recover possession of the land from the defendants under Article 348 of the Civil Code.

• Validity of Conveyance by Co-parcener: No. Dorotea Bonoan, as a mere co-parcener with her mother, brothers, and sisters, could not lawfully convey the entire property to Peralta, and the latter acquired no legally justified right from a person who lacked the power to transfer ownership.
• Effect of Tax Sale and Repurchase: No. Upon Guerrero's repurchase of the tax-sold portion, Peralta ceased to be the owner and had no right to seize either the repurchased land or the rest of the property assessed against Fernando Bonoan, which was never put up for sale.
• Right of Recovery of Possession: Yes. The plaintiffs proved their common ownership and the identity of the land, entitling them to recover possession pursuant to Article 348 of the Civil Code, their evidence having been unrebutted by the defendants.

• Validity of Conveyance by Co-parcener: Dorotea Bonoan was merely a co-owner with her mother, brothers, and sisters with respect to the portion belonging to her deceased father, Fernando Bonoan, who was himself only a co-heir in the whole property and thus entitled to but a part thereof. She therefore had no absolute ownership to convey. The compromise agreement by which she disposed of one-half of the land to Peralta was made without any right whatever and to the detriment of the other co-owners and her own co-heirs. Because Bonoan was not vested with a full right to make such a conveyance, Peralta, as transferee, could not have acquired any right that could justify or legalize his possession to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. The principle that no one can transfer what one does not have operates to invalidate the compromise conveyance.

• Effect of Tax Sale and Repurchase: While Peralta acquired a portion of the land at a public tax sale due to Guerrero's tax delinquency, Guerrero subsequently repurchased the property and was reinstated as owner. Upon repurchase, Peralta ceased to be the owner of the tax-sold portion and thereafter had no right or reason to seize either that repurchased land or, much less, the rest of the land assessed against Fernando Bonoan, which was never put up for sale. Peralta failed to prove that Bonoan was the absolute owner of all the land in question, which would have been necessary to establish his claimed right to the portion he retained under the compromise.

• Right of Recovery of Possession: Pursuant to Article 348 of the Civil Code, the owner has a right of action against the holder and possessor of a thing to recover the same. The surviving plaintiffs and the heirs of the deceased Gregorio Guerrero and Fernando Bonoan were the legitimate owners in equal shares of the land owned by them in common under Article 392 of the Civil Code. They proved both their common ownership and the identity of the land sought to be recovered. The documentary and oral evidence furnished by the owners was not impugned or rebutted by any evidence from the defendants. Fausta de Castro, the widow of Fernando Bonoan and mother of defendant Dorotea Bonoan, testified for the plaintiffs, affirming their right and ownership. The action for recovery of possession was therefore supported by law.

• Right of Action for Recovery of Possession (Article 348, Civil Code) — The owner has a right of action against the holder and possessor of a thing to recover the same. The Court applied this provision to uphold the plaintiffs' action, finding that they had proved their common ownership and the identity of the land, and that the defendants' evidence did not rebut the plaintiffs' proof.

• Co-ownership (Article 392, Civil Code) — Ownership of a thing belonging to different persons is enjoyed in common. The Court relied on this provision to establish that the plaintiffs and the heirs of Fernando Bonoan were legitimate owners in equal shares of the land owned in common, and that Dorotea Bonoan, as a mere co-parcener in her father's share, could not convey the entire property.

• Invalidity of Conveyance by One Without Absolute Ownership — A person who lacks absolute ownership of property cannot validly convey it to a third party, and such transferee acquires no right enforceable against the true co-owners. The Court applied this principle to invalidate the compromise conveyance from Dorotea Bonoan to Abraham Peralta, since Bonoan was merely a co-parcener and the property did not belong to her absolutely, nor even entirely to her father.

• "Dorotea Bonoan, without any right whatever, disposed of all the land, which did not belong to her absolutely, nor even entirely to her father, for he, as a co-heir in the whole property, was only entitled to a part thereof" — This passage states the ratio decidendi that a co-parcener cannot convey property she does not absolutely own, and that even her father's share was but a fraction of the whole co-owned estate.

• "If Dorotea Bonoan was not vested with a full right to make such a conveyance and no ownership rights whatever over the part conveyed were conferred upon her, then neither could the transferee, Abraham Peralta, have acquired any right at all which could in any manner in the eyes of the law justify and legalize the usurpation committed by him to the prejudice of the plaintiffs." — This articulates the derivative nature of a transferee's rights: they cannot exceed those of the transferor, and a conveyance from one without title confers no enforceable right against the true owners.

• "Pursuant to article 348 of the Civil Code, the owner has a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing to recover the same." — This states the statutory basis for the action for recovery of possession, anchoring the plaintiffs' right to reclaim the land from the defendants.

• Article 348, Civil Code — Provides that the owner has a right of action against the holder and possessor of a thing to recover the same. Applied to uphold the plaintiffs' action for recovery of possession, they having proved their common ownership and the identity of the land.
• Article 392, Civil Code — Governs ownership of a thing belonging to different persons enjoyed in common. Applied to establish the plaintiffs and the heirs of Fernando Bonoan as legitimate owners in equal shares of the land owned in common.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, and Trent, JJ., concurred.