Montesa vs. Court of Appeals

A vendor cannot validly convey property that does not belong to him; a deed of sale of conjugal property executed by one spouse alone is valid only to the extent of that spouse's share in the conjugal partnership. The conjugal nature of property is deemed raised in the lower court when the pleadings incorporate by reference a prior judgment declaring the petitioners' inheritance from both spouses, even if the precise phrase "conjugal property" is not used.

Severino Montesa was married first to Raymunda Perida, with whom he had the petitioners—Fausto Montesa, Adela Montesa, Lucrea Montesa de Escraman, Sinforosa Montesa de Candelesa, and Marta Montesa de Avila. After Perida's death in 1935, Montesa married Anatalia Gica in 1936. Adriano Lee is Gica's son-in-law. The disputed parcel of land, situated in Barrio Mantalao, Dumanjug, Cebu, covered by Tax Declaration No. 29674, was the subject of two separate transactions by Montesa: a 1952 deed of donation in favor of Gica, and a 1956 deed of absolute sale in favor of Lee, the latter subject to Gica's lifetime usufruct. The donation was annulled in a prior case (Civil Case No. R-5066), where the trial court declared the petitioners co-owners of the land by inheritance from both Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida.

Severino Montesa was first married to Raymunda Perida, with whom he had five children: Fausto Montesa, Adela Montesa, Lucrea Montesa de Escraman, Sinforosa Montesa de Candelesa, and Marta Montesa de Avila. Perida died in 1935, and in 1936 Montesa married Anatalia Gica. Adriano Lee is Gica's son-in-law. Among the properties acquired during Montesa's first marriage was a parcel of land in Barrio Mantalao, Dumanjug, Cebu, covering approximately 29.2441 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 29674, with an assessed value of ₱1,530, and improved with coconut fruit-bearing trees, bamboo groves, and a house of mixed materials.

On June 13, 1952, Severino Montesa executed a deed of donation inter vivos conveying the same parcel of land to his second wife, Anatalia Gica. The petitioners subsequently filed Civil Case No. R-5066 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch V, to annul the deed of donation, alleging that they had inherited the land from their deceased parents Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida. On April 23, 1962, the trial court rendered a partial judgment declaring the deed of donation null and void and declaring the petitioners as co-owners of the land.

On April 4, 1956, while Civil Case No. R-5066 was pending, Severino Montesa executed an absolute deed of sale (Exhibit "A") conveying the same parcel of land to Adriano Lee for ₱700.00, subject to the lifetime usufructuary rights of Anatalia Gica. The document bore Montesa's thumbmark and was signed in the presence of three witnesses, but was not notarized allegedly because Montesa had no residence certificate at the time. Severino Montesa died on January 15, 1957. Because the unnotarized deed could not be registered, Lee filed Civil Case No. R-36 (R-7020) on April 11, 1961 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Barili Branch, seeking to compel the petitioners and Gica to execute the necessary documents pursuant to Article 1357 of the Civil Code. Gica admitted practically all the averments of the complaint in her answer and later filed a cross-claim against the petitioners, adopting the allegations of the complaint.

In their answers to both the complaint and the cross-claim, the petitioners alleged that Exhibit "A" was a spurious and forged document, that the land subject of the sale was the same parcel involved in Civil Case No. R-5066, and that the partial judgment in that case had already declared the deed of donation null and void and recognized the petitioners as co-owners. A copy of the partial judgment was attached to and made an integral part of their answer to the cross-claim. The petitioners also alleged in their pleadings that the land was the same parcel described in the amended complaint in Civil Case No. R-5066, where they had claimed to have inherited it from their parents Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida. After trial, the lower court sustained the validity of the deed of sale, credited the prosecution witnesses' testimonies as straightforward and natural, and ordered the petitioners to execute the necessary documents and convey naked ownership to Lee, while granting Gica's cross-claim for possession subject to the usufruct in favor of Lee. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the conjugal nature of the property was not raised in the lower court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Conjugal Property Issue Was Properly Raised: Petitioners contended that the conjugal nature of the land was raised before the lower court through their answers to both the complaint and the cross-claim, which alleged that the land in question was the same parcel involved in Civil Case No. R-5066 and which attached the partial judgment declaring the petitioners as co-owners by inheritance from Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida.
• Admission by Respondent Lee: Petitioners argued that respondent Adriano Lee admitted in his reply and answer to the counterclaim that he was not a party in Civil Case No. R-5066 and had no interest in its outcome, thereby admitting that the land in both cases was the same parcel, which relieved the petitioners of the burden to introduce additional evidence on the conjugal nature of the property.
• Date Discrepancy in Exhibit "A": Petitioners pointed to a material admission by Anatalia Gica that Exhibit "A" was allegedly executed on April 4, 1960, when the document itself stated April 4, 1956, and Severino Montesa had died on January 15, 1957.
• Forgery of Exhibit "A": Petitioners maintained that the deed of absolute sale was a spurious and forged document, raising various reasons to show its fraudulent nature, including the suspicious timing of its surfacing only after the petitioners filed the annulment case against Gica.

• Conjugal Property Issue Not Pleaded: Respondents countered that nothing in the petitioners' answer raised as an issue or special defense, in plain, concise, and direct language, that the land was conjugal property of Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida; the special and affirmative defenses raised only that the deed was spurious, that its timing was suspicious, and that the suit was filed to harass the defendants.
• Conjugal Partnership Already Dissolved: Respondents contended that with the death of Raymunda Perida in 1935, the conjugal partnership of the first marriage was dissolved and the children had already received their respective shares, such that Severino Montesa could validly dispose of the property.
• Authenticity of the Deed: Respondents maintained that the authenticity and due execution of the deed of sale were supported by substantial evidence, including the straightforward, natural, and direct testimonies of the witnesses.

• Conjugal Nature of Property: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the conjugal character of the disputed land was not raised in the lower court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Validity of the Deed of Sale: Whether the deed of sale (Exhibit "A") is valid insofar as it conveys the entire parcel of land, given that the land is conjugal property of Severino Montesa's first marriage.

• Conjugal Nature of Property: Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The conjugal character of the land was sufficiently raised in the lower court through the petitioners' pleadings, which incorporated the partial judgment from Civil Case No. R-5066 declaring the petitioners as co-owners by inheritance from both Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida.
• Validity of the Deed of Sale: The deed of sale is valid only to the extent of Severino Montesa's share in the conjugal property. Montesa could not validly convey property that did not belong to him, and the disputed parcel was conjugal property of his first marriage.

• Conjugal Nature of Property: The petitioners' answer to the complaint alleged that the land subject of the sale was the same parcel involved in Civil Case No. R-5066, where the petitioners had sued Anatalia Gica to annul the deed of donation. Their answer to the cross-claim attached the partial judgment from that case, which stated that the petitioners were "the owners of a parcel of land ... having inherited the same from their deceased parents and grandparents Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida." The amended complaint in Civil Case No. R-5066 likewise alleged that Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida "during the existence of their marriage ... have acquired conjugal properties, among which is a parcel of land" matching the description of the disputed lot. The Court held that it would be too technical to require the exact phrase "conjugal property" when the incorporated judgment clearly established inheritance from both spouses, which necessarily implies conjugal ownership. The Court of Appeals should have taken judicial notice of the appended partial judgment rather than ruling that the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

• Validity of the Deed of Sale: The authenticity and due execution of Exhibit "A" were sustained by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals based on substantial evidence, and the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals based on substantial evidence are not reviewable on certiorari. However, the legal consequence of the land's conjugal character was dispositive: Severino Montesa could not validly convey properties that did not belong to him. Because the disputed parcel was conjugal property of his first marriage, the deed of sale could operate only upon his share in the conjugal partnership. The case was remanded for partition and determination of the respective shares of the parties.

• Nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what he does not have) — A vendor cannot validly convey property that does not belong to him. Applied here, Severino Montesa's deed of sale was valid only to the extent of his own share in the conjugal property, he having had no authority to alienate the shares belonging to his first wife or his children.
• Incorporation by reference in pleadings — A pleading that attaches and makes integral a prior judgment effectively raises the issues and findings contained therein, even if the precise legal characterization is not separately pleaded in the body of the pleading. The Court held that the petitioners' attachment of the partial judgment from Civil Case No. R-5066, which declared the land as inherited from both spouses, sufficiently raised the conjugal nature of the property.
• Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are not reviewable on certiorari — Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals based on substantial evidence are generally binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the CA's finding on the authenticity and due execution of the deed of sale, while modifying the legal consequence flowing from that finding.

• "Severino Montesa could not validly convey properties which did not belong to him. As clearly discernible from the records, the questioned parcel is conjugal property of the first marriage. Therefore, the deed of sale (Exhibit 'A') is valid only up to the extent of the Severino Montesa's share in the said property." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the validity of the deed of sale, limiting its effect to the vendor's share in the conjugal property.
• "It would be too technical if the phrase 'having inherited the same from their deceased parents and grandparents Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida' cannot be considered to mean that the land in question is the conjugal property of Severino Montesa and Raymunda Perida." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of overly technical pleading requirements where the substance of an issue is already before the court through incorporated documents.
• "The respondent court should have taken note of the decision in CC No. R-5066 appended to and made a part of the answers in CC No. R-7020 instead of ruling that the assigned error on the conjugal character of the land could not be raised for the first time on appeal." — This passage defines the Court's holding that the conjugal property issue was properly raised through incorporation by reference, correcting the Court of Appeals' procedural ruling.

No specific case precedents were cited by name in the decision. The Court relied on general doctrines regarding the non-reviewability of the Court of Appeals' factual findings on certiorari and the principle that a vendor cannot convey what he does not own.

• Article 1357, New Civil Code — Provides the remedy of compelling parties to execute the necessary document when a contract is valid but lacks the proper form for registration. The trial court ordered the petitioners to execute the necessary documents pursuant to this article because the deed of sale, though unnotarized, was deemed valid as between the parties.
• Conjugal Partnership provisions, New Civil Code — The Court applied the principle that conjugal property of a marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership and that one spouse alone cannot alienate the entirety of conjugal property, limiting the validity of the deed of sale to Severino Montesa's share.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concurred.