This principle is incorporated in our Civil Code. It provides that in a contract of sale, the seller binds himself to transfer the ownership of the thing sold, thus:
Art. 1458. By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
The seller cannot perform this obligation if he or she does not have a right to convey ownership of the thing. Hence, Article 1459 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1459. The thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it is delivered.
Title or rights to a deceased person’s property are immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death.[63] The heirs’ rights become vested without need for them to be declared “heirs.”[64] Before the property is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the property.[65]
In this case, the rights to Gregoria Lopez’s property were automatically passed to her sons — Teodoro, Francisco, and Carlos — when she died in 1922.[66] Since only Teodoro was survived by children, the rights to the property ultimately passed to them when Gregoria Lopez’s sons died.[67] The children entitled to the property were Gregorio, Simplicio, Severino, and Enrique.
Gregorio, Simplicio, Severino, and Enrique became co-owners of the property, with each of them entitled to an undivided portion of only a quarter of the property. Upon their deaths, their children became the co-owners of the property, who were entitled to their respective shares, such that the heirs of Gregorio became entitled to Gregorio’s one-fourth share, and Simplicio’s and Severino’s respective heirs became entitled to their corresponding one-fourth shares in the property.[68]
The heirs cannot alienate the shares that do not belong to them. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Since Enrique’s right to the property was limited to his one-fourth share, he had no right to sell the undivided portions that belonged to his siblings or their respective heirs. Any sale by one heir of the rest of the property will not affect the rights of the other heirs who did not consent to the sale. Such sale is void with respect to the shares of the other heirs.
Regardless of their agreement, Enrique could only convey to Marietta his undivided one-fourth share of the property, and Marietta could only acquire that share. This is because Marietta obtained her rights from Enrique who, in the first place, had no title or interest over the rest of the property that he could convey.
This is despite Enrique’s execution of the affidavit of self-adjudication wherein he declared himself to be the only surviving heir of Gregoria Lopez. The affidavit of self-adjudication is invalid for the simple reason that it was false. At the time of its execution, Enrique’s siblings were still alive and entitled to the three-fourth undivided share of the property. The affidavit of self-adjudication did not have the effect of vesting upon Enrique ownership or rights to the property.
The issuance of the original certificate of title in favor of Marietta does not cure Enrique’s lack of title or authority to convey his co-owners’ portions of the property. Issuance of a certificate of title is not a grant of title over petitioners’ undivided portions of the property.[69] The physical certificate of title does not vest in a person ownership or right over a property.[70] It is merely an evidence of such ownership or right.[71]
Marietta could acquire valid title over the whole property if she were an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value purchases a property without any notice of defect or irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller.[72] He or she is without notice that another person holds claim to the property being purchased.[73]
As a rule, an ordinary buyer may rely on the certificate of title issued in the name of the seller.[74] He or she need not look “beyond what appears on the face [of the certificate of title].”[75] However, the ordinary buyer will not be considered an innocent purchaser for value if there is anything on the certificate of title that arouses suspicion, and the buyer failed to inquire or take steps to ensure that there is no cloud on the title, right, or ownership of the property being sold.
Marietta cannot claim the protection accorded by law to innocent purchasers for value because the circumstances do not make this available to her.
In this case, there was no certificate of title to rely on when she purchased the property from Enrique. At the time of the sale, the property was still unregistered. What was available was only a tax declaration issued under the name of “Heirs of Lopez.”
“The defense of having purchased the property in good faith may be availed of only where registered land is involved and the buyer had relied in good faith on the clear title of the registered owner.”[76] It does not apply when the land is not yet registered with the Registry of Deeds.
At the very least, the unregistered status of the property should have prompted Marietta to inquire further as to Enrique’s right over the property. She did not. Hence, she was not an innocent purchaser for value. She acquired no title over petitioners’ portions of the property."
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 193551. November 19, 2014 ]
HEIRS OF GREGORIO LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY ROGELIA LOPEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES [NOW SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT TWO (SPV-AMC), INC.], RESPONDENTS.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/59904
