Nora B. Calalang-Parulan vs. Rosario Calalang-Garcia, GR. No. 184148, June 9, 2014

Doctrine: It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of death.

Case Title: Nora B. Calalang-Parulan vs. Rosario Calalang-Garcia GR. No. 184148, June 9, 2014, J. VILLARAMA JR.

Facts

A Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance of Property was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan by petitioners Nora B. Calalang-Parulan and Elvira B. Calalang against the respondents Rosario Calalang-Garcia, Leonora Calalang-Sabile, and Carlito S. Calalang.

The respondents asserted their ownership over a certain parcel of land against the petitioners. The said lot with an area of 1,266 square meters and specifically identified as Lot 1132, Cad. 333, Bigaa Cadastre situated in Brgy. Burol 2nd, Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan, was allegedly acquired by the respondents from their mother Encarnacion Silverio, through succession as the latter’s compulsory heirs.

According to the respondents, their father, Pedro Calalang contracted two marriages during his lifetime. The first marriage was with their mother Encarnacion Silverio and second marriage with Elvira Calalang after the 1st marriage was dissolved because of the death of the Encarnacion. During the subsistence of the first marriage, their parents acquired the subject land from their maternal grandmother Francisca Silverio. Despite enjoying continuous possession of the land, however, their parents failed to register the same.

During his second marriage, Pedro filed an application for free patent over the parcel of land with the Bureau of Lands. Pedro Calalang committed fraud in such application by claiming sole and exclusive ownership over the land since 1935 and concealing the fact that he had three children with his first spouse. He then sold the said parcel of land to Nora B. Calalang-Parulan as evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed by both.

The trial court rendered decision in favor of the respondents. The trial court declared that the parcel of land was jointly acquired by the spouses Pedro Calalang and Encarnacion Silverio from the parents of the latter. Thus, it was part of the conjugal property of the first marriage of Pedro Calalang. The trial court then ordered all of Pedro’s share to be given to Nora B. Calalang-Parulan on account of the sale. The trial court also ruled that because the application for free patent filed by Pedro Calalang was attended by fraud and misrepresentation, Pedro Calalang should be considered as a trustee of an implied trust. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals reversed the factual findings of the trial court and held that Pedro Calalang was the sole and exclusive owner of the subject parcel of land. It held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the disputed property was indeed jointly acquired from the parents of Encarnacion Silverio during the first marriage However, applying the rules of succession, Pedro’s heirs namely, Rosario Calalang-Garcia, Leonora Calalang-Sabile, Carlito Calalang, Nora B. Calalang-Parulan, Elvira B. Calalang, and Rolando Calalang, succeeded Pedro to the land in equal shares upon his death. Thus, the CA ordered the petitioners to reconvey in favor of the respondents their rightful shares to the land. The CA ruled that the sale by Pedro Calalang to Nora B. Calalang-Parulan was fraudulent and fictitious as the vendee was in bad faith and the respondents were unlawfully deprived of their pro indiviso shares over the disputed property.

Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The CA, however, denied their motion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether Pedro Calalang was the exclusive owner of the disputed property prior to its transfer to his daughter Nora B. Calalang-Parulan.

HELD

The petition is meritorious.

The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the records of this case and sustain the finding of the CA that Pedro Calalang is the sole and exclusive owner of the disputed property.

As correctly pointed out by the CA, a close perusal of the records of this case would show that the records are bereft of any concrete proof to show that the subject property indeed belonged to respondents’ maternal grandparents. The evidence respondents adduced merely consisted of testimonial evidence such as the declaration of Rosario Calalang-Garcia that they have been staying on the property as far as she can remember, and that the property was acquired by her parents through purchase from her maternal grandparents. However, she was unable to produce any document to evidence the said sale, nor was she able to present any documentary evidence such as the tax declaration issued in the name of either of her parents. Moreover, we note that the free patent was issued solely in the name of Pedro Calalang and that it was issued more than 30 years after the death of Encarnacion and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the first marriage. Thus, we cannot subscribe to respondents’ submission that the subject property originally belonged to the parents of Encarnacion and was acquired by Pedro Calalang and Encarnacion.

It must likewise be noted that in his application for free patent, applicant Pedro Calalang averred that the land was first occupied and cultivated by him since 1935 and that he had planted mango trees, coconut plants, caimito trees, banana plants and seasonal crops and built his house on the subject lot. Thus, having possessed the subject land in the manner and for the period required by law after the dissolution of the first marriage and before the second marriage, the subject property ipso jure became private property and formed part of Pedro Calalang’s exclusive property. It was therefore excluded from the conjugal partnership of gains of the second marriage.

As the sole and exclusive owner, Pedro Calalang had the right to convey his property in favor of Nora B. Calalang-Parulan by executing a Deed of Sale on February 17, 1984. The CA therefore erred in ruling that Pedro Calalang deprived his heirs of their respective shares over the disputed property when he alienated the same.

It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of death. Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that "[t]he rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent."

Thus, it is only upon the death of Pedro Calalang that his heirs acquired their respective inheritances, entitling them to their pro indiviso shares to his whole estate. At the time of the sale of the disputed property, the rights to the succession were not yet bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang. And absent clear and convincing evidence that the sale was fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in effect an in officious donation inter vivas), the respondents have no right to question the sale of the disputed property on the ground that their father deprived them of their respective shares. Well to remember, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Mere preponderance of evidence is not even adequate to prove fraud.