sienes v. esparcia

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-12957 March 24, 1961CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.FIEL ESPARCIA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.Proceso R. Remollo for plaintiffs-appellants.Leonardo D. Mancao for defendants-appellees.I!ON, J."Appellants commenced this action below to secure ud!ment "#$ declarin! null and void the sale e%ecuted b& Paulina and Cipriana 'aeso in favor of appellees, the spouses (idel Esparcia and Paulina )ienes* "+$ orderin! the Esparcia spouses to reconve& to appellants ,ot --./ of the Cadastral )urve& of A&u0uitan "now Amlan$, 1riental Ne!ros* and "-$ orderin! all the appellees to pa&, ointl& and severall&, to appellants the sum of P233.33 as dama!es, plus the costs of suit. 4n their answer appellees disclaimed an& 5nowled!e or information re!ardin! the sale alle!edl& made on April +3, #62# b& Andrea 7utan! in favor of appellants and alle!ed that, if such sale was made, the same was void on the !round that Andrea 7utan! had no ri!ht to dispose of the propert& subect matter thereof. 8he& further alle!ed that said propert& had never been in possession of appellants, the truth bein! that appellees, as owners, had been in continuous possession thereof since the death of (rancisco 'aeso. B& wa& of affirmative defense and counterclaim, the& further alle!ed that on 9ul& -3, #62#, Paulina and Cipriana 'aeso, as the onl& survivin! heirs of (rancisco 'aeso, e%ecuted a public instrument of sale in favor of the spouses (idel Esparcia and Paulina )ienes, the said sale havin! been re!istered to!ether with an affidavit of adudication e%ecuted b& Paulina and Cipriana on 9ul& #/, #62#, as sole survivin! heirs of the aforesaid deceased* that since then the Esparcias had been in possession of the propert& as owners.After trial upon the issues thus oined, the lower court rendered ud!ment as follows:4N ;4E< 1( A,, 8=E (1RE714N7, ud!ment is hereb& rendered declarin! "#$ that the saleof ,ot No. --./ made b& Andrea 7utan! to the plaintiff spouses Constancio )ienes and 7enoveva )ila& is void, and the reconve&ance pra&ed for b& them is denied* "+$ that the salemade b& Paulina and Cipriana 'aeso in favor of defendants (idel Esparcia and Paulina )ienes involvin! the same lot is also void, and the& have no valid title thereto* and "-$ that the reservable propert& in 0uestion is part of and must be reverted to the estate of Cipriana 'aeso, the lone survivin! relative and heir of (rancisco 'aeso at the death of Andrea 7utan!as of >ecember #-, #62#. No pronouncement as to the costs.(rom the above decision the )ienes spouse interposed the present appeal, their principal contentions bein!, firstl&, that the lower court erred in holdin! that ,ot --./ of the Cadastral )urve& of A&u0uitan was a reservable propert&* secondl&, in annullin! the sale of said lot e%ecuted b& Andrea 7utan! in their favor* and lastl&, in holdin! that Cipriana 'aeso, as reservee, was entitled to inherit said land.8here is no dispute as to the followin! facts:,ot --./ ori!inall& belon!ed to )aturnino 'aeso. )A,E whereb&, amon! other thin!s, for and in consideration of the sum of P/33.33 she sold the propert& in 0uestion to appellants.