Hernaez v.

Hernaez
G.R. 10027 – November 13, 1915
J. Trent

Topic: Transfer of Ownership – Exceptions: Sale by a Non-Owner - Estoppel

Plaintiff-Appellant: Rosendo Hernaez y Espinosa

Defendants-Appellants: Mateo Hernaez y Espinosa, et Aal.

FACTS:
 Pedro Hernaez and Juana Espinosa died, leaving several legitimate descendants
 November 6, 1901: Domingo Hernaez sold all his interests in both parent’s estate to Vicente Hernaez
(Son)
 February 27, 1907: In connivance with his son, Domingo Hernaez purported to convey all his
undivided interest in his father’s estate and 1/18 of his undivided interest in his mother’s estate to
Alejandro Montelibano. Added to this, he conveyed 4/18 of his interest in his mother’s estate to Jose
Montelibano Uy-Cana for PHP4,500.
o Supreme Court: Vicente, conniving with his father, is effectually estopped from asserting his
title against either vendees, based on Code of Civil Procedure 1.
 August 19, 1912: Jose Uy-Cana sold his interest in the estate to Alejandro Montelibano for PHP10,000,
effectively making the latter the owner of all of Domingo Hernaez’ interest in the estate of Pedro
Hernaez and 5/18 of the interest in the estate of Juana Espinosa.
 January 8, 1913: Rosendo Hernaez (a descendant and the administrator of the estates of the deceased
spouses) was notified of the sale of Domingo’s interest to Alejandro Montelibano. Despite this
knowledge, Rosendo still proceeded with the conveyance of Domingo’s interest (sold by Vicente) in
favor of himself.
o Supreme Court: Since Rosendo had full knowledge of the conveyances to Alejandro
Montelibano, he did not acquire any interests in his father’s estate and he only acquired 13/18 in
his mother’s interest.
 January 24, 1913: Rosendo now is seeking to subrogate himself in the rights acquired by Motelibano in
accordance with OCC10672

ISSUE + HELD: W/N Rosendo may be subrogated in Montelibano’s rights to the estate [YES]
 Given that he instituted the action on January 24, and that he bought the interests from Alejandro on
January 8, it can be deemed valid since it was still within the 1-month period provided by the law.
 Rosendo is going to reimburse Motelibano only PHP4,500 (not PHP10,000), as this was the price the
heirs “sold the rights to a stranger.”

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the Register
of Deeds of Makati City to lift the adverse claim and such other encumbrances petitioner Lourdes Ong Limson
may have filed or caused to be annotated on TCT No. S-75377 is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that
the award of nominal and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees is DELETED.

1
it is now a well-established principle that where the true owner of property, for however short a time, holds out another, or,
with knowledge of his own right, allows another to appear as the owner of or as having full power of disposition over the
property, the same being in the latter's actual possession, and innocent third parties are thus led into dealing with such
apparent owner, they will be protected.
2
If any of the heirs should sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the division, all or any of the coheirs may subrogate
himself in the place of the purchaser, reimbursing him for the value of the purchase, provided they do so within the period
of a month, to be counted from the time they were informed thereof.