YTURRALDE v CA (and REBOLLOS and CFI Judge) a.
a. See notes for the reason behind consolidation being made through ordinary
Subj Matter; Particular Kinds; Undivided Interest/Share | Feb. 28, 1972 | Makasiar
Nature of Case: Appeal by certiorari seeking reversal of CA’s decision
Digest maker: Pablo
SUMMARY: Francisco and Margarita Yturralde owned agricultural land. When Francisco
died, Margarita married Damaso. They sold the property to Rebollos. Margarita died.
Rebollos filed to consolidate his ownership over the entire lot. Petitioners (children of
Francisco and Margarita) opposed this.
DOCTRINE: Margarita cannot sell the conjugal property. She can only sell her conjugal
share and successional right as heir in the conjugal share of Francisco.
FACTS:
● Sps. Yturralde owned agricultural land (~14 hectares) registered in their names
under OCT No. 2356.
● 1944: Francisco died intestate survived by his wife Margarita, and their children
(petitioners).
● 1950: Margarita married her brother-in-law and uncle of petitioners, Damaso.
● 1952: Damaso and Margarita executed a deed of sale with right to repurchase in favor
of respondent Isabelo Rebollos covering the property for P1,715. They failed to
exercise the right to repurchase within the 3-year period agreed upon.
● 1961: Margarita died.
● 1965: Respondent Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership which was
granted by the CFI. It also ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the OCT and to
issue a TCT in his name.
o Basis of CFI: Summons could not be served on all the children so the court
declared them in default.
● 1969: CFI issued a writ of execution and ordered demolition of all buildings not
belonging to Rebollos. However, the judge directed the sheriff to defer the
implementation of the writ of execution and order of demolition.
● Rebollos claimed he sold the property and transferred the TCT to Pilar Reyes in 1968.
● Petitioners filed an action for prohibition with the CA.
● CA denied the petition for prohibition but issued a writ of preliminary injunction
against respondents from enforcing their orders.
o Basis of CA: Prohibition is a preventive remedy where here the thing
sought to be restrained had already been done.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the petition for prohibition will prosper - YES
a. The acts sought to be prevented had not yet occurred as respondent judge
directed the sheriff to defer the implementation of his orders.
b. Petitioners retained possession which the CA itself protected with the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondent Rebollos.
2. WON the CFI acquired jurisdiction (orders are null and void if no juris.) - NO
civil action and not a mere motion.
b. No diligent inquiry was done by respondents when the three children
could not be located at their address for the summons. Neither was there
substituted summons by newspaper as required by the Rules of Court.
c. As the petition of Rebollos sought to divest all of them of their undivided
interest in the entire land, which undivided interest was never alienated by
them to Rebollos, herein petitioners became indispensable parties.
d. If anyone of the party defendants, who are all indispensable parties is not
properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the entire
case and its decision and orders therein are null and void.
3. WON Rebollos can consolidate his ownership over the entire lot - NO
a. The land was owned by the Margarita and children in common and pro
indiviso.
b. The sale by Margarita expressly stipulates that she only sold all her rights,
interests and participation in the lot. Thus, she had no right to sell the
conjugal property. What she could sell was only her conjugal share and
successional right as heir in the conjugal share of Francisco.
c. Rebollos cannot therefore consolidate his ownership over the entire lot.
d. Rebollos should suffer the consequences of misrepresenting to the court
that the whole lot was sold to him.
i. Rebollos only filed for consolidation 10 years after the redemption
period expired and 4 years after vendor died.
ii. After petitioners filed for recovery, Rebollos sold the land.
iii. Rebollos, not the vendee, filed all the motions for issuance of writs
of execution and demolition.
e. Note: Petitioners in 1967 filed another action against Rebollos for recovery
of ownership and damages. They should include Pilar Reyes in that
complaint as she is the vendee who is an indispensable party.
RULING: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals dated December 24, 1969, and setting aside as null and void:
(1)the decision of the respondent trial judge dated November 20, 1965;
(2)the order for the issuance of the writ of execution dated January 6, 1969;
(3)the writ of execution dated January 20, 1969; and
(4)the order of demolition dated May 15, 1969 in Special Civil Case No. 436.
NOTES:
Rationale for Art. 1607: Art. 1607 provides that consolidation of ownership in the vendee a
retro of real property by virtue of the failure of the vendor a retro "to comply with the
provisions of Article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial
order, after the vendor has been duly heard."
This is to allow the court to not only to have all doubts over the true nature of the transaction
speedily ascertained, and decided, but also to prevent the interposition of buyers in good faith
while such determination is being made. Before, buyers could cut off any claims of the seller
by disposing of the property, after such consolidation, to strangers in good faith