(215) [EVIDENCE] RULE 131 - Burden of Proof and Presumption | JRRB

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. MCIAA MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAID
Unchuan COMPLAINT CITING PRESCRIPTION, LACHES AND
G.R. No. 182537 | 01 June 2016 |Mendoza, J. ESTOPPEL AS ITS GROUNDS >> DENIED.
Disputable presumption of payment of consideration
MCIAA AVERRED THAT ATANACIO, ACTING AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF
PETITIONER: MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY (MCIIA) EUGENIO GODINEZ, WHO WERE THE REGISTERED
RESPONDENT: RICHARD E. UNCHUAN OWNERS, SOLD THE LOTS TO THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY CAA.
FACTS
THE RTC RENDERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
RICHARD UNCHUAN FILED A COMPLAINT FOR UNCHUAN HOLDING THAT ATANACIO GODINEZ
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE DEED OF HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SELL THE LOTS EXCEPT
ABSOLUTE SALE AGAINST MCIAA ALLEGING ONLY WITH RESPECT TO HIS SHARE
THAT HE WAS THE OWNER OF TWO LOTS IN The RTC held that Atanacio was not legally authorized
LAPU-LAPU CITY THAT HE BOUGHT THE TWO to act as the attorney-in-fact of his brothers and sisters
LOTS FROM THE SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE and to transact on their behalf because he was not
REGISTERED OWNERS THROUGH SEVERAL clothed with a special power of attorney granting him
DEEDS OF ABSOLUTE SALE, ALL DATED authority to sell the disputed lots. This lack of authority
DECEMBER 7, 1998 of Atanacio Godinez, therefore, has an effect of making
Richard Unchuan filed a complaint for for Declaration of the contract of sale between the parties' predecessors-
Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Quieting of Title and/or in-interest as void except perhaps for the share of
Payment of Just Compensation, Rental and Damages Atanacio Godinez which he could very well alienate.
and Attorney's Fees.
RTC: “LACK OF SIGNATURE OF THE CAA
In his complaint, Unchuan alleged, among others, that ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE
he was the legal and rightful owner of two lots both SALE LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO
located in Barrio Buaya, Lapu-Lapu City, and covered CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FOR THE ALLEGED
by Original Certificate of Title; that the title was SALE.”
registered under the names of the heirs of Eugenio The RTC also noted that the deed of absolute sale
Godinez, specifically, Teodora Tampus, Fernanda presented to the trial court did not bear the signature of
Godinez (the wife of Iscolastico Epe), Tomasa Godinez the then CAA Administrator which would have shown
(the wife of Mateo Ibañez), Sotera Godinez (the wife of that the vendee consented to the sale. Thus, the RTC
Guillermo Pino), Atanasio Godinez8 (married to concluded that there was no valid consideration for
Florencia Pino), Juana Godinez (the wife of Catalino the alleged conveyance, among others.
Cuison), and Ambrosio Godinez (married to Mamerta
Inot); and that he bought the two lots from the surviving CA AFFIRMED THE RTC. MR DENIED. HENCE, THIS
heirs of the registered owners through several deeds of PETITION.
absolute sale, all dated December 7, 1998.
EVIDENTIARY ISSUE
UNCHUAN: “SUPPOSED ATTY-IN-FACT OF
REGISTERED OWBERS SOLD THE LOTS TO CAA W/N Unchuan's allegation that no payment was
WITHOUT THE OWNERS AUTHORITY + THERE received for the transaction between Atanacio and CAA
WAS NO ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE is meritable. – NO
OWNERS + NO PROOF OF APPROVAL BY THE
DPWKH SECRETARY OF THE ALLEGED SALE” RULING
Unchuan further alleged that he came to know that
Atanacio Godinez (Atanacio), the supposed attorney-in- The Court does not accept either Unchuan's allegation
fact of all the registered owners and their heirs, already that no payment was received for the transaction
sold both lots to Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), between Atanacio and CAA.
the predecessor of MCIAA; that the sale covered by the
Deed of Absolute Sale,20 dated April 3, 1958, was null Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court identifies
and void because the registered owners and their heirs the following as disputable presumptions:
did not authorize Atanacio to sell their undivided shares (1) private transactions have been fair and regular;
in the subject lots in favor of CAA; that no actual (2) the ordinary course of business has been
consideration was paid to the said registered followed; and
owners or their heirs, despite promises that they (3) there was sufficient consideration for a contract.
would be paid; that the deed of absolute sale did not
bear the signature of the CAA representative; that there A presumption may operate against a challenger who
was no proof that the Secretary of the Department of has not presented any proof to rebut it. The effect of a
Public Works and Highways approved the sale; and that legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to
his predecessors-in-interest merely tolerated the create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet
possession by CAA and, later, by MCIAA. the legal presumption or the prima facie case
created thereby, and which, if no proof to the
contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The
 (215) [EVIDENCE] RULE 131 - Burden of Proof and Presumption | JRRB
burden of proof remains where it is, but by the acknowledged the sale of the subject lots in favor of
presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved CAA) or to other documents (such as Joint Affidavit of
for the time being from introducing evidence in support Confirmation of Sale of Alloted Shares Already
of the averment, because the presumption stands in the Adjudicated and Quitclaim of a Portion of Lot No. 4810,
place of evidence unless rebutted. Open Cadastre) all of which gave the impression that
they had ratified the sale of the subject lots in favor of
APPLICATION CAA, MCIAA's predecessor-in-interest.

Atanacio, by affixing his signature on the deed of The rule is that a void contract produces no effect either
absolute sale, a disputable presumption arose that against or in favor of anyone and cannot be ratified.
consideration was paid. A mere allegation that no Similarly, laches will not set in against a void
payment was received is not sufficient to dispel such transaction, as in this case, where the agent did not
legal presumption. have a special power of attorney to dispose of the lots
co-owned by the other registered owners. In fact, Article
Furthermore, the record shows an official 1410 of the Civil Code specifically provides that an
communication, dated October 8, 1958, from the District action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does
Land Office of Cebu to the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu not prescribe.
stating that Provincial Voucher No. 05358 was
disbursed in favor of Atanacio. The transaction entered into by Atanacio and CAA,
however, was not entirely void because the lack of
DISPOSITIVE PORTION consent by the other co-owners in the sale was with
respect to their shares only.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Article 493 3 of the New Civil Code recognizes the
ANNEX absolute right of a co-owner to freely dispose of his pro
indiviso share as well as the fruits and other benefits
SC’s ruling RE: lack of authority of Atanacio arising from that share, independently of the other co-
owners. The sale of the subject lots affects only the
The Court finds that the sale transaction executed seller's share pro indiviso, and the transferee gets only
between Atanacio, acting as an agent of his fellow what corresponds to his grantor's share in the partition
registered owners, and the CAA was indeed void insofar of the property owned in common. Since a co-owner is
as the other registered owners were concerned. They entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire
were represented without a written authority from them property by one co-owner without the consent of the
clearly in violation of the requirement under Articles other co-owners is not null and void; only the rights of
18741 and 18782 of the Civil Code. the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the
buyer a co-owner of the property.
Without a special power of attorney specifying his
authority to dispose of an immovable, Atanacio could In the case at bench, although the sale transaction
not be legally considered as the representative of the insofar as the other heirs of the registered owners was
other registered co-owners of the properties in question. void, the sale insofar as the extent of Atanacio's interest
Atanacio's act of conveying Lot No. 4810-A and Lot No. is concerned, remains valid. Atanacio was one of the
4810-B cannot be a valid source of obligation to bind all registered co-owners of the subject lots, but he was not
the other registered co-owners and their heirs because clothed with authority to transact for the other co-
he was not clothed with any authority to enter into a owners. By signing the deed of sale with the CAA,
contract with CAA. The other heirs could not have given Atanacio effectively sold his undivided share in the lots
their consent as required under Article 147550 of the in question. Thus, CAA became a co-owner of the
New Civil Code because there was no meeting of the undivided subject lots. Accordingly, Atanacio's heirs
minds among the other registered co-owners who gave could no longer alienate anything in favor of Unchuan
no written authority to Atanacio to transact on their because he already conveyed his pro indiviso share to
behalf. Therefore, no contract was perfected insofar as CAA.
the portions or shares of the other registered co-owners
or their heirs were concerned.

Thus, the Court cannot give any weight either to the

1 3
Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his
therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
2
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
following cases: xxx are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage,
(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion
immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
valuable consideration termination of the co-ownership.