PATROCINIA RAVINA and WILFREDO RAVINA vs. MARY ANN VILLAABRILLE, for herself and in behalf of INGRID D’LYN P. VILLA ABRILLE, INGREMARK D’WIGHT VILLA ABRILLE, INGRESOLL DIELS VILLA ABRILLE AND INGRELYN DYAN VILLA ABRILLE G.R. No. 160708 October 16, 2009
(3) Whether the petitioners are buyers in good faith, hence, entitled to reimbursement of their payment
FACTS In 1982, during the marriage of respondent Mary Ann Pasaol Villa Abrille and Pedro, Villa Abrille, they acquired a parcel of land in Davao City (Lot 7) registered in their names. This lot is adjacent to another land (Lot 8), Pedro’s separate property.
RULING 1. Conjugal Lot 7 was acquired in 1982 during Pedro and Mary Ann’s marriage. No evidence was adduced to show that the property was acquired through exchange or barter. The presumption of the conjugal nature nature of the property subsists in the absence of clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence to overcome said presumption or to prove t hat the subject property is exclusively owned owned by Pedro. Likewise, the house built house built on Lot 7 is conjugal property, having been constructed through the joint efforts of the spouses, who had obtained a loan from DBP to construct the house.
When Pedro had a mistress in 1991 and neglected his family, Mary Ann sold/mortgaged their movables to support the family and the studies of her children. Pedro, by himself, offered to sell the house and the two lots to petitioners Ravina. Mary Ann objected and notified the petitioners of such objection, but in June 1991, Pedro still sold the house and lots without her consent. Later, Pedro, with armed members of the CAFGU and in connivance with the petitioners, surreptitiously transferred all their (Mary Ann+children) belongings belongings from the house house to an apartment. apartment. Mary Ann and her children were also stopped from entering the house.
2.) Sale was VOID Under Art. 124 of the FC, disposition of a conjugal property is void if done a) without the consent of both the husband and wife, or b) in case of one spouse’s inability, the authority of the court. Here, Mary Ann timely filed the action for annulment of sale within five (5) years from the date of sale and execution of the deed. However, her action to annul the sale sale pertains only to the conjugal house and lot and does not include the lot covered by Lot 8, a property exclusively belonging to Pedro and which he can dispose of freely without Mary Mary Ann’s consent.
Mary Ann and her children (respondents) filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale, Specific Performance, Damages and Attorney’s Attorne y’s Fees with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against Pedro and the Ravinas. During trial Pedro claimed that the house was built with his own money.
3.) Buyers in bad faith; no reimbursement A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. To establish his status as a buyer for value in good faith, a person dealing with land registered in the name of and occupied by the seller need only show that he relied on the face of the seller’s certificate of title.
Petitioners assert that Lot 7 was Pedro’s exclusive property, acquired by him through barter or exchange. They also claim that Wilfredo Ravina examined the titles when they bought the property from Pedro. TC ruled TC ruled that the sale of the house and the lots 7 & 8 were valid as to the half of the share of Pedro and void as to the other half of the share of Mary Ann. CA modified, CA modified, ruling that the sale of lot 8 is valid, while the sale of lot 7 is void. CA also ordered Pedro to return the value of the consideration for lot 7 and the house to Sps Ravina. Respondents were also given the option to exercise their rights under Art. 450 NCC with respect to the improvements introduced by Sps Ravina.. ISSUES (1) Whether the Lot 7 is an exclusive property of Pedro or conjugal property (2) Whether the sale of Lot 7 was valid considering the absence of Mary
For a person dealing with land registered in the name of and occupied by the seller whose capacity is restricted, such as Arts. 166/173 /124 of the FC, FC, to establish status as a buyer in GF, he must show that he inquired into the latter’s capacity to sell in order to establish himself as a buyer for value in good faith. Here, the property is registered in Pedro and Mary Ann’s names. Also, petitioners petitioners were apprised by Mary Ann’s lawyer of her objection to the sale and yet they still proceeded to purchase the property without Mary Ann’s written consent. Moreover, the respondents were the ones in actual, visible and public possession of the property at the time the transaction was being made. Thus, at the time of sale, petitioners petitioners knew that Mary Ann has a right to or interest in the subject properties and yet they failed to obtain her
The Court sustained the CA’s order directing Pedro to return to Sps Ravina the value of the consideration for Lot 7 and the house thereon. However, petitioners cannot claim reimbursements for improvements they introduced after their good faith had ceased. Patrocinia Ravina made improvements and renovations on the house and lot at the time when the complaint against them was filed, even during the pendency of the action. Article 449 of the NCC which provides that ““(h)e who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity”, is applicable in this case. The award of damages was also sustained. The manner by which Mary Ann and her children were removed from the family home deserves condemnation. “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.” (Art. 19, NCC) PETITION DENIED
