Manotok Realty, Inc v CA

MANOTOK REALTY, INC. V COURT OF APPEALS GR No. L-45038, April 30, 1987 Administration of exclusive property TOPIC: Administration FACTS: Felipe Madlangawa, respondent claims that he has been occupying a parcel of land in the Clara de  Tambunting de Legarda Subdivision since 1949 upon permission being obtained from Andres Ladores, then an overseer of the subdivision, with the understanding that the respondent would eventually buy the lot. April 2, 1950 o  The owner of the lot, Clara Tambunting, died and her entire estate, including her paraphernal properties covering the lot occupied by the respondent were placed under custodia legis. legis . April 22, 1950 o Vicente Legarda, husband of Tambunting received the deposit of respondent amounting to P1,500 for the lot o Respondent had a remaining balance of P5,700 which he did not pay or was unable to pay because the heirs of Tambunting could not settle their differences. •

•

•

•

•

April 28, 1950 Don Vicente Legarda was appointed as a special o administrator of the estate and the respondent remained in possession of the lot in question. March 13 and 20, 1959 Petitioner Manotok Realty, Inc. became the o successful and vendee of the Tambunting de Legarda Subdivision pursuant to the deeds of sale executed in its favor by the Philippine Trust Company, as administrator of the Testate Estate of Clara  Tambunting de Legarda. The lot in dispute was one of  those covered by the the sale. The Deed of Sale provided provided for terms and conditions.

• Petitioner caused the publication of several notices in the Manila Times and the Taliba advising the occupants to vacate their respective premises, otherwise, court action with damages would follow. This includes respondent among others who refused to vacate the lots •  Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's action. CA ruled that the only right remaining to the petitioner is to enforce the collection of the balance because accordingly, it stepped into the shoes of its predecessor (Don Vicente Legarda).

ISSUE: Whether Don Vicente Legarda could validly dispose of the paraphernal property? DECISION: NO. Decision of CA is reversed and set aside RATIO:  The record does not show that Don Vicente Legarda was the administrator of the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Clara Tambuntin Tambunting g during during the lifetime lifetime of the latter. Thus Thus,, it cann cannot ot be said said that that the the sale sale whic which h was was ente entere red d into into by the the priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nt and and Don Don Vicente Legarda had its inception before the death of  Clara Clara Tambunting Tambunting and was entere entered d into by the Don Vicente on behalf of Clara Tambunting but was only consummated consummated after her death. Don Vicente Legarda, therefore, could not have validly disp dispos osed ed of the the lot lot in disp disput ute e as a cont contin inui uing ng administrator of the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Tambunting. wife retain retains s the owner ownershi ship p of the Art. 136 NCC. NCC. The wife paraphernal property. Art. 137 NCC. The wife shall have the administration of  the paraphernal property, unless she delivers the same to the husband by means of a public instrument empowering him to administer it. In this case, the public instrument shall be recorded in the Registry of Property. As for the movables, the husband shall give adequate security.  The Court concluded that the sale between Don Vicente Legarda and the private respondent is void ab initio, the former being neither an owner nor administrator

of the subject property. Such being the case, the sale cannot be the subject of the ratification by the Philippine Trust Company or the probate court. After the appointment of Don Vicente Legarda as administrator of the estate of Dona Clara Tambunting, he should have applied before the probate court for authority to sell the disputed property in favor of the private respondent. If the probate court approved the request, then Don Vicente Legarda would have been able to execute a valid deed of sale in favor of the respondent. But Don Vicente Legarda had no effort to comply with the abovequoted rule of procedure nor on that of the respondent to protect his interests or to pay the balance of the installments to the court appointed administrator.