ACABAL v. ACABAL, GR No.

148376, March 31, 2005

Petitioners: Leonardo Acabal and Ramon Nicolas

Respondents: Villaner Acabal, Eduardo Acabal, Solomon Acabal, Grace Acabal, Melba Acabal,
Evelyn Acabal, Armin Acabal, Ramil Acabal, and Byron Acabal

FACTS:
- The parents of the respondent Villaner Acabal (Alejandro and Felicidad) owned a parcel of land
containing 18.15 hectares situated in Negros Oriental.
- In 1971, the parents transferred ownership over the said land for P2,000 to Villaner through a
Deed of Absolute Sale. At that time, Villaner was married to Justiniana Lipajan.
- In 1990, Villaner, already a widower, conveyed the property to petitioner Leonardo Acabal, his
nephew/godson, through a document, which appeared to be a "Deed of Absolute Sale" for
P10,000.00
- Subsequently, Leonardo conveyed the same property to petitioner Ramon Nicolas.
- In 1993, Villaner filed an action against Leonardo and Ramon Nicolas with the Dumaguete RTC
for the annulment of the deeds of sale.
- During the trial, Villaner argued that his intention was only to rent the property, not to sell it to
Leonardo, and that the document he signed was a lease contract, not a deed of absolute sale.
Villaner also argued that the deed of sale was fabricated and fictitious, as he did not recognize
the signatures of the witnesses within the document. However, he did not present any evidence
to support his claims.
- The RTC decided in favor of Leonardo Acabal and Ramon Nicolas. However, upon appeal to the
CA, the RTC decision was reversed.
- Leonardo and Ramon then elevated the case to the SC, arguing that the CA erred in reversing
the RTC decision even though Villaner failed to present a single witness to prove his arguments.
- On the other hand, the co-heirs of Villaner (his eight children) claim that the deed of absolute
sale, even if it is valid, cannot bind them because they did not consent to the sale.

ISSUES:
- WoN the CA erred in reversing the RTC ruling;
- WoN the co-heirs of Villaner cannot be bound by such a sale due to their lack of consent (this is
the more relevant issue for our class).

HELD:
- Yes, the CA erred in reversing the RTC ruling.
- The burden of proof lies with the party who makes the allegations.
- Since it was Villaner who alleged that the deed was fabricated and fictitious, he must prove
it by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon
the weakness of that of his opponent. Except for his bare allegation that the transaction
was one of lease, he failed to provide any other evidence to further support his claims.
- Yes, the co-heirs cannot be bound by such a sale since they did not consent to it.
- The subject property was acquired during the marriage of Villaner and Justinana.
- Under Art. 160 of the CC, all properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership.
- Due to the death of Justiniana, Villaner and his children, as her heirs, have become, in
effect, co-owners of the subject property, with each of them receiving 1/9 share of
Justiniana's portion (or 1/18 of the entire conjugal property).
- Villaner's share over the whole property, therefore, is 10/18, or 5/9, while his co-heirs are
entitled to 4/9 of the property.
 - Under Art. 493 of the CC, while a co-owner is free to sell and dispose of his undivided
interest to the property, he cannot alienate the shares of his other co-owners. In this case,
Villaner sold the whole property without obtaining consent from his children, the other co-
owners. Therefore, the sale should only affect his own share, and not the share of the
others who did not consent to such sale. In effect, the purchaser (Ramon Nicolas) would
then be considered as a co-owner of the property.

DECISION: Petition is granted, the sale in favor of Leonardo Acabal and the subsequent sale in
favor of Ramon Nicolas is valid but only insofar as five-ninths (5/9) of the subject property
concerned.

NOTE: The SC also ruled that the ruling in Cruz v. Leis is inapplicable in this case. In Cruz, the SC
ruled that a purchaser in good faith acquires a valid title to the property even against the heirs of
the deceased spouse. However, this applies only where the subject of the sale is a registered land.
In this case, the land is unregistered. Therefore, even if petitioner Ramon Nicolas was a purchaser
in good faith, he cannot acquire a valid title to the whole property against the heirs of Acabal. His
title is valid only insofar as Villaner Acabal's portion is concerned.