assignment 2 compilation

8/19/2019 Assignment 2 Compilation

1/53

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW IIATTY. CHRISTIAN VILLASIS

ASSIGNMENT NO. 2

CASE NO. 1UNTALAN, CYRUS D.C.

INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LUZ GARCIA. PABLO G. UTULO VS.LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.G.R. NO. 4594 SEPTEMBER !, 19!"

FACTS# Juan Garcia died intestate and in the proceedings instituted in the Court of FirstInstance of Tarlac for the administration of his property, Leona Pasion Vda. de Garcia,

the surviving spouse and the herein oppositor, as appointed !udicial administratri". Thesaid deceased left legitimate children, one of hom is Lu# Garcia, and his ife as heirs.$oever, during the pendency of the intestate proceedings, Lu# died and she left nolegitimate descendants hence her only heirs ere her mother and hus%and. $er hus%and then applied for !udicial administration of the property despite the a%sence of aill from his late ife. This as opposed to %y Leona Pasion Vda. &e Garcia %ut sheas overruled and the court decided in favor of herein petitioner.

ISSUE# 'hether the loer court erred in deciding in favor of herein petitioner.

RULING# (es. )ec. *+ of the Code of Civil Procedure providing in part that -if noe"ecutor is named in the ill, or if a person dies intestate, administration shall %e

granted- etc. This provision enunciates the general rule that hen a person dies livingproperty in the Philippine Islands, his property should %e !udicially administered and thecompetent court should appoint a ualified administrator, in the order esta%lished in thesection, in case the deceased left no ill, or in case he had left one should he fail toname an e"ecutor therein. This rule, hoever, is su%!ect to the e"ceptions esta%lished%y sections /0* and /01 of the same Code, as finally amended.

2ccording to the first, hen all the heirs are of laful age and there are no de%ts duefrom the estate, they may agree in riting to partition the property ithout instituting the

!udicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator. 'hile in thesecond, if the property left does not e"ceed si" thousand pesos, the heirs may apply to

the competent court, after the reuired pu%lications, to proceed ith the summarypartition and, after paying all the 3non o%ligations, to partition all the propertyconstituting the inheritance among themselves pursuant to la, ithout instituting the

!udicial administration and the appointment of an administrator. Construing the scope of section /0*, this court repeatedly held that hen a person dies ithout leaving pendingo%ligations to %e paid, his heirs, hether of age or not, are not %ound to su%mit theproperty to a !udicial administration and the appointment of an administrator aresuperfluous and unnecessary proceedings. 'hen there are no de%ts e"isting against

1 | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W I IA S S I G N M E N T 2


2/53

the estate, there is certainly no occasion for the intervention of an administrator in thesettlement and partition of the estate among the heirs. 'hen the heirs are all of lafulage and there are no de%ts, there is no reason hy the estate should %e %urdened iththe costs and e"penses of an administrator. The property %elonging a%solutely to theheirs, in the a%sence of e"isting de%ts against the estate, the administrator has no right

to intervene in any ay hatever in the division of the estate among the heirs. They areco4oners of an undivided estate and the la offers them a remedy for the division of the same among themselves. There is nothing in the present case to sho that theheirs reuested the appointment of the administrator, or that they intervened in any ayhatever in the present actions. If there are any heirs of the estate ho have notreceived their participation, they have their remedy %y petition for partition of the saidestate.

The property %elongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor ascompletely as if the ancestor had e"ecuted and delivered to them a deed for the same%efore his death. There is no eight in the argument adduced %y the appellee to theeffect that his appointment as !udicial administrator is necessary so that he may havelegal capacity to appear in the intestate of the deceased Juan Garcia )anche#. 2s heould appear in the said intestate %y the right of the representation, it ould suffice for him to allege in proof of his interest that he is a usufructuary forced heir of his deceasedife ho, in turn, ould %e a forced heir and an interested and necessary party if sheere living. In order to intervene in said intestate and to ta3e part in the distri%ution of the property it is not necessary that the administration of the property of his deceasedife %e instituted 5 an administration hich ill ta3e up time and occasioninconvenience and unnecessary e"penses. The appealed order should %e reversed,ith the costs of this instance to the applicant4appellee. )o ordered.

CASE NO. 2VELACHA, LAARNIE T.

MARIA VDA. DE REYES VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. NO. 924!$, %ULY 2$, 1991

FACTS# &uring his lifetime, one Gavino 6eyes oned a parcel of land of appro"imately17 hectares. $e sought to %ring said land under the operation of the Torrens )ystem of

registration of property. 8nfortunately, he died in 909 ithout the title having %eenissued to him. The application as prosecuted %y his son, :arcelo 6eyes, ho as theadministrator of his property.



3/53

In 90;* the a%ove property as surveyed and su%divided %y Gavino


4/53

The case as dismissed on 9B )eptem%er 90*0, %ut Candido $e%ron as ordered %y

the trial court to deliver to the heirs concerned all the transfer certificates of title in his

possession.

2fter o%taining the Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot =o. 94249+ from $e%ron,

petitioners herein, as successors4in4interest of 6afael 6eyes, Jr., filed a case against

private respondents >defendants therein? for recovery of possession or, in the

alternative, for indemnification, accounting and damages. They alleged that they have

%een deprived %y said defendants of the rightful possession and en!oyment of the

property since )eptem%er 90*0.

In their anser, private respondents deny the material averments in the complaint and

assert that they are the oners of the lot in uestion, having %ought the same from

6afael 6eyes, )r., that the issuance of TCT =o. 1/1 is null and void, for such sale

as 3non to 6afael 6eyes, Jr. that they have %een in possession of the property and

have %een paying the land ta"es thereon and that petitioners are %arred %y prescription

andDor laches.

In its decision of 9 @cto%er 90B*, the trial court concluded that petitioners< -title over the

su%!ect property is valid and regular and thus they are entitled to its possession and

en!oyment,-

@n appeal the C2 concluded that the trial court erred hen it ordered the private

respondents or anyone acting in their %ehalf to relinuish the possession or vacate the

property in uestion.

ISSUE# 'hether the oral partition made %y 6eyesE children is valid despite the

reuirement under )ec. 9 of 6ule 1+ that it must %e in a pu%lic document.



5/53

RULING# (es. The Court of 2ppeals correctly held that the partition made %y the

children of Gavino 6eyes in 90;*, although oral, as valid and %inding. There is no la

that reuires partition among heirs to %e in riting to %e valid.

In Hernandez vs. Andal, supra, this Court, interpreting )ection 9 of 6ule 1+ of the 6ules

of Court, held that the reuirement that a partition %e put in a pu%lic document and

registered has for its purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the

protection of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The o%!ect of registration is to

serve as constructive notice to others. It follos then that the intrinsic validity of partition

not e"ecuted ith the prescri%ed formalities does not come into play hen there are no

creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected. 'here no such rights are involved, it

is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distri%ution in a

manner and upon a plan different from those provided %y la. There is nothing in said

section from hich it can %e inferred that a riting or other formality is an essential

reuisite to the validity of the partition. 2ccordingly, an oral partition is valid.

Barcelona, e al . vs. Barcelona, e al ., supra, provides the reason hy oral partition is

valid and hy it is not covered %y the )tatute of Frauds partition among heirs or

renunciation of an inheritance %y some of them is not e"actly a conveyance of real

property for the reason that it does not involve transfer of property from one to the other,

%ut rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property %y the heir renouncing

in favor of another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance.

The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the

decedent. The estate of the decedent ould then %e held in co4onership %y the heirs.

The co4heir or co4oner may validly dispose of his share or interest in the property

su%!ect to the condition that the portion disposed of is eventually allotted to him in the

division upon termination of the co4onership.

In the case at %ar, the lot sold %y 6afael 6eyes, )r. to private respondent &almacio

Gardiola is his share in the estate of his deceased father, Gavino 6eyes. It is the same

property hich as eventually ad!udicated to his son and heir, 6afael 6eyes, Jr.,

represented in turn %y his heirs4petitioners herein4in the e"tra!udicial settlement of 90*1.

$oever, petitioners, as mere successors4in4interest of 6afael 6eyes, Jr., son of 6afael

6eyes, )r., can only acuire that hich Ra!ael, "r . could transmit to them upon his

death. The latter never %ecame the oner of Lot =o. 94249+ %ecause it as sold %y his

father in 90+;. The issuance of TCT =o. T41/1 in the name of 6afael 6eyes, Jr., in so



6/53

far as Lot =o. 949+42 is concerned, as clearly erroneous %ecause he never %ecame its

oner. 2n e"tra!udicial settlement does not create a light in favor of an heir.

Thus, since he never had any title or right to Lot =o. 949+42, the mere e"ecution of the

settlement did not improve his condition, and the su%seuent registration of the deed

did not create any right or vest any title over the property in favor of the petitioners as

heirs of 6afael 6eyes, Jr. The latter cannot give them hat he never had %efore. #e$o

dare poes %uod non &a'e .

There is one more point that should %e stressed here. 2s categorically admitted %y

petitioners in their complaint and amended complaint, it as only in or a%out )eptem%er

90*0 hen, after the delivery of TCT =o. 1/1 %y Candido $e%ron to them, that they

definitely discovered that they ere the oners of the property in uestion. 2nd yet,

despite full 3noledge that private respondents ere in actual physical possession of

the property, it as only a%out thirteen and one4half >9; 9D? years later that they

decided to file an action for recovery of possession. The instant petition then is ithout

merit.

CASE NO. !VILLANUEVA, LIEZL O.

SAMPILO VS. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. NO. L-14&4, FEBRUARY 2", 195"

FACTS# Teodoro Tolete, died leaving his ife and nephes and nieces ho are childrenof his deceased %rothers and sisters. $is ife e"ecuted an affidavit of self ad!udicatingsaying that Teodoro had no children or or dependents, neither ascendants or ac3noledged natural children, neither %rothers, sisters, nephes, and nieces.Then, hisife sold the properties to )ampilo, then the latter sold it to )alacup.

)inopera instituted estate proceedings as3ing for letters of administration. )he allegedthat TeodorEs ife, has no right to e"ecute the affidavit of self4ad!udication for thereothers heirs aside from her.

The trial court ruled in favor of )inopera. In their appeal, the petitioners argue that

)inoperaEs cause of action has already prescri%ed %ecause according to the rules of court, personEs deprived of their rights due to the partition or self ad!udication for thereare other heirs aside from her. The C2 modified the ruling stating that the affidavit of TeodoroEs ife is null and void, %ut the su%seuent sales are valid insofar as it is nota%ove her share from TeodoroEs estate.

ISSUE# 'hether or not the casue of action has already prescri%ed.



7/53

RULING# =o. The rule applies only to persons ho participated in the said specialproceedings and does not pre!udice those ho did not have the chance to participate. There are to significant provisions in section 9, and + of 6ule 1+ of the 6ules of Court.In )ection 9, it is reuired that if there are to or more heirs, %oth or all of them shouldta3e part in the e"tra!udicial settlement. This reuirement is made more imperative in

the old la >)ection /0*, 2ct =o. 907? %y the addition of the clause -and not otherise-.y the title of )ection +, the -distri%utees and estate- are indicated as the persons toanser for rights violated %y e"tra!udicial settlement. @n the other hand, it is alsosignificant that no mention is made e"pressly of the effect of the e"tra!udicial settlementon persons ho did not ta3e part therein or had no notice or 3noledge thereof. Therecannot %e any dou%t that those ho too3 part or had 3noledge of the e"tra!udicialsettlement are %ound there%y. 2s to them the la is clear that if they claim to have %eenin any manner deprived of their laful right or share in the estate %y the e"tra!udicialsettlement, they may demand their rights or interest ithin the period of to years, and%oth the distri%utees and estate ould %e lia%le to them for such rights or interest.Avidently, they are the persons ho, in accordance ith the provision, may see3 to

remedy the pre!udice to their rights ithin the to4year period. ut as to those ho didnot ta3e part in the settlement or had no notice of the death of the decedent or of thesettlement, there is no direct or e"press provision, and it is unreasona%le and un!ust thatthey also %e reuired to assert their claims ithin the period of to years. To e"tend theeffect of the settlement of them, to those ho did not ta3e part or had no 3noledgethereof, ithout any e"press legal provision to that effect, ould %e violative of thefundamental right to due process of la.

CASE NO. 4ABAD, SHAREL ANN N.

%OSEPH CUA VS. GLORIA A. VARGAS, AURORA VARGAS, RAMON VARGAS,MARITES VARGAS, EDELINA VARGAS AND GEMMA VARGAS

FACTS# 2 parcel of residential land ith an area of 00 suare meters located in )anJuan, Virac, Catanduanes as left %ehind %y the late Paulina Vargas. @n Fe%ruary +,900+, a notari#ed A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs as e"ecuted %y and amongPaulina Vargas< heirs, namely Aster Vargas, Visitacion Vargas, Juan Vargas, Henaida V.:atien#o, 6osario V. Forte#a, 2ndres Vargas, Gloria Vargas, 2ntonina Vargas andFlorentino Vargas, partitioning and ad!udicating unto themselves the lot in uestion,each one of them getting a share of 99 suare meters. Florentino, 2ndres, 2ntonina andGloria, hoever, did not sign the document. @nly Aster, Visitacion, Juan, Henaida and

6osario signed it. The A"tra Judicial )ettlement among $eirs as pu%lished in theCatanduanes Tri%une for three consecutive ee3s.

@n =ovem%er 9/, 900+, an A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs ith )ale as againe"ecuted %y and among the same heirs over the same property and also ith the samesharings. @nce more, only Aster, Visitacion, Juan, Henaida and 6osario signed the



8/53

document and their respective shares totaling // suare meters ere sold to JosephCua, petitioner herein.

6espondents claimed that as co4oners of the property, they may %e su%rogated to therights of the purchaser %y reim%ursing him the price of the sale. They li3eise alleged

that the ;74day period folloing a ritten notice %y the vendors to their co4oners for them to e"ercise the right of redemption of the property had not yet set in as no rittennotice as sent to them. In effect, they claimed that the A"tra Judicial )ettlement

2mong $eirs and the A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs ith )ale ere null andvoid and had no legal and %inding effect on them.

2ccording to Gloria Vargas, the ido of )antiago Vargas and one of respondentsherein, she came to 3no of the A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs ith )ale dated=ovem%er 9*, 900+ only hen the original house %uilt on the lot as %eing demolishedsometime in :ay 900/.)he li3eise claimed she as unaare that an earlier A"traJudicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs dated Fe%ruary +, 900+ involving the same property

had %een pu%lished in the Catanduanes Tri%une. Gloria Vargas tried to redeem theproperty, hen the offer to redeem as refused Gloria Vargas filed a case for annulment of A"tra Judicial )ettlement and Legal 6edemption of the lot ith the:unicipal Trial Court >:TC? of Virac, Catanduanes against petitioner.

:TC rendered a decision9; in favor of petitioner, dismissing the complaint. The :TCupheld the sale to petitioner %ecause the transaction purportedly occurred after thepartition of the property among the co4oner heirs. The :TC opined that the other heirscould validly dispose of their respective shares. 6TC affirmed :TC decision, %ut the C2reversed the loer courtEs decision declaring that the A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong$eirs and the A"tra Judicial )ettlement 2mong $eirs ith )ale, dated Fe%ruary +, 900+

and =ovem%er 9/, 900+, respectively, ere void and ithout any legal effect.

ISSUE 'hether heirs are deemed constructively notified and %ound, regardless of their failure to participate therein, %y an e"tra!udicial settlement and partition of estate henthe e"tra!udicial settlement and partition has %een duly pu%lished.

RULING =o. The rule plainly states, that persons ho do not participate or had nonotice of an e"tra!udicial settlement ill not %e %ound there%y. It contemplates a noticethat has %een sent out or issued %efore any deed of settlement andDor partition isagreed upon >i.e., a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of e"tra!udicial settlement and partition?, and not after such an agreement has already%een e"ecuted as hat happened in the instant case ith the pu%lication of the firstdeed of e"tra!udicial settlement among heirs.

The pu%lication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirsho had no 3noledge or did not ta3e part in it %ecause the same as notice after thefact of e"ecution. The reuirement of pu%lication is geared for the protection of creditorsand as never intended to deprive heirs of their laful participation in the decedent


9/53

never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their e"istence onlyshortly %efore the filing of the present complaint. Folloing 6ule 1+, these e"tra!udicialsettlements do not %ind respondents, and the partition made ithout their 3noledgeand consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned.

=evertheless, respondents are given the right to redeem these shares pursuant to 2rticle 97BB of the Civil Code. The right to redeem as never lost %ecause respondentsere never notified in riting of the actual sale %y their co4heirs. It %ears emphasis thatthe period of one month shall %e rec3oned from the time that a co4heir is notified inriting %y the vendor of the actual sale. 'ritten notice is indispensa%le and mandatory,actual 3noledge of the sale acuired in some other manner %y the redemptioner notithstanding. It cannot %e counted from the time advance notice is given of animpending or contemplated sale. The la gives the co4heir thirty days from the timeritten notice of the actual sale ithin hich to ma3e up his or her mind and decide torepurchase or effect the redemption.

Considering, therefore, that respondents< co4heirs failed to comply ith this reuirement,there is no legal impediment to alloing respondents to redeem the shares sold topetitioner given the former


10/53

land in favor of Colum%a. In Fe%ruary 900B, the heirs of Avaristo Cuyos >respondents?learned of the transfer of titles and discovered the e"istence of the assailed CFI @rder.They filed ith the C2 a petition for annulment of the @rder alleging, among others, thatCommissionerEs 6eport practically deprived them of due process in claiming their shareof their fatherEs estate. The C2 granted the petition ruling that the Certificates of Titles

o%tained %y herein petitioners ere procured fraudulently.

ISSUE# 'hether or not the C2 committed a reversi%le error in annulling the CFI @rder dated &ecem%er 9*, 901*, hich approved the CommissionerEs 6eport

RULING# 'e rule in the negative. 2lthough )ection of 6ule +1 of the 6ules of Courtprovides that annulment of a final !udgment or order of an 6TC may %e %ased -only onthe grounds of e"trinsic fraud and lac3 of !urisdiction,- !urisprudence recogni#es denialof due process as additional ground therefor. 'hile e find that the C2 correctlyannulled the CFI @rder dated &ecem%er 9*, 901*, e find that it should %e annulled noton the ground of e"trinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient evidence to hold 2tty. Taneo or any of the heirs guilty of fraud, %ut on the ground that the assailed order is void for lac3

of due process. There is nothing in the records that ould esta%lish that the allegedsu%poenae, supplemented %y telegrams, for the heirs to appear in the scheduledconference ere indeed sent to the heirs. :oreover, there as no evidence shoingthat the heirs indeed convened for the purpose of arriving at an agreement regardingthe estate properties, since they ere not even reuired to sign anything to sho their attendance of the alleged meeting. In fact, the Commissioneri.e., anotice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of e"tra!udicialsettlement and partition?, and not after such an agreement has already %een e"ecuted.The pu%lication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirsho had no 3noledge or did not ta3e part in it %ecause the same as notice after thefact of e"ecution. The reuirement of pu%lication is geared for the protection of creditorsand as never intended to deprive heirs of their laful participation in the decedent


11/53

a%sence of the signatures of all the heirs shoing conformity thereto. The CFI adoptedthe 6eport despite the statement therein that only si" out of the nine heirs attended theconference, thus, effectively depriving the other heirs of their chance to %e heard. TheCFITCTs? and ere a%le to transfer some parcels to the other respondents herein.

The Court of 2ppeals eventually dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the

adoption of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner sent her daughter, Loreto Jocelyn, to claim

their share of the properties from the 6odrigue#es. The latter refused saying that :aria

Alena and Loreto ere not heirs since they ere not their %lood relatives.



12/53

Petitioner, then, filed a complaint to annul the 90B; partition. The said complaint as

filed on January B, 90B1. )aid complaint as later amended on :arch /, 90B1 to

include the allegation that earnest efforts toard a compromise ere made %eteen the

plaintiffs and the defendants, %ut the same failed.

The 6egional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of 2ppeals affirmed.

ISSUES# (1) 'hether or not the complaint for annulment of the &eed of A"tra!udicial

)ettlement and Partition had already prescri%ed

(2) 'hether or not the petitioner is entitled to recover the lots hich had already %een

transferred to the respondent %uyers.

RULING# (1) =@. The complaint for annulment of the &eed of A"tra!udicial )ettlement

and Partition has =@T prescri%ed yet. 6TCEs dismissal and C2Es affirmation of 6TC as

reversed.

)ection 9, 6ule 1+ of the 6ules of Court provides

The fact of the e"tra!udicial settlement or administration shall %e pu%lished in a

nespaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the ne"t succeeding

section %ut no e"tra!udicial settlement shall %e %inding upon any person ho has not

participated therein or had no notice thereof. >8nderlining supplied?

)ection +, 6ule 1+ provides for a to year prescriptive period >9? to persons ho have

participated or ta3en part or had notice of the e"tra!udicial partition, and in addition >?hen the provisions of )ection 9 of 6ule 1+ have %een strictly complied ith, e., that

all the persons or heirs of the decedent have ta3en part in the e"tra!udicial settlement or

are represented %y themselves or through guardians.



13/53

Petitioner, as the records confirm, did not participate in the e"tra!udicial

partition. Patently then, the to4year prescriptive period is not applica%le in her case. To

say that :aria Alena as represented %y 6osalina in the partitioning is imprecise. :aria

Alena, the adopted child, as no longer a minor at the time :iguel died and cannot %e

represented.

The applica%le prescriptive period here is four >+? years as provided in *erona vs +e

*uz$an, 99 )C62 9/; >90*+?. Considering that the complaint of the petitioner as filed

on January B, 90B1, or three years and ten months after the uestioned e"tra!udicial

settlement dated :arch 99, 90B;, as e"ecuted, e hold that her action against the

respondents on the %asis of fraud has not yet prescri%ed.

Furthermore, the provision of )ection +, 6ule 1+ ill also not apply hen the deed of e"tra!udicial partition is sought to %e annulled on the ground of fraud. 2 deed of e"tra!udicial partition e"ecuted ithout including some of the heirs, ho had no3noledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.

(2) =@. Petitioner could no longer redeem the properties from %uyers %ecause theyhave TCTs already. 'ell settled is the doctrine that a Torrens Tle cannot %e collaterallyattac3ed. The validity of the title can only %e raised in an action e"pressly instituted for such purpose.

ut the Court granted @=A $8=&6A& T$@8)2=& >P977,777.77? PA)@) to petitioner as damages >to %e paid %y respondents? in vie of the technical in!ury she has suffered.

CASE NO. &

BALTAZAR, ESTRELLA C.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED %OSEFA

DELGADO



14/53

G.R. NO. 155&!! %ANUARY 2&, 2$

FACTS# This case concerns the settlement of the intestate estates of Guillermo 6ustia

and Josefa &elgado. The *+ /0 in this case is relatively simple ho, %eteenpetitioners and respondents, are the laful heirs of the decedents.

The claimants to the estates of Guillermo 6ustia and Josefa &elgado may %e dividedinto to groups >9? the alleged heirs of Josefa &elgado, consisting of her half4 and full4%lood si%lings, nephes and nieces, and grandnephes and grandnieces, and >? thealleged heirs of Guillermo 6ustia, particularly, his sisters, his nephes and nieces, hisillegitimate child, and the de !aco adopted child >a$pun-a$punan? of the decedents.

@n :ay B, 901/, Luisa &elgado vda de &anao, the daughter of Luis &elgado, filed the

original petition for letters of administration of the intestate estates of the -spouses

Josefa &elgado and Guillermo 6ustia- ith the 6TC of :anila, ranch //. This petition

as opposed %y the folloing >9? the sisters of Guillermo 6ustia, namely, :arciana

6ustia vda de &amian and $ortencia 6ustia4Cru# >? the heirs of Guillermo 6ustiaEs

late %rother, 6oman 6ustia, )r., and >;? the a$pun-a$punan Guillermina 6ustia 6ustia.

The opposition as grounded on the theory that Luisa &elgado vda de &anao and the

other claimants ere %arred under the la from inheriting from their illegitimate half4

%lood relative Josefa &elgado.

In =ovem%er of 901/, Guillerma 6ustia filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings,

claiming she as the only surviving descendant in the direct line of Guillermo 6ustia.

&espite the o%!ections of the oppositors >respondents herein?, the motion as granted.

@n 2pril ;, 901B, the original petition for letters of administration as amended to state

that Josefa &elgado and Guillermo 6ustia ere never married %ut had merely lived

together as hus%and and ife.

@n January +, 90B7, oppositors >respondents herein? filed a motion to dismiss the

petition in the 6TC insofar as the estate of Guillermo 6ustia as concerned. The motion

as denied on the ground that the interests of the petitioners and the other claimants

remained in issue and should %e properly threshed out upon su%mission of evidence.

@n :arch 9+, 90BB, Carlota &elgado vda de de la 6osa su%stituted for her sister, Luisa

&elgado vda de &anao, ho had died on :ay 9B, 90B1.

@n :ay 99, 9007, the 6TC appointed Carlota &elgado vda de de la 6osa as

administratri" of %oth estates.



15/53

RULING In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid

marriage e"isted %eteen Guillermo 6ustia and Josefa &elgado. Their coha%itation of

more than /7 years cannot %e dou%ted. Their family and friends 3ne them to %e

married. Their reputed status as hus%and and ife as such that even the original

petition for letters of administration filed %y Luisa &elgado vda de &anao in 901/

referred to them as -spouses.-

T0 L+3/ H0 O3 %603+ D07+86

To determine ho the laful heirs of Josefa &elgado are, the uestioned status of the

coha%itation of her mother Felisa &elgado ith 6amon @sorio must first %e addressed.

2s mentioned earlier, presumptions of la are either conclusive or disputa%le.

Conclusive presumptions are inferences hich the la ma3es so peremptory that no

contrary proof, no matter ho strong, may overturn them. @n the other hand, disputa%le

presumptions, one of hich is the presumption of marriage, can %e relied on only in the

a%sence of sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Little as said of the coha%itation or alleged marriage of Felisa &elgado and 6amon

@sorio. The oppositors >no respondents? chose merely to rely on the disputa%le

presumption of marriage even in the face of such countervailing evidence as >9? the

continued use %y Felisa and Luis >her son ith 6amon @sorio? of the surname &elgado

and >? Luis &elgadoEs and Caridad ConcepcionEs arda de Casa$eno identifying

Luis as -&o naural de .elsa +el/ado- >the natural child of Felisa &elgado?.

2ll things considered, e rule that these factors sufficiently overcame the re%utta%le

presumption of marriage. Felisa &elgado and 6amon @sorio ere never married.

$ence, all the children %orn to Felisa &elgado out of her relations ith 6amon @sorio

and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his half4%lood si%lings =a#ario, Adil%erta, Jose,

Jaco%a, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed &elgado, ere her natural

children.

$ere, the a%ove4named si%lings of Josefa &elgado ere related to her %y full4%lood,

e"cept Luis &elgado, her half4%rother. =onetheless, since they ere all illegitimate, they

may inherit from each other. 2ccordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa&elgado.

'e note, hoever, that the petitioners %efore us are already the nephes, nieces,

grandnephes and grandnieces of Josefa &elgado. 8nder 2rticle 01 of the ne Civil

Code, the right of representation in the collateral line ta3es place only in favor of the

children of %rothers and sisters >nephes and nieces?. Conseuently, it cannot %e



16/53

e"ercised %y grandnephes and grandnieces. Therefore, the only collateral relatives of

Josefa &elgado ho are entitled to parta3e of her intestate estate are her 'ro&ers and

ssers, or &er c&ldren &o ere sll alve a &e $e o! &er dea& on 1epe$'er 8,

2 . They have a vested right to participate in the inheritance. The records not %eing

clear on this matter, it is no for the trial court to determine ho ere the surviving

%rothers and sisters >or their children? of Josefa &elgado at the time of her death.

Together ith Guillermo 6ustia, they are entitled to inherit from Josefa &elgado in

accordance ith 2rticle 9779 of the ne Civil Code.

T0 L+3/ H0 O3 G/0*6 R/+

Intervenor >no co4respondent? Guillerma 6ustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo

6ustia. 2s such, she may %e entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an

admission or recognition of paternity. )he, hoever, claimed the status of an

ac3noledged illegitimate child of Guillermo 6ustia only +30 the death of the latter on

Fe%ruary B, 901+ at hich time it as already the ne Civil Code that as in effect.

There as apparently no dou%t that she possessed the status of an illegitimate child

from her %irth until the death of her putative father Guillermo 6ustia. $oever, this did

not constitute ac3noledgment %ut a $ere /round ' &c& s&e could &ave co$pelled

ac6noled/$en &rou/& &e cours. Furthermore, any >!udicial? action for compulsory

ac3noledgment has a dual limitation the lifetime of the child and the lifetime of the

putative parent. @n the death of either, the action for compulsory recognition can no

longer %e filed. In this case, intervenor GuillermaEs right to claim compulsory

ac3noledgment prescri%ed upon the death of Guillermo 6ustia on Fe%ruary B, 901+.

The claim of voluntary recognition >GuillermaEs second ground? must li3eise fail. 2n

authentic riting, for purposes of voluntary recognition, is understood as a genuine or

indu%ita%le riting of the parent >in this case, Guillermo 6ustia?. This includes a pu%lic

instrument or a private riting admitted %y the father to %e his. &id intervenorEs report

card from the 8niversity of )anto Tomas and Josefa &elgadoEs o%ituary prepared %y

Guillermo 6ustia ualify as authentic ritings under the ne Civil CodeK 8nfortunately

not. The report card of intervenor Guillerma did not %ear the signature of Guillermo

6ustia. The fact that his name appears there as intervenorEs parentDguardian holds no

eight since he had no participation in its preparation. )imilarly, hile itnessestestified that it as Guillermo 6ustia himself ho drafted the notice of death of Josefa

&elgado hich as pu%lished in the )unday Times on )eptem%er 97, 901, that

pu%lished o%ituary as not the authentic riting contemplated %y the la. 'hat could

have %een admitted as an authentic riting as the original manuscript of the notice, in

the handriting of Guillermo 6ustia himself and signed %y him, not the nespaper



17/53

clipping of the o%ituary. The failure to present the original signed manuscript as fatal to

intervenorEs claim.

The same misfortune %efalls the a$pun-a$punan, Guillermina 6ustia 6ustia, ho as

never adopted in accordance ith la. 2lthough a petition for her adoption as filed %y

Guillermo 6ustia, it never came to fruition and as dismissed upon the latterEs death.

'e affirm the ruling of %oth the trial court and the Court of 2ppeals holding her a legal

stranger to the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit from them a'

nesao

Premises considered, e rule that to of the claimants to the estate of Guillermo

6ustia, namely, intervenor Guillerma 6ustia and the a$pun-a$punan Guillermina

6ustia 6ustia, are not laful heirs of the decedent. 8nder 2rticle 977 of the ne Civil

Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving

spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.

Therefore, the laful heirs of Guillermo 6ustia are the remaining claimants, consisting

of his sisters, nieces and nephes.

E0*0 T6 L00 O3 A8*+6

2n administrator is a person appointed %y the court to administer the intestate estate of

the decedent. 6ule 1B, )ection * of the 6ules of Court prescri%es an order of

preference in the appointment of an administrator

)ec. *. 7&en and o &o$ leers o! ad$nsraon /raned . If no e"ecutor is named

in the ill, or the e"ecutor or e"ecutors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give a

%ond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall %e granted

>a? To the surviving hus%and or ife, as the case may %e, or ne"t of 3in, or %oth,

in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving hus%and or

ife, or ne"t of 3in, reuests to have appointed, if competent and illing to serve

>%? If such surviving hus%and or ife, as the case may %e, or ne"t of 3in, or the

person selected %y them, %e incompetent or unilling, or if the hus%and or ido

or ne"t of 3in, neglects for thirty >;7? days after the death of the person to applyfor administration or to reuest that the administration %e granted to some other

person, it may %e granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent

and illing to serve

>c? If there is no such creditor competent and illing to serve, it may %e granted

to such other person as the court may select.



18/53

In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the

estate of the one to %e appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the

appointment of co4administrators, specially in cases here!ustice and euity demand

that opposing parties or factions %e represented in the management of the estates, a

situation hich o%tains here.

It is in this light that e see fit to appoint !oint administrators, in the persons of Carlota

&elgado vda de de la 6osa and a nominee of the nephes and nieces of Guillermo

6ustia. They are the ne"t of 3in of the deceased spouses Josefa &elgado and Guillermo

6ustia, respectively.

CASE NO. "BITUIN,REMY ROSE ANN S.

MAR'UEZ VS. CAG.R. NO. 125&15 : DECEMBER 29, 199"

FACTS# &uring the lifetime of spouses 6afael :arue#, )r. and Felicidad :arue# they%egot telve children they also acuired a parcel of land ith a lot area of 9*9 suaremeters in )an Juan &el :onte, 6i#al, more particularly descri%ed in TCT =o.+1/1,herein they constructed their con!ugal home.

In 90/, Felicidad :arue# died intestate. Thirty years later or in 90B, 6afael :arue#,)r. e"ecuted an 2ffidavit of 2d!udication vesting unto himself sole onership to theproperty descri%ed in TCT =o. +1/1. Conseuently, TCT =o. +1/1 as cancelled andTCT =o. ;;;/7 as issued in his name on June 9*, 90B. Thereafter, on &ecem%er 0,90B; 6afael :arue#, Jr. e"ecuted a &eed of &onation Inter Vivos covering the landdescri%ed in TCT =o. ;;;/7 as ell as the house constructed thereon to three of hischildren, namely >9? petitioner 6afael Jr. >? 2lfredo and >;? elen, %oth privaterespondents herein, to the e"clusion of his other children, petitioners herein. 2s a resultof the donation, TCT =o. ;;;/7 as cancelled and TCT =o. +1/1 as issued inprivate respondents name.

From 90B; to 9009, private respondents ere in actual possession of the land.$oever, hen petitioners learned a%out the e"istence of TCT =o. +1/1 theyimmediately demanded that since they are also the children of 6afael :arue#, )r.,they are entitled to their respective share over the land in uestion. 8nfortunately, effortsto settle the dispute proved unavailing since private respondents ignored petitionersdemands.

PetitionersE alleged that %oth the 2ffidavit of 2d!udication and &eed of &onation Inter



19/53

Vivos ere fraudulent since the private respondents too3 advantage of the advancedage of their father in ma3ing him e"ecute the said documents.

@n the other hand, private respondents argued that petitioners action as already%arred %y the statute of limitations, since the same should have %een filed ithin four years from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud.

2fter due proceedings, the trial court on 2pril 0, 900;, rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners, in this ise

Prescription cannot set in %ecause an action to set aside a document hich is void a'no does not prescri%e. oth the 2ffidavit of 2d!udication and the &onation Inter Vivosdid not produce any legal effect and did not confer any right hatsoever. Aually,Transfer Certificate of Title =o. ;;;/7 and +*+*9 issued pursuant thereto, are li3eisenull and void a' no. Therefore, the ine"istence of these documents and certificates of title is permanent and cannot %e the su%!ect of prescription.

The C2 reversed the aforementioned decision. $ence, the petitonersE herein are no%efore this Court to raise the issue of hether their action for reconveyance hadprescri%ed.

ISSUE# 'hether or =ot the heirs of the decedent Felicidad can still file an action for reconveyance representing their rightful shares as an heir.

RULING# The action had not yet prescri%ed. It must %e noted that Felicidad :arue#died in 90/ thus, succession to her estate is governed %y the present Civil Code.8nder 2rticle BB1 thereof, her compulsory heirs are her legitimate children, petitionersand private respondent herein, and her spouse, 6afael :arue#, )r. =o, in 90B,6afael :arue#, )r. decided to ad!udicate the entire property %y e"ecuting an 2ffidavit

of 2d!udication claiming that he is the only sole and surviving heir of his deceased ifeFelicidad F. :arue#.

2s such, hen 6afael :arue#, )r., for one reason or another, misrepresented in hisunilateral affidavit that he as the only heir of his ife hen in fact their children erestill alive, and managed to secure a transfer of certificate of title under his name, aconstructive trust under 2rticle 9+/* as esta%lished. Constructive trusts are created ineuity in order to prevent un!ust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against oneho, %y fraud, duress or a%use of confidence, o%tains or holds the legal right to propertyhich he ought not, in euity and good conscience, to hold.

Cogni#ant of the fact that the disputed land as con!ugal property of the spouses 6afael

)r. and Felicidad, onership of the same is to %e eually divided %eteen %oth of them.

Therefore, prescinding therefrom, 6afael :arue# )r., as trustee of his ifeEs sharecannot validly donate that portion to the respondents %ecause o%viously, he cannot, ase"pressly provided in 2rt. 1;* of the Civil Code, thus

2rt. 1;*. Guardian and trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to them.



20/53

:oreover, no%ody can dispose of that hich does not %elong to him.

CASE NO. 9%OSEPH BUSTAMANTE

GERONA ET AL. V. DE GUZMAN ET AL.G.R. NO. L-19$ MAY 29, 19$4

FACTS# Petitioners herein alleged that they ere the legitimate children of &omingo

Gerona and Placida de Gu#man, the latter as the legitimate daughter of :arcelo de

Gu#man %y his first marriage. They asserted that after the death of his first ife,

:arcelo married Camila 6amos, ho %egot him several children, referring to

respondents herein. 2ccordingly, after :arceloEs death, respondents e"ecuted a deed of

-e"tra4!udicial settlement of the estate of the deceased :arcelo %y fraudulently

misrepresenting that they ere the only surviving heirs of the deceased, although theyell 3ne that petitioners ere, also, his forced heirs. Further, petitioners alleged that

respondents had succeeded fraudulently in causing the transfer of title to seven >1?

parcels of land, issued in the name of said deceased and that such fraud as only

discovered %y them the year %efore the institution of the case. $ence, an action as

filed and sought from respondents their share over the said properties, to the e"tent of

9DBth interest thereon. 6espondents maintained that petitioners< mother, the deceased

Placida de Gu#man, as not entitled to share in the estate of :arcelo, she %eing merely

a spurious child of the latter, and that petitioners< action is %arred %y the statute of

limitations. 2fter appropriate proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision finding that

petitioners< mother as a legitimate child, %y first marriage, of :arcelo %ut ruled that the

properties descri%ed %elonged to the con!ugal partnership of :arcelo and his second

ife, Camila. Further, the court ruled that petitioners< action has already prescri%ed, and

dismissed the complaint. @n appeal, C2 affirmed the trial courtEs ruling.

ISSUE# 'hether the action prescri%ed.

RULING# (es. The Court ruled that generally, an action for partition among co4heirs

does not prescri%e, this is true only as long as the defendants do not hold the property

in uestion under an adverse title. The statute of limitations operates as in other cases,

from the moment such adverse title is asserted %y the possessor of the property.

'hen respondents e"ecuted the aforementioned deed of e"tra4!udicial settlementstating therein that they are the sole heirs of the late :arcelo, and secured ne transfer certificates of title in their on name, they there%y e"cluded the petitioners from theestate of the deceased, and, conseuently, set up a title adverse to them. 2nd this ishy petitioners have %rought this action for the annulment of said deed upon the groundthat the same is tainted ith fraud. Inasmuch as petitioners see3 to annul the



21/53

aforementioned deed of -e"tra4!udicial settlement- upon the ground of fraud in thee"ecution thereof, the action therefor may %e filed ithin four >+? years from thediscovery of the fraud. )uch discovery is deemed to have ta3en place, in the case at%ar, on June /, 90+B, hen said instrument as filed ith the 6egister of &eeds andne certificates of title ere issued in the name of respondents e"clusively, for the

registration of the deed of e"tra4!udicial settlement constitute constructive notice to thehole orld.

CASE NO. 1CATLI, FELY %ANE

CYNTHIA V. NITTSCHER VS DR. WERNER ;ARL %OHANN NITTSCHERG.R. NO. 1$5! NOVEMBER 2, 2&

FACTS# @n January ;9, 9007, &r. 'erner Marl Johann =ittscher filed ith the 6TC of :a3ati City a petition for the pro%ate of his holographic ill and for the issuance of letters testamentary to 2tty. 6ogelio P. =ogales. 2fter the hearing and ith due notice tothe compulsory heirs, the pro%ate court issued an order alloing the said holographic

ill.

@n )eptem%er *, 900+, &r. =ittscher died. $ence, 2tty. =ogales filed a petition for letters testamentary for the administration of the estate of the deceased. &r. =ittscherEssurviving spouse, Cynthia V. =ittscher, moved for the dismissal of the petition. $oever,the court denied petitionerEs motion to dismiss, and granted respondentEs petition for theissuance of letters testamentary.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, %ut her motion as denied for lac3 of merit. 2tty.=ogales as issued letters testamentary and as sorn in as e"ecutor. Petitioner appealed to the Court of 2ppeals alleging that respondentEs petition for the issuance of letters testamentary should have %een dismissed outright as the 6TC had no !urisdictionover the su%!ect matter and that she as denied due process.

Petitioner contends that respondentEs petition for the issuance of letters testamentarylac3ed a certification against forum shopping. )he adds that the 6TC has no !urisdictionover the su%!ect matter of this case %ecause &r. =ittscher as allegedly not a residentof the Philippines neither did he leave real properties in the country. Petitioner claimsthat the properties listed for disposition in her hus%andEs ill actually %elong to her. )he



22/53

insists she as denied due process of la %ecause she did not receive %y personalservice the notices of the proceedings.

6espondent 2tty. =ogales, hoever, counters that &r. =ittscher did reside and on real

properties in Las PiNas, :etro :anila. $e stresses that petitioner as duly notified of the pro%ate proceedings. 6espondent points out that petitioner even appeared in courtto oppose the petition for the issuance of letters testamentary and that she also filed amotion to dismiss the said petition. 6espondent maintains that the petition for theissuance of letters testamentary need not contain a certification against forum shopping,as it is merely a continuation of the original proceeding for the pro%ate of the ill.

ISSUE#

9. 'hether or not certification against non4forum shopping is reuired.

. 'hether or not the 6TC has !urisdiction over the su%!ect matter.

;. 'hether or not petitioner as not duly given notice.

RULING#

9. =oThe petition for the issuance of letters testamentary is not an initiatory pleading, %ut amere continuation of the original petition for the pro%ate of the ill. $ence, respondentEsfailure to include a certification against forum shopping in his petition for the issuance of letters testamentary is not a ground for outright dismissal of the said petition.

. (es

)ection 9, 6ule 1; of the 6ules of Court provides

)ACTI@= 9. 'here estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is aninha%itant of the Philippines at the time of his death, hether a citi#en or an alien, hisill shall %e proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in6egional Trial Court in the province in hich he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inha%itant of a foreign country, the 6egional Trial Court of any province in hichhe had estate. O >Amphasis supplied.?

The 6TC and the Court of 2ppeals as correct in finding that &r. =ittscher as aresident of Las PiNas, :etro :anila at the time of his death. $ence, &r. =ittscher correctly filed in the 6TC of :a3ati City, hich then covered Las PiNas, :etro :anila,the petition for the pro%ate of his ill and for the issuance of letters testamentary torespondent.



23/53

;. (es

&r. =ittscher as3ed for the alloance of his on ill. In this connection, )ection +, 6ule1* of the 6ules of Court states

)AC. +. $eirs, devisees, legatees, and e"ecutors to %e notified %y mail or

personally. O

If the testator as3s for the alloance of his on ill, notice shall %e sent only tohis compulsory heirs.

Petitioner, ith hom &r. =ittscher had no child, and &r. =ittscherEs children from hisprevious marriage ere all duly notified, %y registered mail, of the pro%ate proceedings.Petitioner even appeared in court to oppose respondentEs petition for the issuance of letters testamentary and she also filed a motion to dismiss the said petition. )heli3eise filed a motion for reconsideration of the issuance of the letters testamentaryand of the denial of her motion to dismiss. $ence, petitioner as accorded everyopportunity to defend her cause and as not denied of due process.

The alloance of her hus%andEs ill is conclusive only as to its due e"ecution. Theauthority of the pro%ate court is limited to ascertaining hether the testator, %eing of sound mind, freely e"ecuted the ill in accordance ith the formalities prescri%ed %yla. Thus, petitionerEs claim of title to the properties forming part of her hus%andEs estateshould %e settled in an ordinary action %efore the regular courts.

CASE NO. 11CERIA, MONALIZA G.

RAFAEL E. MANINANG AND SOLEDAD L. MANINANG VS. COURT OF APPEALS,HON. RICARDO L. PRONOVE, %R., AS %UDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRSTINSTANCE OF RIZAL AND BERNARDO S. ASENETAG.R. NO. L-5&"4" %UNE 19, 19"2

FACTS# @n :ay 9, 9011, Clemencia 2seneta, single, died at the :anila )anitarium$ospital at age B9. )he left a holographic ill declaring that all her real propertieslocated in :anila, :a3ati, ue#on City, 2l%ay and Legaspi City and all personalproperties shall %e inherited %y &ra. )oledad L. :aninang ith hose family she havelived continuously for around the last ;7 years. 2nd, stating that she is not incompetentas =onoy ould li3e her to appear and she does not consider =onoy as her adopted

son.

Petitioner )oledad :aninang filed a Petition for pro%ate of the 'ill of the decedent. Fedays after, herein respondent ernardo 2seneta >=onoy?, ho, as the adopted son,claims to %e the sole heir of decedent Clemencia 2seneta, instituted intestateproceedings. The Testate and Intestate Cases ere ordered consolidated.



24/53

6espondent ernardo then filed a :otion to &ismiss the Testate Case on the groundthat the holographic ill as null and void %ecause he, as the only compulsory heir, aspreterited. In her @pposition to said :otion to &ismiss, petitioner )oledad averred that itis still the rule that in a case for pro%ate of a 'ill, the CourtEs area of inuiry is limited toan e"amination of and resolution on the e"trinsic validity of the ill and that respondent

ernardo as effectively disinherited %y the decedent.

The loer Court ordered the dismissal of the Testate Case and denied thereconsideration and appointed ernardo as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Clemencia 2seneta.

Petitioners :aninang resorted to a Certiorari Petition %efore respondent Court of 2ppeals. The respondent Court denied Certiorari and ruled that the trial JudgeEs @rder of dismissal as final in nature as it finally disposed of the Testate Case and, therefore,appeal as the proper remedy, hich petitioners failed to avail of. Continuing, it saidthat even granting that the loer Court committed errors in issuing the uestioned@rders, those are errors of !udgment reviea%le only %y appeal and not %y Certiorari.

ISSUE# 'hether the loer Court acted in e"cess of its !urisdiction hen it dismissed theTestate Case.

RULING# Generally, the pro%ate of a 'ill is mandatory. The la en!oins the pro%ate of the 'ill and pu%lic policy reuires it, %ecause unless the 'ill is pro%ated and noticethereof given to the hole orld, the right of a person to dispose of his property %y 'illmay %e rendered nugatory.

=ormally, the pro%ate of a ill does not loo3 into its intrinsic validity. " " " Theauthentication of a ill decides no other uestion than such as touch upon the capacityof the testator and the compliance ith those reuisites or solemnities hich the la

prescri%es for the validity of ills. It does not determine nor even %y implication pre!udgethe validity or efficiency >sic? of the provisions, these may %e impugned as %eing viciousor null, notithstanding its authentication. The uestions relating to these points remainentirely unaffected, and may %e raised even after the ill has %een authenticated " " "

2s held in the case of Vda. de Precilla vs. =arciso, " " " it is as important a matter of pu%lic interest that a purported ill is not denied legali#ation on du%ious grounds.@therise, the very institution of testamentary succession ill %e sha3en to itsfoundation, " " "

Coming no to the procedural aspect, suffice it to state that in vie of our finding that

respondent Judge had acted in e"cess of his !urisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case,Certiorari is a proper remedy. 2n act done %y a Pro%ate Court in e"cess of its !urisdiction may %e corrected %y Certiorari. 2nd even assuming the e"istence of theremedy of appeal, e har3en to the rule that in the %roader interests of !ustice, a petitionfor Certiorari may %e entertained, particularly here appeal ould not afford speedy andadeuate relief.



25/53

CASE NO. 12CHAN, RICHARD P.

DANILO ALUAD, LEONORA ALUAD, DIVINA ALUAD, PROSPERO ALUAD, ANDCONNIE ALUAD VS. ZENAIDO ALUAD

G.R. NO. : DATE# G.R. NO. 1&$94! : OCTOBER 1&, 2"

FACTS# PetitionersE mother :aria and respondent Henaido 2luad ere raised %y thechildless spouses :atilde and Crispin 2luad. Crispin as the oner of si" lots in Capi#.

2fter Crispin died, his ife :atilde ad!udicated the lots to herself.

@n =ovem%er 9+, 90B9, :atilde e"ecuted a &eed of &onation in favor of :aria coveringall the lots, hich provided that it ill %ecome effective upon the death of the &onor, %utin the event that the &onee should die %efore the &onor, it shall %e deemed rescindedand that anytime during the lifetime of the &onor or anyone of them ho should survive,they could use, encum%er or even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of the land.

@n 2ugust *, 9009, :atilde sold one of the lots >Lot =o. *1*? to respondent Henaido.@n January 9+, 900, :atilde e"ecuted a last ill and testament, devising four lots to:aria and Lot =o. *1+ to respondent Henaido. :atilde died on January /, 900+, hile:aria died on )eptem%er + of the same year.

@n 2ugust 9, 900/, :ariaEs heirs filed %efore the 6TC a complaint for declaration andrecovery of onership and possession of Lot =os. *1+ and *1*, alleging that :atildecould not have transmitted any right over said lots to respondent, she having previouslyalienated them to :aria via the &eed of &onation.

The respondent alleged that he oned Lot *1+ as this lot as ad!udicated to him in theLast 'ill and Testament of :atilde hile Lot *1* as purchased %y him from :atilde.

@n )eptem%er 7, 900*, the trial court decided in favor of the petitioners. @n 2ugust97, 77*, the C2 reversed the trial courtEs decision, it holding that the &eed of &onationas actually a donation $ors causa, not ner vvos, and as such it had to, %ut did notcomply ith the formalities of a ill.

ISSUE# 'hether the &eed of &onation ner vvos in favor of petitionersE mother is infact a donation $ors causa

RULING# The Court finds the donation to petitionersE mother one of $ors causa, ithaving the folloing characteristics

>9? It conveys no title or onership to the transferee %efore the death of thetransferor or hat amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain theonership >full or na3ed? and control of the property hile alive



26/53

>? That %efore the death of the transferor, the transfer should %e revoca%le %y thetransferor at ill, ad nuu$ %ut revoca%ility may %e provided for indirectly %y means of areserved poer in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed and

>;? That the transfer should %e void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

The phrase in the earlier4uoted &eed of &onation -to %ecome effective upon the deathof the &@=@6- admits of no other interpretation than to mean that :atilde did notintend to transfer the onership of the si" lots to petitionersE mother during her >:atildeEs? lifetime.

The statement in the &eed of &onation reading -anytime during the lifetime of the&@=@6 or anyone of them ho should survive, they could use, encum%er or evendispose of any or even all the parcels of land herein donated- means that :atilderetained onership of the lots and reserved in her the right to dispose them. For theright to dispose of a thing ithout other limitations than those esta%lished %y la is an

attri%ute of onership. The phrase in the &eed of &onation -or anyone of them hoshould survive- is of course out of sync. For the &eed of &onation clearly stated that itould ta3e effect upon the death of the donor, hence, said phrase could only havereferred to the donor :atilde.

The donation %eing then $ors causa, the formalities of a ill should have %eeno%served %ut they ere not.

The &eed of &onation hich is one of $ors causa, not having folloed the formalitiesof a ill, it is void and transmitted no right to petitionersE mother. ut even assumingarguendo that the formalities ere o%served, since it as not pro%ated, no right to Lot

=os. *1+ and *1* as transmitted to :aria. :atilde thus validly disposed of Lot =o. *1+to respondent %y her last ill and testament, su%!ect of course to the ualification thather >:atildeEs? ill must %e pro%ated. 'ith respect to Lot =o. *1*, the same had, asmentioned earlier, %een sold %y :atilde to respondent on 2ugust *, 9009.

CASE NO. 1!CHENG, RENLYN B.

PABLO RALLA VS. HON. ROMULO P. UNTALAN, HON. DOMINGO CORONELREYES, AND LEONIE RALLA, PETER RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLAG.R. NOS. L-$!25!-54 APRIL 2&, 19"9

FACTS# @n January 1, 90/0, 6osendo 6alla, a idoer, filed a petition for the pro%ateof his on ill in the Court of First Instance of 2l%ay >)pecial Proceedings =o. /*+?. Inhis ill he left his entire estate to his son, Pa%lo leaving nothing to his other son, Pedro.In the same year, Pedro 6alla filed an action for the partition of the estate of their mother, Pa# Ascarella.



27/53

In the course of the hearing of the pro%ate case >)pecial Proceedings =o. /*+?, Pa%lo6alla filed a motion to dismiss the petition for pro%ate on the ground that he as nolonger interested in the alloance of the ill of his late father, 6osendo 6alla, for itspro%ate ould no longer %e %eneficial and advantageous to him. @n the scheduledhearing on =ovem%er ;, 90**, the petitioner reiterated his lac3 of interest in the pro%ate

of the su%!ect ill. Conseuently, the court, through Judge Perfecto uicho, declaredPedro and Pa%lo 6alla the only heirs of 6osendo 6alla ho should share eually uponthe division of the latterCivil Case =o.7;?. @n &ecem%er 9B, 90*1, they entered into a pro!ect of partition here%y si"ty4three parcels of land, apparently forming the estate of their deceased mother, Pa#Ascarella, ere amica%ly divided %eteen the to of them. This pro!ect of partition asapproved on &ecem%er 90,90*1 %y Judge A#e3iel Grageda.

Aleven years later, Joauin Chancoco, %rother4in4 la of Pa%lo filed a petition, for the

pro%ate of the same ill of 6osendo 6alla on the ground that the decedent oed himP/,777.77. Pa%lo 6alla then filed a manifestation stating that he had no o%!ections tothe pro%ate. Li3eise, the petition for pro%ate as granted Teodorico 2lmine, son4in4la of the petitioner, as appointed special administrator, over and a%ove the o%!ectionof the heirs of Pedro 6alla. $oever, in ta3ing possession of the properties %elonging tothe estate of 6osendo 6alla, Teodorico 2lmine also too3 possession of the si"ty4threeparcels of land covered %y the pro!ect of partition mentioned earlier. Conseuently, theheirs of Pedro 6alla >the private respondents herein? moved to e"clude from the estateof 6osendo 6alla the aforesaid parcels of land.

ISSUE# 'hether the parcels of lands in uestion should %e e"cluded from the pro%ate

proceedings.

RULING# (es. The properties involved in the present petition ere the su%!ect of thepro!ect of partition signed %y %oth the petitioner, Pa%lo 6alla, and Pedro 6alla in CivilCase =o. 7; the loer court approved the said pro!ect of partition on &ecem%er 90,90*1 su%seuently, Pa%lo and Pedro 6alla !ointly manifested that they had alreadyreceived -the onership and possession of the respective parcels of land ad!udicated tothem in the said pro!ect of partition,- and upon their motion Judge A#e3iel Gragedadeclared the partition case closed and terminated in its @rder of &ecem%er 0, 90*1there as no appeal made from this decision ithin the reglementary period to do so,conseuently, it attained finality.

'here a partition had not only %een approved and thus %ecome a !udgment of thecourt, %ut distri%ution of the estate in pursuance of such partition had fully %een carriedout, and the heirs had received the property assigned to them, they are precluded fromsu%seuently attac3ing its validity or any part of it. 'here a piece of land has %eenincluded in a partition, and there is no allegation that the inclusion as effected throughimproper means or ithout the petitioners< 3noledge, the partition %arred any further litigation on said title and operated to %ring the property under the control and



28/53

!urisdiction of the court for proper disposition according to the tenor of the partition . . .They cannot attac3 the partition collaterally, as they are trying to do in this case.

The partition in Civil Case =o. 7; is valid and %inding upon the petitioner and Pedro6alla, as ell as upon their heirs, especially as this as accompanied %y delivery of possession to them of their respective shares in the inheritance from their mother, thelate Pa# Ascarella.

CASE NO. 14

CHU, LEA MONA P.

DIONISIO FERNANDEZ, EUSEBIO REYES +8 LUISA REYES


29/53

of the late enedicta de los 6eyes -unaffected and unrevo3ed %y the deeds of sale.-'hereupon, the oppositors elevated the case to the Court of 2ppeals.

The C2 held that the order admitting the ill to pro%ate had %ecome final for lac3 of

opportune appeal that the same as appeala%le independently of the issue of implied

revocation that contrary to the claim of oppositors4appellants, there had %een no legalrevocation %y the e"ecution of the 90+; and 90++ deeds of sale, %ecause the latter had

%een made in favor of the legatee herself, and affirmed the decision of the Court of First

Instance.

@ppositors then appealed %efore the )upreme Court. @ppositors4appellants contend

that the order alloing the ill to pro%ate should %e considered interlocutory, %ecause it

fails to resolve the issues of estoppel and revocation propounded in their opposition.

They argue that they ere entitled to aait the trial Court


30/53

not affect the ill itself, %ut merely the particular devise or legacy. @nlythe total and a%solute revocation can preclude pro%ate of the revo3ed testament.

. 2s to the issue of estoppel, e have already ruled in Guevara vs. Guevara, 0B Phil.+0, that the presentation and pro%ate of a ill are reuirements of pu%lic policy, %eingprimarily designed to protect the testator


31/53

9. 'hether or not the pro%ate court may rule on the nrnsc validity or efficacy of the

provisions of the ill, the legality of any devise or legacy therein.

. 'hether or not the institution of one of the sister of the deceased as the sole,

universal heir preterited the compulsory heirs.

RULING#

1. The case is for the pro%ate of a ill. The court


32/53

Preterition -consists in the omission in the testator


33/53

ee3 for three >;? consecutive ee3s. $oever, on the date of the hearing, no oppositor

appeared. @n the same day, private respondent presented his evidence e-pare and

placed 2rturo 2rceo one of the testamentary itnesses, on the itness stand. &uring

the proceedings, private respondent as appointed e"ecutor.

The herein petitioners alleged that as named legatees, no notices ere sent to them as

reuired %y )ec. +, 6ule 1* of the 6ules of Court and that they pray that they %e given a

period of ten >97? days to file their opposition to the pro%ate of the ill. Further, they

allege that personal notice of pro%ate proceedings to the 3non legatees and devisees

is a !urisdictional reuirement in the pro%ate of a ill.

ISSUE# '@= the reuirement of notice on individual heirs, legatees and devisees is

mandatory

RULING In the herein case (A). It is clear from the rules of court that notice of the

time and place of the hearing for the alloance of a ill shall %e forarded to the

designated or other 3non heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at

their places of residence, if such places of residence %e 3non. There is no uestion

that the residences of herein petitioners legatees and devisees ere 3non to the

pro%ate court. The petition for the alloance of the ill itself indicated the names and

addresses of the legatees and devisees of the testator. ut despite such 3noledge,

the pro%ate court did not cause copies of the notice to %e sent to petitioners. The

reuirement of the la for the alloance of the ill as not satisfied %y mere pu%lication

of the notice of hearing for three >;? ee3s in a nespaper of general circulation in the

province.

CASE NO. 1"

HINGPES, MAR; %OSEPH BA%ADO



34/53

NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALICIA D. NERI-MONDE%AR, VISMINDA D. NERI-

CHAMBERS, ROSA D. NERI-MILLAN, DOUGLAS D. NERI, EUTROPIA D. ILLUT-

COC;INOS AND VICTORIA D. ILLUT-PIALA VS. HEIRS OF HAD%I YUSOP UY AND

%ULPHA> IBRAHIM UY

G.R. NO. 194!$$ OCTOBER 1, 212

FACTS# 2nunciacion =eri had seven children, to >? from her first marriage ith

Gon#alo Illut >Gon#alo?, namely Autropia and Victoria, and five >/? from her second

marriage ith Anriue =eri >Anriue?, namely =apoleon, 2licia, Visminda, &ouglas and

6osa. Throughout the marriage of spouses Anriue and 2nunciacion, they acuired

several homestead properties.

2nunciacion died intestate and thereafter her hus%and, Anriue, in his personal

capacity and as natural guardian of his minor children 6osa and &ouglas, together ith

=apoleon, 2licia, and Vismindae"ecuted an A"tra4Judicial )ettlement of the Astate ith

2%solute &eed of )ale ad!udicating among themselves the said homestead properties,

and thereafter, conveying them to the late spouses $ad!i (usop 8y and Julpha I%rahim

8y >spouses 8y?.

The children of Anriue filed a complaint for annulment of sale of the said homestead

properties against spouses 8y. The complaint as later amended to include Autropia

and Victoriaas additional plaintiffs for having %een e"cluded and deprived of their

legitimes as children of 2nunciacion from her first marriage.

ISSUE:S# 'hether or not the e"tra4!udicial settlement is valid.

RULING# =o. It %ears to stress that all the petitioners herein are indisputa%ly legitimate

children of 2nunciacion from her first and second marriages ith Gon#alo and Anriue,

respectively, and conseuently, are entitled to inherit from her in eual shares, pursuant

to 2rticles 010 and 0B7 of the Civil Code hich read

26T. 010. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents andother ascendants, ithout distinction as to se" or age, and even if they should comefrom different marriages.

26T. 0B7. The children of the deceased shall alays inherit from him in their onright, dividing the inheritance in eual shares.

2s such, upon the death of 2nunciacion on )eptem%er 9, 9011, her children andAnriue acuired their respective inheritances.



35/53

$ence, in the e"ecution of the A"tra4Judicial )ettlement of the Astate ith 2%solute&eed of )ale in favor of spouses 8y, all the heirs of 2nunciacion should haveparticipated. Considering that Autropia and Victoria ere admittedly e"cluded and thatthen minors 6osa and &ouglas ere not properly represented therein, the settlementas not valid and %inding uponthem and conseuently, a total nullity.

)ection 9, 6ule 1+ of the 6ules of Court provides

)ACTI@= 9. 9raudcal sele$en ' a/ree$en 'eeen &ers

The fact of the e"tra!udicial settlement or administration shall %e pu%lished in anespaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the ne"t succeeding section%ut no e"tra!udicial settlement shall %e %inding upon any person ho has notparticipated therein or had no notice thereof. >8nderscoring added?

The effect of e"cluding the heirs in the settlement of estate as further elucidated

in 1e/ura v 1e/ura, thus

It is clear that )ection 9 of 6ule 1+ does not apply to the partition in uestion hich asnull and void as far as the plaintiffs ere concerned. The rule covers only validpartitions. The partition in the present case as invalid %ecause it e"cluded si" of thenine heirs ho ere entitled to eual shares in the partitioned property. 8nder the rule-no e"tra!udicial settlement shall %e %inding upon any person ho has not participatedtherein or had no notice thereof.- 2s the partition as a total nullity and did not affect thee"cluded heirs, it as not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challengethe partition had prescri%ed after to years from its e"ecutionO

CASE NO. 19

%UAN, MA. BARBARA RAIZZA %.

NOLI ALFONSO AND ERLINDA FUNDIALAN VS SPOUSES HENRY AND LIWANAGANDRESG.R. NO.1$$2!$ %ULY 29, 21

FACTS# 6espondents )pouses $enry and Lianag 2ndres filed a complaint for accion

pu%liciana ith damages against petitioners )pouses 6eynaldo and Arlinda Fundialan.The 6egional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the respondents ordering thepetitioners to vacate the premises located at ;* General Luna )t. &ulong%ayan, )an:ateo, 6i#al.

8pon appeal to the Court of 2ppeals >C2?, the petitioners ere directed to fileappellants< %rief ithin +/ days from receipt of the notice. $oever, %efore the +/ dayse"pired, the counsel for the petitioners filed a :otion to 'ithdra 2ppearance. The



36/53

petitioners themselves filed several e"tensions ithin hich to file their %rief. $oever,despite the e"tension until :arch /, 77+, the petitioners still failed to file their %rief andcause the Antry of 2ppearance of their ne counsel. The C2 dismissed the the appealfiled %y the petitioners.

@n )eptem%er *, 77+, the Pu%lic 2ttoryneys @ffice filed their :otion for

6econsideration hich reuested for a fresh period ithin hich to file the appellantJose? could validlytransfer the su%!ect property. The Court is not convinced. In Aleandrno v Cour o!

Appeals, the Court upheld the effectivity of a deed of e"tra!udicial settlement that as

neither notari#ed nor pu%lished.

)ignificantly, the title of the property oned %y a person ho dies intestate passes atonce to his heirs. )uch transmission is su%!ect to the claims of administration and theproperty may %e ta3en from the heirs for the purpose of paying de%ts and e"penses, %utthis does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate,from himself to his heirs. The deed of e"tra!udicial settlement e"ecuted %y Filomena)antos Vda. de 2lfonso and Jose evidences their intention to partition the inheritedproperty. It delineated hat portion of the inherited property ould %elong to hom.

The sale to respondents as made after the e"ecution of the deed of e"tra!udicialsettlement of the estate. The e"tra!udicial settlement of estate, even though not

pu%lished, %eing deemed a partition of the inherited property, Jose could validly transfer onership over the specific portion of the property that as assigned to him.

The records sho that Jose did in fact sell to respondents the su%!ect property. Thedeed of sale e"ecuted %y Jose in favor of the respondents %eing a pu%lic document, isentitled to full faith and credit in the a%sence of competent evidence that its e"ecutionas tainted ith defects and irregularities that ould arrant a declaration of nullity. 2sfound %y the 6TC, petitioners failed to prove any defect or irregularities in the e"ecution



37/53

of the deed of sale. They failed to prove %y strong evidence, the alleged lac3 of consentof Jose to the sale of the su%!ect real property. 2s found %y the 6TC, although Jose assuffering from partial paralysis and could no longer sign his name, there is no shoingthat his mental faculties ere affected in such a ay as to negate the e"istence of hisvalid consent to the sale, as manifested %y his thum%mar3 on the deed of sale. The

records sufficiently sho that he as capa%le of %oarding a tricycle to go on trips %yhimself. )ufficient testimonial evidence in fact shos that Jose as3ed respondents to%uy the su%!ect property so that it could %e ta3en out from the %an3 to hich it asmortgaged. This fact evinces that JoseEs mental faculties functioned intelligently.

CASE NO. 2NOCON, AUDREY ROSE S.

CORNELIA BALADAD VS SERGIO A. RUBLICOG.R. NO. 1$&4! AUGUST 4, 29 FACTS# To parcels of land located in then called the :unicipality of :a3ati, Provinceof 6i#al ere registered in the name of Julian 2ngeles. Julian and Cora#on got married.Julian as already */ years old then, hile Cora#on as already *1. 2t that time,Cora#on already had a son, respondent )ergio 2. 6u%lico, %y Teofilo 6u%lico .2fter Teofilos death, Cora#on coha%ited ith Panfilo de Jesus and then, later, ith Julian.Julian died leaving no compulsory heirs e"cept his ife and his %rother, Apitacio. 'hileon her death %ed, Cornelia as surrounded %y four individuals to notari#e a deed

entitled A"tra!udicial )ettlement of Astate ith 2%solute )ale. In his testimony, 2tty.Francisco said that Cora#on imprinted her thum%mar3 on the document after he readand e"plained the contents thereof in Tagalog to her. In said document, Cora#on andApitacio ad!udicated unto themselves the to lots registered in the name of Julian iththree4fourths of the property going to Cora#on and the remaining one4fourth >? toApitacio. The document also stated that %oth Cora#on and Apitacio conveyed %y ay of a%solute sale %oth their shares in the said lots in favor of Cornelia, Apitacios daughter,in e"change for the amount of P971,1/7.77. Cora#ons thum%mar3 as imprinted at the%ottom of the said deed. To days later, Cora#on passed aay. 6espondent )ergioe"ecuted an 2ffidavit of 2d!udication %y )ole $eir of Astate of &eceased Personad!udicating unto himself the same parcels of land hich had %een su%!ect of the deed

of sale %eteen Cora#on and Cornelia. )ergio filed a petition for reconstitution of theoners copy of TCT. The petition as granted. )ergio sold the to lots to spousesLaureano and Felicidad (upano for P977,777.77. )ergios certificate of title ascancelled and TCTas issued in favor of the (upanos. :eanhile, there ere sevenfamilies ho occupied the lots and paid rentals to Julian and, later, to Cora#on. 2fter Cora#ons death, they paid rentals. 'hen the (upanos demanded payment of rentalsfrom the tenants, the latter filed a complaint for interpleader on :a3ati 6TC rendered a&ecision, declaring the (upanos as the legal and laful oners of the to lots. Cornelia



38/53

argued that )ergio 3ne of the sale made %y Cora#on in her favor and as even givenpart of the proceeds. Cornelia also averred that the (upanos could not %e considered as%uyers in good faith, %ecause they only lived a %loc3 from the disputed properties andhad 3noledge that the to lots had %een sold to Cornelia prior to Cora#ons death.6espondents argued that the A"tra!udicial )ettlement ith 2%solute )ale could not have

%een e"ecuted %ecause at the time, Cora#on as already dying. :a3ati 6TC ruled infavor of Cornelia. C2 reversed the 6TC ruling. ISSUE# 'hether or not the A"tra!udicial )ettlement of Astate ith 2%solute )alepurportedly e"ecuted %y Cora#on prior to her death is valid. RULING# (es. The A"tra!udicial )ettlement of Astate ith 2%solute )ale e"ecuted %yCora#on and Apitacio through the latters attorney4in4fact, Vicente 2ngeles, parta3es of the nature of a contract. To %e precise, the said document contains to contracts, to itthe e"tra!udicial ad!udication of the estate of Julian 2ngeles %eteen Cora#on andApitacio as Julians compulsory heirs, and the a%solute sale of the ad!udicatedproperties to Cornelia. 'hile contained in one document, the to are severa%le andeach can stand on its on. $ence, for its validity, each must comply ith the reuisitesprescri%ed in 2rticle 9;9B of the Civil Code, namely >9? consent of the contractingparties >? o%!ect certain, hich is the su%!ect matter of the contract and >;? cause of the o%ligation hich is esta%lished. &uring the trial, respondents argued that the document as not valid %ecause at thetime it as e"ecuted, Cora#on as already ea3 and could not have voluntarily givenher consent thereto. @ne of the itnesses for the defense even testified that it asVicente ho placed Cora#ons thum%print on a %lan3 document, hich later turned outto %e the A"tra!udicial 2d!udication ith 2%solute )ale. The 2ffidavit of 2d!udication %y)ole $eir of Astate of &eceased person e"ecuted %y )ergio 6u%lico to %e void and

ithout any effect. The sale made %y him to spouses (upano is, li3eise, declared nulland void.

CASE NO. 21

OLAYTA, %ESTER ;UTCH A.

TAYCO VS HEIRS OF CONCEPCION TAYCO-FLORES

G.R. NO. 1$"$92 DECEMBER 1!, 21



39/53

FACTS# 2fter the death of deceased spouse Fortunato Tayco and &iega 6egalado,

their children inherited several parcel of land. )u%seuently, Francisco Tayco and

Consolacion Tayco e"ecuted a deed of A"tra!udicial )ettlement of the estate of

deceased &iega 6egalado ith confirmation of sale of shares transferring their shares

on the properties to their sister Concepcion Tayco4Flores. The said document as

notari#ed. Later Concepcion and Consolacion e"ecuted the confirmation of uitclaim of

)hares in the ; parcel of lands. 2fterards Consolacion and Concepcion died one after

the other.

Therafter, petitioner Francisco filed a case for nullity of documents and partition ith

damages ith the 6TC. $e claimed that the documents e"ecuted a%ove are null and

void. $e alleged that at the time the deed of e"tra!udicial settlememt as e"ecuted,

Concepcion as in need or money and anted the properties t3 %e mortgaged to the

%an3. $oever the mortgage did not push through and reuested his sister to cancel

the deed hich ensured him that the document had no effect. Further, he claimed thathe has no 3noledge on the e"ecution of the confirmation of the uitclaim of shares

%eteen his sisters hich covered the ; parcel of lands and had the ta" declaration and

certificates under the name of Concepcion. $e alleged that he only came to 3no of the

said facts after he had the properties surveyed for the purpose of partition and some

heirs of Concepcion o%!ected to the survey.

The 6TC ruled in favor of petitioner holding that the e"tra!udicial settlement is a

simulated document to ma3e it appear that Concepcion Tayco4Flores as the oner of

the properties, so that it ould %e easy for her to use the same as a collateral for a

prospective loan and as evidence disclosed that the intended loan ith any financialinstitution did not materiali#e, hence, the document had no more effect @n appeal, the

C2 reversed the 6TC decision on the ground that t the genuineness and due e"ecution

of the A"tra!udicial )ettlement as not disputed and as duly signed %y the parties and

notari#ed. It added that the recital of the provisions of the said document is clear that it

is an e"tra!udicial settlement of the estate of deceased &iega 6egalado and that

petitioner and his sister Consolacion confirmed the sale of their shares to Concepcion.

$ence this petition,

ISSUE# Can the &eed of A"tra!udicial )ettlement of the Astate of the deceased &iega

6egalado ith confirmation of sale of shares divest co4heir and co4oner FranciscoTayco of his shares in the three >;? parcels of land in uestionK

RULING# The Court held in the negative. Preliminarily, the case falls under the

e"ception here a uestion of fact may %e %rought %efore the court since there are

contradicting findings %eteen the C2 and 6TC, Thus a revie of the facts can %e done

%y the court.



40/53

2nent the issue of the validity of the documents, section 9, 6ule 1+ of the 6ules of

Court provides that The fact of the e"tra!udicial settlement or administration shall

%e ?/@08 + 0?+?0 63 700+ /+6 in the manner provided in the

ne"t succeeding section %ut no e"tra!udicial settlement shall %e %inding upon any

person ho has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. The act of notari#ing

the document hich should have the effect of ma3ing the document a pu%lic document

as a formal reuirement has %een superseded %y 2rt 97B of the Civil Code hich

states

26T. 97B. Avery act

assignment 2 compilation

Documents