haphazard wills digest june 26

8/21/2019 Haphazard Wills Digest June 26

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/haphazard-wills-digest-june-26 1/20

1

G.R. No. L-68053 May 7, 1990

LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDOALVAREZ, petitioners, vs. !E !ONORA"LE #NERMED#AEA$ELLAE %OUR and &E'U' YANE', E'EL#A YANE',ANON#O YANE', RO'AR#O YANE', and #LUM#NADOYANE', respondents.

Facts: The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as Lot

773-A and Lot 773-B which were originally known as Lot 773 of the

cadastral srvey of !rcia, "egros #ccidental. Lot 773, with an area of

$%&,%'( s)are *eters, was registered in the na*e of the heirs of Aniceto

+anes nder #riginal ertificate of Title "o. #-'% /0'1 issed on

#cto2er (, $($7 2y the egister of eeds of #ccidental "egros /45h. A1.

Aniceto +anes was srvived 2y his children, fino, Felipe and Teodora.6erein private respondents, 4stelita, l*inado and 8ess, are the children

of fino who died in $(&9 while the other private respondents, Antonio

and osario +anes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was srvived 2y her

child, 8ovita /8ovito1 Ali2. 1 t is not clear why the latter is not inclded as a

party in this case.

Aniceto left his children Lots 773 and 93. Teodora cltivated only three

hectares of Lot 93 as she cold not attend to the other portions of the two

lots which had a total area of arond twenty-for hectares. The record does

not show whether the children of Felipe also cltivated so*e portions of the

lots 2t it is esta2lished that fino and his children left the province to

settle in other places as a reslt of the ot2reak of orld ar . According

to 4stelita, fro* the ;8apanese ti*e p to peace ti*e;, they did not visit the

parcels of land in )estion 2t ;after li2eration;, when her 2rother went

there to get their share of the sgar prodced therein, he was infor*ed that

Fortnato <antiago, Fente2ella /=entevella1 and Alvare> were in

possession of Lot 773. (

t is on record that on !ay $(, $(3, Fortnato . <antiago was issed

Transfer ertificate of Title "o. F 9&(' /9(7(71 covering Lot 773-A with

an area of 37,$ s)are *eters. 3 TT "o. F 9&(' descri2es Lot 773-A as

a portion of Lot 773 of the cadastral srvey of !rcia and as originally

registered nder #T "o. 0'.

The 2igger portion of Lot 773 with an area of $$,3$ s)are *eters was

also registered in the na*e of Fortnato . <antiago on <epte*2er &, $(3

?nder TT "o. T-9&(% /9$(9 1. ) <aid transfer certificate of title also

contains a certification to the effect that Lot 773-B was originally registered

nder #T "o. 0'.

#n !ay 30, $(%%, <antiago sold Lots 773-A and 773-B to !onico B.

Fente2ella, 8r. in consideration of the s* of =7,000.00. 5

onse)ently, on

Fe2rary 90, $(%&, TT "os. T-$(9($ and T-$(9(9 were issed in

Fente2ella@s na*e. 6

After Fente2ella@s death and dring the settle*ent of his estate, the

ad*inistratri5 thereof /Arsenia . da. de Fente2ella, his wife1 filed in

<pecial =roceedings "o. '373 in the ort of First nstance of "egros

#ccidental, a *otion re)esting athority to sell Lots 773-A and 773-

B. 7 By virte of a cort order granting said *otion, 8 on !arch 9', $(%,

Arsenia da. de Fente2ella sold said lots for =&,000.00 to osendo

Alvare>. 9 6ence, on April $, $(% TT "os. T-93$&% and T-93$&&

covering Lots 773-A and 773-B were respectively issed to osendo

Alvare>. 10

Two years later or on !ay 9&, $(&0, Teodora +anes and the children of her

2rother fino, na*ely, 4stelita, l*inado and 8ess, filed in the ort of

First nstance of "egros #ccidental a co*plaint against Fortnato <antiago,

Arsenia da. de Fente2ella, Alvare> and the egister of eeds of "egros

#ccidental for the ;retrn; of the ownership and possession of Lots 773 and

93. They also prayed that an acconting of the prodce of the land fro*

$('' p to the filing of the co*plaint 2e *ade 2y the defendants, that after

cort approval of said acconting, the share or *oney e)ivalent de the



2

plaintiffs 2e delivered to the*, and that defendants 2e ordered to pay

plaintiffs =%00.00 as da*ages in the for* of attorney@s fees. 11

ring the pendency in cort of said case or on "ove*2er $3, $(&$,

Alvare> sold Lots 773-A, 773-B and another lot for =9%,000.00 to r.

odolfo <iason. 1(

Accordingly, TT "os. 30($( and 30(90 were issed to

<iason, 13 who thereafter, declared the two lots in his na*e for assess*ent

prposes. 1)

!eanwhile, on "ove*2er &, $(&9, 8ess +anes, in his own 2ehalf and in

2ehalf of the other plaintiffs, and assisted 2y their consel, filed a

*anifestation in ivil ase "o. %099 stating that the therein plaintiffs

;renonce, forfeit and )itclai*s / sic1 any clai*, *onetary or otherwise,

against the defendant Arsenia da. de Fente2ella in connection with the

a2ove-entitled case.; 15

6owever, e5ection of said decision proved nsccessfl with respect to

Lot 773. n his retrn of service dated #cto2er 90, $(&%, the sheriff stated

that he discovered that Lot 773 had 2een s2divided into Lots 773-A and

773-B that they were ;in the na*e; of odolfo <iason who had prchased

the* fro* Alvare>, and that Lot 773 cold not 2e delivered to the plaintiffs

as <iason was ;not a party per writ of e5ection.; 17

The e5ection of the decision in ivil ase "o. %099 having *et a

hindrance, herein private respondents /the +aneses1 filed on 8ly 3$, $(&%,

in the ort of First nstance of "egros #ccidental a petition for the

issance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nllity of TT

"os. T-93$&% and T-93$&& issed to osendo Alvare>. 18 Thereafter, the

cort re)ired odolfo <iason to prodce the certificates of title covering

Lots 773 and 93.

n $(&, the +aneses filed an ex-parte *otion for the issance of an alias

writ of e5ection in ivil ase "o. %099. <iason opposed it. (( n its order

of <epte*2er 9, $(& in ivil ase "o. %099, the lower cort, noting that

the +aneses had institted another action for the recovery of the land in

)estion, rled that at the Cdg*ent therein cold not 2e enforced against

<iason as he was not a party in the case. (3

The action filed 2y the +aneses on Fe2rary 9$, $(& was for recovery of

real property with da*ages. () "a*ed defendants therein were r. odolfo

<iason, Lara Alvare>, Flora Alvare>, ay*ndo Alvare> and the egister

of eeds of "egros #ccidental. The +aneses prayed for the cancellation of

TT "os. T-$(9($ and $(9(9 issed to <iason / sic1 for 2eing nll and void

the issance of a new certificate of title in the na*e of the +aneses ;in

accordance with the sheriffs retrn of service dated #cto2er 90, $(&%;

<iason@s delivery of possession of Lot 773 to the +aneses and if, delivery

thereof cold not 2e effected, or, if the issance of a new title cold not 2e

*ade, that the Alvare> and <iason Cointly and severally pay the +aneses the

s* of ='%,000.00. They also prayed that <iason render an acconting of

the frits of Lot 773 fro* "ove*2er $3, $(&$ ntil the filing of the

co*plaint and that the defendants Cointly and severally pay the +aneses*oral da*ages of =90,000.00 and e5e*plary da*ages of =$0,000.00 pls

attorney@s fees of =', 000.00. (5

n its decision of 8ly , $(7', the lower cort fond that odolfo <iason,

who prchased the properties in )estion thr an agent as he was then in

!e5ico prsing frther *edical stdies, was a 2yer in good faith for a

vala2le consideration. Althogh the +aneses were negligent in their failre

to place a notice of

lis pendens;2efore the egister of eeds of "egros

#ccidental in order to protect their rights over the property in )estion; in

ivil ase "o. %099, e)ity de*anded that they recover the actal vale of

the land 2ecase the sale thereof e5ected 2etween Alvare> and <iason was

withot cort approval.

sse: hether or not the lia2ility or lia2ilities of osendo Alvare> arising

fro* the sale of Lots "os. 773-A and 773-B of !rcia adastre to r.

odolfo <iason, if ever there is any, cold 2e legally passed or trans*itted

2y operations / sic1 of law to the petitioners withot violation of law and de

process



3

6eld : =etitioners frther contend that the lia2ility arising fro* the sale of

Lots "o. 773-A and 773-B *ade 2y osendo Alvare> to r. odolfo <iason

shold 2e the sole lia2ility of the late osendo Alvare> or of his estate, after

his death.

<ch contention is ntena2le for it overlooks the doctrine o2taining in this

Crisdiction on the general trans*issi2ility of the rights and o2ligations of

the deceased to his legiti*ate children and heirs. Ths, the pertinent

provisions of the ivil ode state:

Art. 77'. <ccession is a *ode of ac)isition 2y virte of

which the property, rights and o2ligations to the e5tent of

the vale of the inheritance, of a person are trans*itted

throgh his death to another or others either 2y his will or

2y operation of law.

Art. 77&. The inheritance incldes all the property, rights

and o2ligations of a person which are not e5tingished 2y

his death.

Art. $3$$. ontract stake effect only 2etween the parties,

their assigns and heirs e5cept in case where the rights and

o2ligations arising fro* the contract are not trans*issi2le

2y their natre, or 2y stiplation or 2y provision of law.

The heir is not lia2le 2eyond the vale of the property

received fro* the decedent.

The 2inding effect of contracts pon the heirs of the

deceased party is not altered 2y the provision of or les

of ort that *oney de2ts of a deceased *st 2e

li)idated and paid fro* his estate 2efore the reside is

distri2ted a*ong said heirs /le (1. The reason is that

whatever pay*ent is ths *ade fro* the state is

lti*ately a pay*ent 2y the heirs or distri2tees, since the

a*ont of the paid clai* in fact di*inishes or redces the

shares that the heirs wold have 2een entitled to receive.

?nder or law, therefore. the general rle is that a party@s

contractal rights and o2ligations are trans*issi2le to the

sccessors.

$*++on* /*n +* * o2 +* a+* Ro*ndo A4a*, +*y anno+*a* +* *a on**n* o2 +* 2a+*: +ana+on, ; a4** +o +* **n+ a< 2o da<a*. a+ *++on* dd no+ n*++* o*+y n4o4*d **n o2 no <o<*n+ /*a* /y *a 2+on,+* <on*+ay *4a*n+ +**o2 d*4o4*d n+o +* <a o2 +* 2a+*:**d+ay *+a+*, and ;* a4* *d +a+ +* **d+ay a*+ a*a;ay a/* n +* +o+a+y 2o +* ay<*n+ o2 +* d*/+ o2 +**+a+*. )(

#+ <+, o;*4*, /* <ad* *a +a+ *++on* a* a/* ony +o +**=+*n+ o2 +* 4a* o2 +* n*+an*.

G.R. No. 770(9 A+ 30, 1990

"#ENVEN#DO, E'EL#A, MA%AR#O, LU#', ADELA#DE,ENR#>U#A and %LAUD#O, a na<*d, GEVERO, petitioners, vs.

#NERMED#AE A$$ELLAE %OUR and DEL MONEDEVELO$MEN %OR$ORA#ON, respondents.

Facts: The parcel of land nder litigation is Lot "o. 9'7&

of the <2division =lan =sd-373&% containing an area of

90,$$( s)are *eters and sitated at Dsa, agayan de

#ro ity. <aid lot was ac)ired 2y prchase fro* the late

Lis Lancero on <epte*2er $%, $(&' as per eed of

A2solte <ale e5ected in favor of plaintiff and 2y virte

of which Transfer ertificate of Title "o. '390 was issed



4

to plaintiff /4L# for 2revity1. Lis Lancero, in trn

ac)ired the sa*e parcel fro* icardo Devero on

Fe2rary %, $(%9 per deed of sale e5ected 2y icardo

Devero which was dly annotated as entry "o. $$9 at the

2ack of #riginal ertificate of Title "o. 7&$0 covering the

*other lot identified as Lot "o. 9'7& in the na*es of

Teodorica Ba2angha E $9 share and her children: !aria

estitto, 4lena, icardo, 4sta)io and ?rsla, all

srna*ed srna*ed Devero, $9 ndivided share of the

whole area containing ',$99 s)are *eters.

Teodorica Ba2angha died long 2efore orld ar and

was srvived 2y her si5 children afore*entioned. The

heirs of Teodorica Ba2angha on #cto2er $7,$(&&

e5ected an 45tra-8dicial <ettle*ent and =artition of the

estate of Teodorica Ba2angha, consisting of two lots,a*ong the* was lot 9'7&. By virte of the e5tra-Cdicial

settle*ent and partition e5ected 2y the said heirs of

Teodorica Ba2angha, Lot 9'7&-A to Lot 9'7&-, inclsive,

nder s2division plan /L1 =sd-0'%0 dly approved

2y the Land egistration o**ission, Lot 9'7&-,

a*ong others, was adCdicated to icardo Devero who

was then alive at the ti*e of e5tra-Cdicial settle*ent and

partition in $(&&. =laintiff /private respondent herein1

filed an action with the F /now T1 of !isa*is

#riental to )iet title andor annl the partition *ade 2y

the heirs of Teodorica Ba2angha insofar as the sa*e

preCdices the land which it ac)ired a portion of lot

9'7&.

=laintiff now seeks to )iet title andor annl the partition

*ade 2y the heirs of Teodorica Ba2angha insofar as the

sa*e preCdices the land which it ac)ired, a portion of

Lot 9'7&. =laintiff proved that 2efore prchasing Lot

9'7&-A it first investigated and checked the title of Lis

Lancero and fond the sa*e to 2e intact in the office of

the egister of eeds of agayan de #ro ity. The sa*e

with the s2division plan /45h. ;B;1, the corresponding

technical description /45h. ;=;1 and the eed of <ale

e5ected 2y icardo Devero E all of which were fond

to 2e n)estiona2le. By reason of all these, plaintiff

clai*s to have 2oght the land in good faith and for vale,

occpying the land since the sale and taking over fro*

Lancero@s possession ntil !ay $(&(, when the

defendants A2adas forci2ly entered the property. / Rollo,

p. 931

sse: whether or not the $9 share of interest of Teodorica

Ba2angha in one of the litigated lots, lot no. 9'7& nder #T "o.

7&$0 is inclded in the deed of sale and 31 whether or not the

private respondents@ action is 2arred 2y laches.

6eld: =etitioners aver that the $9 share of interest of Teodorica /*other of

icardo1 in Lot 9'7& nder #T "o. 7&$0 was not inclded in the deed of

sale as it was intended to li*it solely to icardos@ proportionate share ot of

the ndivided $9 of the area pertaining to the si5 /&1 2rothers and sisters

listed in the Title and that the eed did not inclde the share of icardo, as

inheritance fro* Teodorica, 2ecase the eed did not recite that she was

deceased at the ti*e it was e5ected / Rollo, pp. &7-&1.

* **d+ay a* n a d**d*n+: *+a+* +an<++*d o 4*+*d<<*da+*y 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 +* d*a+ o2 +* ?aan+*? o*d**o n n+**+ @%4 %od* o2 +* $n*, A+. 777, and+** no *a /a +o a *o @;+ *+* on+a+n aa+ydon o2 **d+ay a* <<*da+*y a2+* d*a+, *4*n 2 +* a+a *=+*n+ o2 a* no+ d*+*<n*d n+ +* /**n+da+on o2 +* *+a+* @D* "oBa 4. Vda. d* "oBa, )6 '%RA %77

G$(79H1.



5

*odoa "a/ana d*d on /*2o* Cod Ca ##, *n*, +* ++o +* *on ;** +an<++*d 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 * d*a+. #+ +**2o* no*+ +o +a+* +a+ + ;a ony n 1966, +* da+* o2 *=+aBda a++on, ;*n Rado **4*d a* n +* o+ an*+an* 2o< <o+* *odoa. , ;*n Rado od

a* o4* o+ ()76 +a+ a* ; * n*+*d 2o< *odoa ;aao nd*d n* *=*y *=d*d n +* d**d o2 a*.

G.R. No. 89783 F*/ay 19, 199(

MAR#ANO ". LO%'#N, &UL#AN &. LO%'#N, &O'E ". LO%'#N,AUREA ". LO%'#N, MA#LDE L. %ORDERO, 'ALVADOR ".LO%'#N and MANUEL V. DEL RO'AR#O, petitioners, vs. !E !ON.%OUR OF A$$EAL', &O'E &AU%#AN, FLOREN#NO &AU%#AN,MER%EDE' &AU%#AN AR"OLEDA, !E#R' OF &O'EF#NA &.

"OR&A, !E#R' OF EDUARDO &AU%#AN and !E#R' OF V#%ENE&AU%#AN, respondents.

Facts: The late Detlio Locsin had three children na*ed !ariano, 8lian

and !agdalena, all srna*ed Locsin. 6e owned e5tensive residential and

agricltral properties in the provinces of Al2ay and <orsogon. 4ventally,

the properties of !ariano and atalina were 2roght nder the Torrens

<yste*. Those that !ariano inherited fro* his father, Detlio Locsin, were

srveyed cadastrally and registered in the na*e of ;!ariano Locsin,

*arried to atalina 8acian.@@ (

!ariano Locsin e5ected a Last ill and Testa*ent institting his wife,

atalina, as the sole and niversal heir of all his properties. 3 The will was

drawn p 2y his wife@s nephew and trsted legal adviser, Attorney <alvador

Lorayes. Attorney Lorayes disclosed that the sposes 2eing childless, they

had agreed that their properties, after 2oth of the* shall have died shold

revert to their respective sides of the fa*ily, i.e. , !ariano@s properties wold

go to his ;Locsin relatives; /i.e. , 2rothers and sisters or nephews and

nieces1, and those of atalina to her ;8acian relatives.; )

on !ariano Locsin died of cancer on <epte*2er $', $(' after a lingering

illness. n de ti*e, his will was pro2ated in <pecial =roceedings "o. $3,

F of Al2ay withot any opposition fro* 2oth sides of the fa*ily. As

directed in his will, oIa atalina was appointed e5ectri5 of his estate.

6er lawyer in the pro2ate proceeding was Attorney Lorayes. n the

inventory of her hs2and@s estate 5 which she s2*itted to the pro2ate cort

for approval, 6atalina declared that ;all ite*s *entioned fro* "os. $ to 33

are the private properties of the deceased and for* part of his capital at the

ti*e of the *arriage with the srviving spose, while ite*s "os. 3' to '9

are conCgal.; 7

Don Maano **d on Doa %a+ana +o ay o+ +* +*< o2 +*o<a+, *n*, nn* @9 y*a a2+* d*a+, a 2 n o/*d*n* +o 4o* 2o< +* a4*, and 2y onan+ +a+ * ;a ao ad4ann ny*a, Doa %a+ana /*an +an2*n, /y a*, dona+on o

an<*n+, Don Maano: a ;* a * o;n, o*+* +o +***+4* n**; and n**. '* <ad* +* 2oo;n a* anddona+on o2 o*+* ; * ad **4*d 2o< * /and:*+a+*, +o Lon n**; and n**.

For years 2efore her death, she had *ade a will on #cto2er 99, $(73

affir*ing and ratifying the transfers she had *ade dring her lifeti*e in

favor of her hs2and@s, and her own, relatives. After the reading of her will,

all the relatives agreed that there was no need to s2*it it to the cort for

pro2ate 2ecase the properties devised to the* nder the will had already

2een conveyed to the* 2y the deceased when she was still alive, e5cept

so*e legacies which the e5ector of her will or estate, Attorney <alvador

Lorayes, proceeded to distri2te.

#n 1989, o = @6 y*a a2+* Doa %a+ana: d*<*, o<* o2 *&aan n**; and n** ;o ad a*ady **4*d +* *a*and **d+ay a* 2o< * *+a+*, 2*d a+on n +* R*ona a%o+ o2 L*a %+y @"an V###, %4 %a* No. 715( +o *o4* +*o*+* ; * ad on4*y*d +o +* Lon dn * 2*+<*,a*n +a+ +* on4*yan* ;** no22o, ;+o+ ond*a+on,



6

and n+*nd*d o*y +o <4*n+ +* a; on *on. o* ;o;** o*+ +o Doa %a+ana dd no+ Bon +* a+on.

!*d * +a o+ and +* %o+ o2 A*a **d n d*an +*4a+* *ond*n+, n**; and n** o2 Doa %a+ana &. Vda. d*

Lon, *n++*d +o n*+ +* o*+* ; * ad a*adydo*d o2 <o* +an +*n @10 y*a /*2o* * d*a+. Fo +o*o*+* dd no+ 2o< a+ o2 * **d+ay *+a+*, i .e. , ?+* o*+yand +an</* + and o/a+on existing at the time of (the

decedent's) death and +o* ; a4* a*d +**+o n* +*o*nn o2 +* *on.? 10 * + +o a *on: *on a*+an<++*d 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 d*a+, and do no+ 4*+ n *n+ +<*. 11 $o*+y ; Doa %a+ana ad +an2**d oon4*y*d +o o+* *on dn * 2*+<* no on* 2o<*d a+ o2 * *+a+* a+ +* +<* o2 * d*a+ +o ; * * <ay aya<. !ad * d*d n+*+a+*, ony +* o*+y +a+ *<an*d n **+a+* a+ +* +<* o2 * d*a+ d*4o4*d +o * *a * and *4*n 2 +o* +an2* ;**, on* and a, +*a+*d a dona+on, +* + annd* *+an <+an* +o <n and o<* +* *d+on o*4oa+on o2 a d**d*n+: 2+ inter vivos do* no+ n* +o +**ond*n+ n* n*+* +*y no +* don** a* o<oy @o2o*d *. 1( For as early as 1957 , or twenty-eight /91 years 2efore her

death, oIa atalina had already 2egn transferring to her Locsin nephews

and nieces the properties which she received fro* on !ariano. There is

not the slightest sggestion in the record that oIa atalina was *entally

inco*petent when she *ade those dispositions. ndeed, how can any sch

sggestion 2e *ade in light of the fact that even as she was transferring properties to the Locsins, she was also conte*poraneosly disposing of her

other properties in favor of the 8aciansJ <he sold to her nephew, icente

8acian, on 8ly $&, $(&' /9$ years 2efore her death1 one-half /or %,000

s).*.1 of Lot 9090. Three years later, or on !arch 99, $(&7, she sold

another %000 s).*. of the sa*e lot to 8lian Locsin. This ort finds no

reason to dis2elieve Attorney Lorayes@ testi*ony that 2efore on !ariano

died, he and his wife /oIa atalina1, 2eing childless, had agreed that their

respective properties shold eventally revert to their respective lineal

relatives. As the trsted legal adviser of the sposes and a fll-2lood

nephew of oIa atalina, he wold not have spn a tale ot of thin air that

wold also preCdice his own interest.

G.R. No. 1(5835 &y 30, 1998

NAAL#A %AR$ENA O$ULEN%#A, petitioner, vs. %OUR OFA$$EAL', ALAD#N '#MUNDA% and M#GUEL OL#VAN, respondents.

Fa+ n a co*plaint for specific perfor*ance filed with the cort a

quo Gherein private respondentsH Aladin <i*ndac and !igel #liven

alleged that Gherein petitionerH "atalia arpena #plencia e5ected in their

favor a ;#"TAT T# <4LL; Lot 9$9% of the <ta. osa 4state,

consisting of 93,7&& s)are *eters located in <ta. osa, Lagna at =$%0.00

per s)are *eter that plaintiffs paid a downpay*ent of =300,000.00 2t

defendant, despite de*ands, failed to co*ply with her o2ligations nder thecontract. G=rivate respondentsH therefore prayed that GpetitionerH 2e ordered

to perfor* her contractal o2ligations and to frther pay da*ages,

attorney@s fee and litigation e5penses.

n her traverse, GpetitionerH ad*itted the e5ection of the

contract in favor of plaintiffs and receipt of =300,000.00

as downpay*ent. 6owever, she pt forward the following

affir*ative defenses: that the property s2Cect of the

contract for*ed part of the 4state of e*etrio arpena

/petitioner@s father1, in respect of which a petition for pro2ate was filed with the egional Trial ort, Branch

9', BiIan, Lagna that at the ti*e the contract was

e5ected, the parties were aware of the pendency of the

pro2ate proceeding that the contract to sell was not

approved 2y the pro2ate cort that reali>ing the nllity of

the contract GpetitionerH had offered to retrn the

downpay*ent received fro* Gprivate respondentsH, 2t

the latter refsed to accept it that Gprivate respondentsH

frther failed to provide fnds for the tenant who



7

de*anded =$%0,00.00 in pay*ent of his tenancy rights on

the land that GpetitionerH had chosen to rescind the

contract. t is apparent fro* the appealed order that the

lower cort treated the contract to sell e5ected 2y

appellee as one *ade 2y the ad*inistratri5 of the 4state

of e*etrio arpena for the 2enefit of the estate. 6ence,

its *ain reason for voiding the contract in )estion was

the a2sence of the pro2ate cort@s approval. =res*a2ly,

what the lower cort had in *ind was the sale of the

estate or part thereof *ade 2y the ad*inistrator for the

2enefit of the estate, as athori>ed nder le ( of the

evised les of ort, which re)ires the approval of

the pro2ate cort pon application therefor with notice to

the heirs, devisees and legatees.

;* +* do<*n+ nad4*+*n+y +a+*d +a+ a****=*+*d +* on+a+ n * aa+y a ?*=*+=and ad<n+a+=? o2 +* *+a+*, a oy *adn o2 +* *n+* +*=+ o2 +* on+a+ ;od n*ny o;+a+ ;a+ * nd*+oo +o * +o a*an+ ;a on*o2 +* ?o+* o*+* 4*n +o * /y * a+*2a+*,? and <o* <o+an+y, + ;a no+ <ad* 2o +*/*n*2+ o2 +* *+a+* /+ 2o * o;n n**d . a***od Lo+ (1(5 no+ n * aa+y a *=*+= o2 +*; o ad<n+a+= o2 +* *+a+* o2 * 2a+*, /+ aan * and <o* <o+an+y a o;n* o2 ad o+

;, aon ;+ o+* o*+*, ;a d*4*d +o *nd* +* ; o+ +o /* o/a+*d. a+ /*n o,+* *+* +a+*d n R* 89 o2 +* R*4*dR* o2 %o+ ; *2* +o a a* <ad* /y +*ad<n+a+o 2o +* /*n*2+ o2 +* *+a+* do no+ ay.

+* a+ ; and +*+a<*n+ o2 D*<*+o %a*na ;a ao4*d n a2na Bd<*n+ *nd**d n '*a $o**dn No. "-979 /y +*R*ona a %o+, "an () "an, Lana. "+ o2 o*

ao4a do* no+ +*<na+* +* o**dnHI n* +* *++*<*n+ o2 +* *+a+* ; *n*. ' o**dn ; on+, a<on o+*, n +*an* /y +* o+ o2 a no+* +o *d+o @R* 86, *an o2 <on*y a< and ay<*n+ o2 +a=* and *+a+* d*/+ @R* 88 andd+/+on o2 +* *d* +o +* * o *on *n++*d +**+o @R*

90. #n *22*+, +* 2na *=*+on o2 +* d**d o2 a* +*2 ona*an+: ay<*n+ o2 +* /aan* o2 +* a* * ; a4* +o;a+ 2o +* *++*<*n+ o +*<na+on o2 +* ad<n+a+ono**dn o2 +* E+a+* o2 D*<*+o %a*na.

#* hether or not the ontract to <ell dated 03

Fe2rary $(( e5ected 2y the GpHetitioner and GpHrivate

GrHespondentGsH withot the re)isite pro2ate cort

approval is valid.

6eld: Contract to Sell Valid. '*+on 7 o2 R* 89 o2 +* R* o2 %o+ no+ aa/*, /*a* *++on* *n+**d n+o +*%on+a+ +o '* n * aa+y a an **, no+ a an*=*+= o ad<n+a+= o2 +* *+a+*. #n +* on+a+, ****n+*d **2 a +* ?a;2 o;n*? and ** o2 +*/B*+ a* o2 and. 1( '* ao *=an*d +* *aon 2o +*a* +o /* ?d22+* n * 4n? ond+on and on**n+?n**d o2 a.? 13 ** ***n+a+on *ay *4n* +a+ *;a no+ a+n on /*a2 o2 +* *+a+* nd* o/a+* ;*n **n+**d n+o +* %on+a+ +o '*. **d+ay + a* 4*+*dn +* * o * 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 +* d**d*n+:

d*a+. 1)=etitioner, therefore, 2eca*e the owner of her hereditary

share the *o*ent her father died. Ths, the lack of Cdicial

approval does not invalidate the ontract to <ell, 2ecase the

petitioner has the s2stantive right to sell the whole or a part of her

share in the estate of her late father. The ontract to <ell stiplates

that petitioner@s offer to sell is contingent on the ;co*plete

clearance of the cort on the Last ill Testa*ent of her

father.; 19 onse)ently, althogh the ontract to <ell was

perfected 2etween the petitioner and private respondents dring the



8

pendency of the pro2ate proceedings, the cons**ation of the sale

or the transfer of ownership over the parcel of land to the private

respondents is s2Cect to the fll pay*ent of the prchase price and

to the ter*ination and otco*e of the testate proceedings.

Therefore, there is no 2asis for petitioner@s apprehension that the

ontract to <ell *ay reslt in a pre*atre partition and distri2tion

of the properties of the estate. ndeed, it is settled that ;the sale

*ade 2y an heir of his share in an inheritance, s2Cect to the

pending ad*inistration, in no wise stands in the way of sch

ad*inistration.;

HG.R. No. 1(633). No4*</* (3, (001I

EM#L#O EMNA%E, petitioner, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', E'AE OFV#%ENE A"ANAO, '!ERC#N A"ANAO, V#%ENE

C#LL#AM A"ANAO, &ANEE A"ANAO DE$O'OY,V#%ENA MAY A"ANAO VARELA, RO'ELA A"ANAOand V#N%EN A"ANAO, respondents.

Fa+ =etitioner 4*ilio 4*nace, icente Ta2anao and 8acinto

ivinagracia were partners in a 2siness concern known as !a. "el*a

Fishing ndstry. <o*eti*e in 8anary of $(&, they decided to dissolve

their partnership and e5ected an agree*ent of partition and distri2tion of

the partnership properties a*ong the*, conse)ent to 8acinto ivinagracias

withdrawal fro* the partnership.G$H A*ong the assets to 2e distri2ted were

five /%1 fishing 2oats, si5 /&1 vehicles, two /91 parcels of land located at <to.

"io and Talisay, "egros #ccidental, and cash deposits in the local 2ranches

of the Bank of the =hilippine slands and =rdential Bank.

Throghot the e5istence of the partnership, and even after icente

Ta2anaos nti*ely de*ise in $((', petitioner failed to s2*it to Ta2anaos

heirs any state*ent of assets and lia2ilities of the partnership, and to render

an acconting of the partnerships finances. =etitioner also reneged on his

pro*ise to trn over to Ta2anaos heirs the deceaseds $3 share in the total

assets of the partnership, a*onting to =30,000,000.00, or the s* of

=$0,000,000.00, despite for*al de*and for pay*ent thereof. G9H

onse)ently, Ta2anaos heirs, respondents herein, filed against

petitioner an action for acconting, pay*ent of shares, division of assets

and da*ages. Finally, the trial cort held that the heirs of Ta2anao had a

right to se in their own na*es, in view of the provision of Article 777 of

the ivil ode, which states that the rights to the sccession are trans*itted

fro* the *o*ent of the death of the decedent. t can 2e readily seen that

respondents pri*ary and lti*ate o2Cective in institting the action 2elow

was to recover the decedents $3 share in the partnerships assets. hile they

ask for an acconting of the partnerships assets and finances, what they are

actally asking is for the trial cort to co*pel petitioner to pay and trn

over their share, or the e)ivalent vale thereof, fro* the proceeds of the

sale of the partnership assets. They also assert that ntil and nless a proper

acconting is done, the e5act vale of the partnerships assets, as well astheir corresponding share therein, cannot 2e ascertained. The rle applica2le

to the case at 2ar is <ection %/a1 of le $'$ of the les of ort, which

defines the two kinds of clai*s as: /$1 those which are i**ediately

ascertaina2le and /91 those which cannot 2e i**ediately ascertained as to

the e5act a*ont. This second class of clai*s, where the e5act a*ont still

has to 2e finally deter*ined 2y the corts 2ased on evidence presented, falls

s)arely nder the third paragraph of said <ection %/a1, which provides:

n case the vale of the property or estate or the s* clai*ed is less or *ore

in accordance with the appraisal of the cort, the difference of fee

shall 2e refnded or paid as the case *ay 2e.

6eld: #n the third isse, petitioner asserts that the srviving spose of

icente Ta2anao has no legal capacity to se since she was never appointed

as ad*inistratri5 or e5ectri5 of his estate. =etitioners o2Cection in this

regard is *isplaced. The srviving spose does not need to 2e appointed as

e5ectri5 or ad*inistratri5 of the estate 2efore she can file the action. <he

and her children are co*plainants in their own right as sccessors of

icente Ta2anao. Fro* the very *o*ent of icente Ta2anaos death, his

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/126334.htm#_edn1







9

rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were trans*itted to his

heirs, for rights to the sccession are trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of death

of the decedent.G39H

hatever clai*s and rights icente Ta2anao had against the

partnership and petitioner were trans*itted to respondents 2y operation of

law, *ore particlarly 2y sccession, which is a *ode of ac)isition 2y

virte of which the property, rights and o2ligations to the e5tent of the vale

of the inheritance of a person are trans*itted.G33H !oreover, respondents

2eca*e owners of their respective hereditary shares fro* the *o*ent

icente Ta2anao died.G3'H

A prior settle*ent of the estate, or even the appoint*ent of <alvacion

Ta2anao as e5ectri5 or ad*inistratri5, is not necessary for any of

the heirs to ac)ire legal capacity to se. As sccessors who

stepped into the shoes of their decedent pon his death, they canco**ence any action originally pertaining to the decedent.G3%H Fro* the *o*ent of his death, his rights as a partner and to

de*and flfill*ent of petitioners o2ligations as otlined in their

dissoltion agree*ent were trans*itted to respondents. They,

therefore, had the capacity to se and seek the corts intervention

to co*pel petitioner to flfill his o2ligations.

G.R. No. 1137(5 &n* (9, (000

&O!NNY '. RA"AD#LLA,

$

petitioner,vs.

%OUR OF A$$EAL' AND MAR#A MARLENA9 %O'%OLUELLA Y"ELLEZA V#LLA%ARLO', respondents.

Fa+ n a odicil appended to the Last ill and Testa*ent of testatri5

AleCa Belle>a, r. 8orge a2adilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein

petitioner, 8ohnny <. a2adilla, was institted as a devisee of %$$, %%

s)are *eters of that parcel of land srveyed as Lot "o. $3(9 of the

Bacolod adastre. The said odicil, which was dly pro2ated and ad*itted

in <pecial =roceedings "o. '0'& 2efore the then ort of First nstance of

"egros #ccidental, contained the following provisions:

;F<T

give, leave and 2e)eath the following property owned 2y *e to r. 8orge

a2adilla resident of $'$ =. illaneva, =asay ity:

/a1 Lot "o. $3(9 of the Bacolod adastre, covered 2y Transfer

ertificate of Title "o. T-'009 /$0('91, which is registered in *y

na*e according to the records of the egister of eeds of "egros

#ccidental.

/21 That shold 8orge a2adilla die ahead of *e, the

afore*entioned property and the rights which shall set forth

herein2elow, shall 2e inherited and acknowledged 2y the childrenand spose of 8orge a2adilla.

555

F#?T6

/a1....t is also *y co**and, in this *y addition /odicil1, that shold die

and 8orge a2adilla shall have already received the ownership of the said

Lot "o. $3(9 of the Bacolod adastre, covered 2y Transfer ertificate of

Title "o. T-'009 /$0('91, and also at the ti*e that the lease of Bal2initoD. Dan>on of the said lot shall e5pire, 8orge a2adilla shall have the

o2ligation ntil he dies, every year to give to !aria !arlina oscollela y

Belle>a, <eventy /7%1 /sic1 picls of 45port sgar and Twenty Five /9%1

picls of o*estic sgar, ntil the said !aria !arlina oscollela y

Belle>a dies.

FFT6







http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_113725_2000.html#fnt1










10

/a1 <hold 8orge a2adilla die, his heir to who* he shall give Lot "o. $3(9

of the Bacolod adastre, covered 2y Transfer ertificate of Title "o. T-

'009 /$0'(91, shall have the o2ligation to still give yearly, the sgar as

specified in the Forth paragraph of his testa*ent, to !aria !arlina

oscollela y Belle>a on the *onth of ece*2er of each year.

<KT6

co**and, in this *y addition /odicil1 that the Lot "o. $3(9, in the event

that the one to who* have left and 2e)eathed, and his heir shall later sell,

lease, *ortgage this said Lot, the 2yer, lessee, *ortgagee, shall have also

the o2ligation to respect and deliver yearly #"4 6?"4 /$001 picls

of sgar to !aria !arlina oscollela y Belle>a, on each *onth of

ece*2er, <44"T+ F4 /7%1 picls of 45port and T4"T+ F4

/9%1 picls of o*estic, ntil !aria !arlina shall die, lastly shold the

2yer, lessee or the *ortgagee of this lot, not have respected *y co**andin this *y addition /odicil1, !aria !arlina oscollela y Belle>a, shall

i**ediately sei>e this Lot "o. $3(9 fro* *y heir and the latter@s heirs, and

shall trn it over to *y near desendants, /sic1 and the latter shall then have

the o2ligation to give the #"4 6?"4 /$001 picls of sgar ntil

!aria !arlina shall die. frther co**and in this *y addition /odicil1

that *y heir and his heirs of this Lot "o. $3(9, that they will o2ey and

follow that shold they decide to sell, lease, *ortgage, they cannot

negotiate with others than *y near descendants and *y sister.;'

=rsant to the sa*e odicil, Lot "o. $3(9 was transferred to the deceased,

r. 8orge a2adilla, and Transfer ertificate of Title "o. '''( thereto

issed in his na*e.

r. 8orge a2adilla died in $(3 and was srvived 2y his wife fina and

children 8ohnny /petitioner1, Arora, #felia and enaida, all srna*ed

a2adilla.

#n Agst 9$, $((, !aria !arlena oscollela y Belle>a illacarlos

2roght a co*plaint, docketed as ivil ase "o. %%, 2efore Branch %9 of

the egional Trial ort in Bacolod ity, against the a2ove-*entioned heirs

of r. 8orge a2adilla, to enforce the provisions of s2Cect odicil. The

o*plaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of the

odicil. issatisfied with the aforesaid disposition 2y the ort of Appeals,

petitioner fond his way to this ort via the present petition, contending

that the ort of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of Lot $3(9 to the

estate of the testatri5 AleCa Belle>a on the 2asis of paragraph & of the

odicil, and in rling that the testa*entary instittion of r. 8orge a2adilla

is a *odal instittion within the prview of Article 9 of the "ew ivil

ode.

=etitioner contends that the ort of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal

in accordance with Article 9 of the "ew ivil ode on *odal instittions

and in deviating fro* the sole isse raised which is the a2sence or

pre*atrity of the case of action. =etitioner *aintains that Article 9 does

not find application as there was no *odal instittion and the testatri5intended a *ere si*ple s2stittion - i.e. the institted heir, r. 8orge

a2adilla, was to 2e s2stitted 2y the testatri5@s ;near descendants; shold

the o2ligation to deliver the frits to herein private respondent 2e not

co*plied with. And since the testatri5 died single and withot isse, there

can 2e no valid s2stittion and sch testa*entary provision cannot 2e

given any effect.

The petitioner theori>es frther that there can 2e no valid s2stittion for

the reason that the s2stitted heirs are not definite, as the s2stitted heirs

are *erely referred to as ;near descendants; withot a definite identity or

reference as to who are the ;near descendants; and therefore, nder Articles

'3 and '%( of the "ew ivil ode, the s2stittion shold 2e dee*ed as

not written.

!*d The contentions of petitioner are ntena2le. ontrary to his

spposition that the ort of Appeals deviated fro* the isse posed 2efore

it, which was the propriety of the dis*issal of the co*plaint on the grond

of pre*atrity of case of action, there was no sch deviation. The ort of

Appeals fond that the private respondent had a case of action against the









11

petitioner. The dis)isition *ade on *odal instittion was, precisely, to

stress that the private respondent had a legally de*anda2le right against the

petitioner prsant to s2Cect odicil on which isse the ort of Appeals

rled in accordance with law.

#+ a *n*a * nd* +* a; on *on +a+ *ona +a* +an<++*d 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 d*a+ o2 +* d**d*n+10 ando<oy * a* a*d +o **d /y o*a+on o2 a;. **+<a+* d*n and d**ndan+, n *a+on +o +* *+<a+*a*n+, and +* ;do; o ;do;*, a* o<oy *. 11 , +**++on*, <o+* and +*, a o<oy * o2 +* n+++*d*, D. &o* Ra/ada, **d*d +* a++* /y o*a+on o2 a;,;+o+ n**d o2 2+* o**dn, and +* *ona + ;**+an<++*d +o +*< 2o< +* <o<*n+ o2 d*a+ o2 +* d**d*n+, D.&o* Ra/ada.

Und* A+* 776 o2 +* N*; %4 %od*, n*+an* nd* a +*o*+y, + and o/a+on o2 a *on, no+ *=+n*d /y d*a+. %on2o<a/y, ;a+*4* + D. &o* Ra/ada ad /y 4+*o2 /B*+ %od ;** +an<++*d +o 2o*d *, a+ +* +<* o2 d*a+. And n* o/a+on no+ *=+n*d /y d*a+ ao 2o< a+o2 +* *+a+* o2 +* d**d*n+ ooay, +* o/a+on <o*d /y +*%od on +* d**a*d D. &o* Ra/ada, ;** *;* +an<++*d+o o<oy * on d*a+.

n the said odicil, testatri5 AleCa Belle>a devised Lot "o. $3(9 to r. 8orge

a2adilla, s2Cect to the condition that the sfrct thereof wold 2e

delivered to the herein private respondent every year. ?pon the death of r.

8orge a2adilla, his co*plsory heirs scceeded to his rights and title over

the said property, and they also ass*ed his /decedent@s1 o2ligation to

deliver the frits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. <ch

o2ligation of the institted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of

private respondent over the sfrct, the flfill*ent or perfor*ance of

which is now 2eing de*anded 2y the latter throgh the instittion of the

case at 2ar. Therefore, private respondent has a case of action against

petitioner and the trial cort erred in dis*issing the co*plaint 2elow.

<2stittion is the designation 2y the testator of a person or persons to take

the place of the heir or heirs first institted. ?nder s2stittions in general,

the testator *ay either /$1 provide for the designation of another heir to

who* the property shall pass in case the original heir shold die 2efore

hi*her, renonce the inheritance or 2e incapacitated to inherit, as in a

si*ple s2stittion,$9 or /91 leave hisher property to one person with the

e5press charge that it 2e trans*itted s2se)ently to another or others, as in

a fideico**issary s2stittion.$3 The odicil sed pon conte*plates

neither of the two.

"either is there a fideico**issary s2stittion here and on this point,

petitioner is correct. n a fideico**issary s2stittion, the first heir is

strictly *andated to preserve the o*+y and +o +an<+ the sa*e later to the second heir .$% n the case nder consideration, the institted heir is in

fact allowed nder the odicil to alienate the property provided the

negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatri5. Ths, a

very i*portant ele*ent of a fideico**issary s2stittion is lacking the

o2ligation clearly i*posing pon the first heir the preservation of the

property and its trans*ission to the second heir. ;ithot this o2ligation to

preserve clearly i*posed 2y the testator in his will, there is no

fideico**issary s2stittion.;$& Also, the near descendants@ right to inherit

fro* the testatri5 is not definite. The property will only pass to the* shold

r. 8orge a2adilla or his heirs not flfill the o2ligation to deliver part of

the sfrct to private respondent.

The instittion of an heir in the *anner prescri2ed in Article 9 is what is

known in the law of sccession as an institucion sub modo or a *odal

instittion. n a *odal instittion, the testator states /$1 the o2Cect of the

instittion, /91 the prpose or application of the property left 2y the testator,

or /31 the charge i*posed 2y the testator pon the heir. $ A ;*ode; i*poses

an o2ligation pon the heir or legatee 2t it does not affect the efficacy of

his rights to the sccession.$( #n the other hand, in a conditional























12

testa*entary disposition, the condition *st happen or 2e flfilled in order

for the heir to 2e entitled to scceed the testator. The condition sspends 2t

does not o2ligate and the *ode o2ligates 2t does not sspend. 90 To so*e

e5tent, it is si*ilar to a resoltory condition.9$

Fo< +* o4on o2 +* %od +a+*d on, + an /* *an*dn*ny +a+ +* +*+a+= n+*nd*d +a+ /B*+ o*+y /* n*+*d/y D. &o* Ra/ada. #+ *;* *ay ;od*d +a+ +* +*+a+=<o*d an o/a+on on +* ad n+++*d * and *o-n-n+**+ +o d*4* on* nd*d o2 a +o +* **n 4a+**ond*n+, Ma*na %oo*a "**a, dn +* 2*+<* o2 +*a++*. !o;*4*, +* +*+a+= dd no+ <a* D. &o* Ra/ada:n*+an* and +* *22*+4+y o2 n+++on a a d*4**, d**nd*n+on +* *2o<an* o2 +* ad o/a+on. #+ *a, +o, +a+od +* o/a+on /* no+ o<*d ;+, +* o*+y a /* +n*d

o4* +o +* +*+a+=: n*a d**ndan+. * <ann* o2 n+++on o2 D. &o* Ra/ada nd* /B*+ %od *4d*n+y <oda n na+*/*a* + <o* a a* on +* n+++*d * ;+o+, o;*4*,a22*+n +* *22ay o2 n+++on.

Then too, since testa*entary dispositions are generally acts of li2erality, an

o2ligation i*posed pon the heir shold not 2e considered a condition

nless it clearly appears fro* the ill itself that sch was the intention of

the testator. n case of do2t, the instittion shold 2e considered as *odal

and not conditional.99

"either is there tena2ility in the other contention of petitioner that the

private respondent has only a right of sfrct 2t not the right to sei>e the

property itself fro* the institted heir 2ecase the right to sei>e was

e5pressly li*ited to violations 2y the 2yer, lessee or *ortgagee.

#n +* n+**+a+on o2 C, ;*n an n*+an+y a* on +* 2a* o2 +* C, a +o +* aa+on o2 any o2 + o4on, +* +*+a+o:n+*n+on +o /* a*+an*d 2o< +* ;od o2 +* C, +an n+oond*a+on +* <+an* nd* ; + ;a <ad*.(3 '

on++on a ; +an and od +* C n a + a+ <+ /*ado+*d.()

'/B*+ %od o4d* +a+ +* n+++*d * nd* o/a+on +od*4* On* !nd*d @100 o2 a y*ay +o Ma*na "**a

%o*a. ' o/a+on <o*d on +* n+++*d *, D. &o*Ra/ada, *, and +* /y*, ***, o <o+a** od +*y*, *a*, <o+a* o o+*;* n*o+a+* +* o*+y n4o4*d. *%od 2+* o4d* +a+ n +* *4*n+ +a+ +* o/a+on +o d*4*+* a no+ **+*d, Ma*na "**a %o*a a ** +*o*+y and +n + o4* +o +* +*+a+=: n*a d**ndan+. * non-*2o<an* o2 +* ad o/a+on + ;+ +* an+on o2 ** o2 +* o*+y and *4*on +**o2 +o +* +*+a+=: n*a d**ndan+.'n* +* ad o/a+on *ay <o*d /y +* +*+a+=, no+ ony on+* n+++*d * /+ ao on *o-n-n+**+, +* an+on

<o*d /y +* +*+a+= n a* o2 non-22<*n+ o2 ad o/a+onod *ay ay +o +* n+++*d * and *o-n-n+**+.

<ffice it to state that a ill is a personal, sole*n, revoca2le and free act 2y

which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his

death.9% <ince the ill e5presses the *anner in which a person intends how

his properties 2e disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator *st 2e

strictly followed. Ths, a ill cannot 2e the s2Cect of a co*pro*ise

agree*ent which wold there2y defeat the very prpose of *aking a ill.

G.R. No. 10))8( &anay ((, 1996

"EL#NDA AJEDO, 2o **2 and n ***n+a+on o2 * /o+*and +*, and EOF#LA %OR$UZ AJEDO, ***n+n *<no da+* VERNA AJEDO, petitioners, vs. !E %OUR OFA$$EAL', '$OU'E' R#%ARDO M. AJEDO AND ERE'#A"ARERA AJEDO,respondents.


















13

Fa+ #n #cto2er 90, $(&9, La>ardo TaIedo e5ected a notari>ed deed of

a2solte sale in favor of his eldest 2rother, icardo TaIedo, and the latter@s

wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents herein, where2y he conveyed to

the latter in consideration of =$,%00.00, ;one hectare of whatever share

shall have over Lot "o. $($ of the cadastral srvey of Derona, =rovince of

Tarlac and covered 2y Title T-$39( of the egister of eeds of Tarlac;, the

said property 2eing his ;ftre inheritance; fro* his parents /45h. $1. ?pon

the death of his father !atias, La>aro e5ected an ;Affidavit of

onfor*ity; dated Fe2rary 9, $(0 /45h. 31 to ;re-affir*, respect,

acknowledge and validate the sale *ade in $(&9.; #n 8anary $3, $($,

La>aro e5ected another notari>ed deed of sale in favor of private

respondents covering his ;ndivided #"4 T4L4 /$$91 of a parcel of

land known as Lot $($ . . . ; /45h. '1. 6e acknowledged therein his receipt

of =$0,000.00 as consideration therefor. n Fe2rary $($, icardo learned

that La>aro sold the sa*e property to his children, petitioners herein,

throgh a deed of sale dated ece*2er 9(, $(0 /45h. 41. #n 8ne 7, $(9, private respondents recorded the eed of <ale /45h. '1 in their favor in the

egistry of eeds and the corresponding entry was *ade in Transfer

ertificate of Title "o. $&&'%$ /45h. %1.

=etitioners on 8ly $&, $(9 filed a co*plaint for rescission /pls da*ages1

of the deeds of sale e5ected 2y La>aro in favor of private respondents

covering the property inherited 2y La>aro fro* his father.

=etitioners clai*ed that their father, La>aro, e5ected an ;A2solte eed of

<ale; dated ece*2er 9(, $(0 /45it. 41. onveying to his ten children his

allotted portion tinder the e5traCdicial partition e5ected 2y the heirs of

!atias, which deed inclded the land in litigation /Lot $($1.

=etitioners also presented in evidence: /$1 a private writing prportedly

prepared and signed 2y !atias dated ece*2er 9, $(7, stating that it was

his desire that whatever inheritance La>aro wold receive fro* hi* shold

2e given to his /La>aro@s1 children /45h. A1 /91 a typewritten doc*ent

dated !arch $0, $(7( signed 2y La>aro in the presence of two witnesses,

wherein he confir*ed that he wold volntarily a2ide 2y the wishes of his

father, !atias, to give to his /La>aro@s1 children all the property he wold

inherit fro* the latter /45h. B1 and /31 a letter dated 8anary $, $(0 of

La>aro to his daghter, ar*ela, stating that his share in the e5traCdicial

settle*ent of the estate of his father was intended for his children,

petitioners herein /45h. 1.

#* s the sale of a ftre inheritance validJ as the s2se)ent

e5ection on 8anary $3, $($ /and registration with the egistry of

=roperty1 of a deed of sale covering the sa*e property to the sa*e 2yers

validJ

6eld: The sale *ade in $(&9 involving ftre inheritance is not really at

isse here. n conte5t, the assailed ecision conceded ;it *ay 2e legally

correct that a contract of sale of anticipated ftre inheritance is nll and

void.;3

Bt to re*ove all do2ts, we here2y categorically rle that, prsant to

Article $3'7 of the ivil ode, ;/n1o contract *ay 2e entered into pon a

ftre inheritance e5cept in cases e5pressly athori>ed 2y law.;

%on**n+y, ad on+a+ <ad* n 196( no+ 4ad and anno+ /* +*o* o2 any + no +* *a+o o2 any o/a+on /*+;**n +*a+*.

6ence, the ;affidavit of confor*ity; dated Fe2rary 9, $(0, insofar as it

soght to validate or ratify the $(&9 sale, is also seless and, in the words of

the respondent ort, ;sffers fro* the sa*e infir*ity.; 4ven private

respondents in their *e*orand*' concede this.

6owever, the doc*ents that are critical to the resoltion of this case are:

/a1 the deed of sale of 8anary $3, $($ in favor of private respondents

covering La>aro@s ndivided inheritance of one-twelfth /$$91 share in Lot

"o. $($, which was s2se)ently registered on 8ne 7, $(9 and /21 the

deed of sale dated ece*2er 9(, $(0 in favor of petitioners covering the

sa*e property. These two doc*ents were e5ected after the death of

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_104482_1996.html#fnt3






14

!atias /and his spose1 and after a deed of e5tra-Cdicial settle*ent of his

/!atias@1 estate was e5ected, ths vesting in La>aro actal title over said

property. n other words, these dispositions, thogh conflicting, were no

longer infected with the infir*ities of the $(&9 sale.

Article $%'' of the ivil ode governs the preferential rights of vendees in

cases of *ltiple sales, as follows:

Art. $%''. f the sa*e thing shold have 2een sold to different

vendees, the ownership shall 2e transferred to the person who *ay

have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it shold 2e

*ova2le property.

<hold it 2e i**ova2le property, the ownership shall 2elong to the

person ac)iring it who in good faith first recorded it in the

egistry of =roperty.

<hold there 2e no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the

person who in good faith was first in the possession and, in the

a2sence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,

provided there is good faith.

The property in )estion is land, an i**ova2le, and following the a2ove-

)oted law, ownership shall 2elong to the 2yer who in good faith registers

it first in the registry of property. Ths, althogh the deed of sale in favor of

private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership

wold vest in the for*er 2ecase of the ndispted fact of registration. #n

the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to the* at all.

$*++on* on+*nd +a+ +*y ;** n o*on o2 +* o*+y and+a+ 4a+* *ond*n+ n*4* +oo o*on +**o2. A /*+;**n +;oa*, +* on* ;o *+**d +* a* n 2a4o a a *2**d+ o4* +* o+* ;o a no+ *+**d ++*, *4*n 2 +* a++* n a+a o*on o2 +* <<o4a/* o*+y.5

G.R. No. 1691(9 Ma (8, (007

'$'. V#RG#L#O F. 'ANO' K E'$ERANZA LA# 'ANO','$'.V#%OR#NO F. 'ANO', K LAGR#MA' 'ANO', ERNE'OF. 'ANO', and ADEO F. 'ANO', =etitioners, vs. '$'. &O'E

LUM"AO and $RO'ERF#NA LUM"AO, espondents.

Facts: 6erein petitioners irgilio, ictorino, 4rnesto and Tadeo, all

srna*ed <antos, are the legiti*ate and srviving heirs of the late ita

atoc <antos /ita1, who died on 90 #cto2er $(%. The other petitioners

4speran>a Lati and Lagri*as <antos are the daghters-in-law of ita.

6erein respondents <poses 8ose L*2ao and =roserfina L*2ao are the

alleged owners of the $07-s)are *eter lot /s2Cect property1, which they

prportedly 2oght fro* ita dring her lifeti*e.

#n two separate occasions dring her lifeti*e, ita sold to respondents

<poses L*2ao the s2Cect property which is a part of her share in the

estate of her deceased *other, !aria atoc /!aria1, who died intestate on

$( <epte*2er $(7. #n the first occasion, ita sold $00 s)are *eters of

her inchoate share in her *otherMs estate throgh a doc*ent deno*inated

as ;Bilihan ng Lpa,; dated $7 Agst $(7(.' espondents <poses

L*2ao clai*ed the e5ection of the aforesaid doc*ent was witnessed 2y

petitioners irgilio and Tadeo, as shown 2y their signatres affi5ed therein.

#n the second occasion, an additional seven s)are *eters was added to the

land as evidenced 2y a doc*ent also deno*inated as ;Bilihan ng Lpa,;

dated ( 8anary $($.%

After ac)iring the s2Cect property, respondents <poses L*2ao took

actal possession thereof and erected thereon a hose which they have 2een

occpying as e5clsive owners p to the present. As the e5clsive owners of

the s2Cect property, respondents <poses L*2ao *ade several ver2al

de*ands pon ita, dring her lifeti*e, and thereafter pon herein

petitioners, for the* to e5ecte the necessary doc*ents to effect the

issance of a separate title in favor of respondents <poses L*2ao insofar


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_169129_2007.html#fnt4







15

as the s2Cect property is concerned. espondents <poses L*2ao alleged

that prior to her death, ita infor*ed respondent =roserfina L*2ao she

cold not deliver the title to the s2Cect property 2ecase the entire property

inherited 2y her and her co-heirs fro* !aria had not yet 2een partitioned.

#n 9 !ay $(&, the <poses L*2ao clai*ed that petitioners, acting

fradlently and in conspiracy with one another, e5ected a eed of

45traCdicial <ettle*ent,& adCdicating and partitioning a*ong the*selves

and the other heirs, the estate left 2y !aria, which inclded the s2Cect

property already sold to respondents <poses L*2ao and now covered 2y

TT "o. $79(7 of the egistry of eeds of =asig ity.

#n $% 8ne $((9, respondents <poses L*2ao, throgh consel, sent a

for*al de*and letter to petitioners 2t despite receipt of sch de*and

letter, petitioners still failed and refsed to reconvey the s2Cect property to

the respondents <poses L*2ao. onse)ently, the latter filed a o*plaintfor econveyance with a*ages( 2efore the T of =asig ity.

espondents <poses L*2ao, with leave of cort, a*ended their

o*plaint 2ecase they discovered that on $& Fe2rary $((0, withot their

knowledge, petitioners e5ected a eed of eal 4state !ortgage in favor of

8lieta <. 4splana for the s* of =30,000.00. The said eed of eal 4state

!ortgage was annotated at the 2ack of TT "o. =T-$79( on 9& April

$(($. Also, in answer to the allegation of the petitioners that they failed to

co*ply with the *andate of the evised Natarngang =a*2arangay Law,

respondents <poses L*2ao said that the o*plaint was filed directly in

cort in order that prescription or the <tatte of Li*itations *ay not set in.

ring the trial, respondents <poses L*2ao presented =roserfina L*2ao

and arolina !orales as their witnesses, while the petitioners presented

only the testi*ony of petitioner irgilio.

=etitioners ask this ort to scrtini>e the evidence presented in this case,

2ecase they clai* that the factal findings of the trial cort and the

appellate cort are conflicting. They allege that the findings of fact 2y the

trial cort revealed that petitioners irgilio and Tadeo did not witness the

e5ection of the doc*ents known as ;Bilihan ng Lpa; hence, this finding

rns conter to the conclsion *ade 2y the appellate cort. And even

ass*ing that they were witnesses to the aforesaid doc*ents, still,

respondents <poses L*2ao were not entitled to the reconveyance of the

s2Cect property 2ecase they were gilty of laches for their failre to assert

their rights for an nreasona2le length of ti*e. <ince respondents <poses

L*2ao had slept on their rights for a period of *ore than $9 years

reckoned fro* the date of e5ection of the second ;Bilihan ng Lpa,; it

wold 2e nCst and nfair to the petitioners if the respondents will 2e

allowed to recover the s2Cect property.

=etitioners allege they are in good faith in e5ecting the eed of

45traCdicial <ettle*ent 2ecase even respondents <poses L*2aoMs

witness, arolina !orales, testified that neither petitioner irgilio nor

petitioner Tadeo was present dring the e5ection of the ;Bilihan ng Lpa,;dated $7 Agst $(7( and ( 8anary $($. =etitioners affir* that the eed

of 45traCdicial <ettle*ent was p2lished in a newspaper of general

circlation to give notice to all creditors of the estate s2Cect of partition to

contest the sa*e within the period prescri2ed 2y law. <ince no clai*ant

appeared to interpose a clai* within the period allowed 2y law, a title to the

s2Cect property was then issed in favor of the petitioners hence, they are

considered as holders in good faith and therefore cannot 2e 2arred fro*

entering into any s2se)ent transactions involving the s2Cect property.

=etitioners also contend that they are not 2ond 2y the doc*ents

deno*inated as ;Bilihan ng Lpa; 2ecase the sa*e were nll and void for

the following reasons: $1 for 2eing falsified doc*ents 2ecase one of those

doc*ents *ade it appear that petitioners irgilio and Tadeo were

witnesses to its e5ection and that they appeared personally 2efore the

notary p2lic, when in trth and in fact they did not 91 the identities of the

properties in the ;Bilihan ng Lpa,; dated $7 Agst $(7( and ( 8anary

$($ in relation to the s2Cect property in litigation were not esta2lished 2y

the evidence presented 2y the respondents <poses L*2ao 31 the right of

the respondents <poses L*2ao to lay their clai* over the s2Cect












16

property had already 2een 2arred throgh estoppel 2y laches and '1 the

respondents <poses L*2aoMs clai* over the s2Cect property had already

prescri2ed.

6eld: #n the testi*ony of respondents <poses L*2aoMs witness arolina

!orales, this ort adopts the findings *ade 2y the appellate cort. Ths -

GTHhe trial cort gave singlar focs on her reply to a )estion dring cross-

e5a*ination if the Gpetitioners irgilio and TadeoH were not with her and the

vendor GitaH dring the transaction. t *st 2e pointed ot that earlier in

the direct e5a*ination of said witness, she confir*ed that Grespondents

sposes L*2aoH actally 2oght the lot fro* GitaH /;nagka2ilihan;1. <aid

witness positively identified and confir*ed the two /91 doc*ents

evidencing the sale in favor of Grespondents spose L*2aoH. Ths, her

s2se)ent state*ent that the Gpetitioners irgilio and TadeoH were not with

the* dring the transaction does not ato*atically i*ply that Gpetitionersirgilio and TadeoH did not at any ti*e sign as witnesses as to the deed of

sale attesting to their *otherMs volntary act of selling a portion of her share

in her deceased *otherMs property. The rle is that testi*ony of a witness

*st 2e considered and cali2rated in its entirety and not 2y trncated

portions thereof or isolated passages therein.9'

#+ no+*;o+y +a+ a+ +* +<* o2 +* *=*+on o2 +* do<*n+d*no<na+*d a ?"an n La,? +* *n+* o*+y o;n*d /yMaa, +* <o+* o2 R+a, ;a no+ y*+ d4d*d a<on * and * o-* and o +* d*+on o2 +* *n+* *+a+* +* ony d*+on

+a+ an /* a*d n +* ?"an n La, da+*d 17 A+ 1979 and 9&anay 1981? /*a* +* *=a+ <*+* and /ond o2 +* /B*+o*+y od +o *ond*n+ 'o* L</ao od no+ /* o/yd*+*<n*d a+ +a+ +<*. N*4*+**, +a+ do* no+ <a* +* on+a+o2 a* /*+;**n R+a and *ond*n+ 'o* L</ao n4ad /*a*/o+ +* a; and Bd*n* a4* a+*oay *d +a+ *4*n ;*an *+a+* *<an nd4d*d, o-o;n* a4* *a 2 o;n* o2 +* **+4* ao+ o nd4d*d a* and <ay +**2o*a*na+*, an o <o+a* +*<.(8 * o-o;n*, o;*4*, a no

+ +o * o a*na+* a *2 o d*+*<na+* a+ o2 +* +n o;n*dn o<<on, /*a* + o4* +* +n ***n+*d /y anao+ o d*a o+on ;+o+ any ya d4on. #n any a*, +*<** 2a+ +a+ +* d**d o+ +o +an2* a on*+* o+on do* no+* * *nd* +* a* 4od. * a* 4ad, /+ ony ;+ **+ +o +*

ao+ a* o2 +* *n o-o;n*. F+*<o*, +* a* /B*+ +o+* *+ o2 +* a++on on +* +*<na+on o2 +* o-o;n*.(9

#n +* a* a+ /a, ;*n +* *+a+* *2+ /y Maa ad /**n a++on*don ( May 1986 /y 4+* o2 a D**d o2 E=+aBda '*++*<*n+, +* 107-a* <*+* o+ od /y +* <o+* o2 +* *++on* +o *ond*n+'o* L</ao od /* d*d+*d 2o< +* +o+a o+, n*+*d /y+*< n ***n+a+on o2 +* d**a*d <o+*, ; n + a*<*a* )67 a* <*+*. * 107-a* <*+* o+ a*ady od +o*ond*n+ 'o* L</ao an no on* /* n*+*d /y +*

*++on* /*a* +* a<* ;a no on* a+ o2 +* n*+an* a+ ;a a*ady od dn +* 2*+<* o2 +* <o+*.

Likewise, the fact that the property *entioned in the two ;Bilihan ng Lpa;

doc*ents was descri2ed as ;a portion of a parcel of land covered in Ta5

eclarations "o. A-0$-0$&7',; while the s2Cect *atter of the eed of

45traCdicial <ettle*ent was the property descri2ed in Transfer ertificate

of Title /TT1 "o. 39$& of the egistry of eeds of the =rovince of i>al in

the na*e of !aria is of no *o*ent 2ecase in the ;Bilihan ng Lpa,; dated

$7 Agst $(7( and ( 8anary $($, it is clear that there was only one

estate left 2y !aria pon her death. And this fact was not refted 2y the

petitioners. Besides, the property descri2ed in Ta5 eclaration "o. A-0$-

0$&7' and the property *entioned in TT "o. 39$& are 2oth located in

Barrio osario, !nicipality of =asig, =rovince of i>al, and al*ost have

the sa*e 2ondaries. t is, ths, safe to state that the property *entioned in

Ta5 eclaration "o. A-0$-0$&7' and in TT "o. 39$& are one and the

sa*e.

Fnay, +* *n*a * +a+ * a* /ond /y on+a+ *n+**d n+o/y +* *d**o-n-n+**+ a* n +* **n+ a*. A+*












17

13113( o2 +* N%% +* /a o2 + *. #+ *a 2o< +* ado4on +a+ ;a+*4* + and o/a+on +* d**d*n+ a4* o4*+* o*+y ;** +an<++*d +o +* * /y ;ay o2 *on, a <od*o2 an +* o*+y, + and o/a+on o2 +* d**d*n+ +o +**=+*n+ o2 +* 4a* o2 +* n*+an* o2 +* *.33 , +* *

anno+ *a* +* *a on**n* o2 a +ana+on *n+**d n+o /y+* *d**o-n-n+**+ /*a* +*y a4* n*+*d +* o*+y/B*+ +o +* a/+y a22*+n +* o<<on an*+o. "*n *,+** 4+y o2 n+**+ /*+;**n +*< and +* d**a*d <o+*.*y ony **d +o ;a+ + +* <o+* ad and ;a+ 4adand /ndn aan+ * ao 4ad and /ndn a aan+ +*<. *d*a+ o2 a a+y do* no+ *=* non*2o<an* o2 a on+a+ ;n4o4* a o*+y + and +* + and o/a+on +**nd*a +o +* *ona ***n+a+4* o2 +* d**a*d. '<ay,non*2o<an* no+ *=*d /y +* d*a+ o2 +* a+y ;*n +*

o+* a+y a a o*+y n+**+ n +* /B*+ <a++* o2 +*on+a+.3)

NA#ONAL !OU'#NG AU!OR#Y, petitioner, vs.'EGUNDAALME#DA, %OUR OF A$$EAL', and R% o2 'AN $EDRO,LAGUNA, "R. 31, respondents.

Facts: #n 8ne 9, $(%(, the Land Tenre Ad*inistration /LTA1 awarded to

!argarita 6errera several portions of land which are part of the Tnasan

4state in <an =edro, Lagna. The award is evidenced 2y an Agree*ent to

<ell "o. 377.$ By virte of ep2lic Act "o. 3', the LTA was scceeded

2y the epart*ent of Agrarian efor* /A1. #n 8ly 3$, $(7%, the A

was scceeded 2y the "6A 2y virte of =residential ecree "o. 7%7. 9 "6A

as the sccessor agency of LTA is the petitioner in this case.

The records show that !argarita 6errera had two children: Beatri> 6errera-

!ercado /the *other of private respondent1 and Francisca 6errera. Beatri>

6errera-!ercado predeceased her *other and left heirs.

!argarita 6errera passed away on #cto2er 97, $(7$.3

#n Agst 99, $(7', Francisca 6errera, the re*aining child of the late

!argarita 6errera e5ected a eed of <elf-AdCdication clai*ing that she is

the only re*aining relative, 2eing the sole srviving daghter of the

deceased. <he also clai*ed to 2e the e5clsive legal heir of the late

!argarita 6errera.

The eed of <elf-AdCdication was 2ased on a <in*paang <alaysay dated

#cto2er 7, $(&0, allegedly e5ected 2y !argarita 6errera. The srviving

heirs of Beatri> 6errera-!ercado filed a case for annl*ent of the eed of

<elf-AdCdication 2efore the then ort of First nstance of Lagna, Branch

$ in Binan, Lagna /now, egional Trial ort Branch 9%1. The case for

annl*ent was docketed as ivil ase "o. B-$9&3.&

#n ece*2er 9(, $(0, a ecision in ivil ase "o. B-$9&3 /)estioning

the eed of <elf-AdCdication1 was rendered and the deed was declared nll

and void.7

ring trial on the *erits of the case assailing the eed of <elf-

AdCdication, Francisca 6errera filed an application with the "6A to

prchase the sa*e lots s2*itting therewith a copy of the ;<in*paang

<alaysay; e5ected 2y her *other. =rivate respondent Al*eida, as heir of

Beatri> 6errera-!ercado, protested the application.

n a esoltion dated Fe2rary %, $(&, the "6A granted the application

*ade 2y Francisca 6errera. This #ffice finds that protestee has a 2etter

preferential right to prchase the lots in )estion.(

=rivate respondent Al*eida appealed to the #ffice of the =resident. $0 The

"6A esoltion was affir*ed 2y the #ffice of the =resident in a ecision

dated 8anary 93, $(7.$$

#n Fe2rary $, $(7, Francisca 6errera died. 6er heirs e5ected an

e5traCdicial settle*ent of her estate which they s2*itted to the "6A. <aid

transfer of rights was approved 2y the "6A. $9 The "6A e5ected several

deeds of sale in favor of the heirs of Francisca 6errera and titles were






































18

issed in their favor .$3 Thereafter, the heirs of Francisca 6errera directed

<egnda !ercado-Al*eida to leave the pre*ises that she was occpying.

Feeling aggrieved 2y the decision of the #ffice of the =resident and the

resoltion of the "6A, private respondent <egnda !ercado-Al*eida

soght the cancellation of the titles issed in favor of the heirs of Francisca.

<he filed a o*plaint on Fe2rary , $(, for ;N2a+on o2 Go4*n<*n+ Lo+: A;ad,; with the egional Trial ort of <an =edro,

Lagna, Branch 3$.

#n !arch (, $((, the egional Trial ort rendered a ecision setting

aside the resoltion of the "6A and the decision of the #ffice of the

=resident awarding the s2Cect lots in favor of Francisca 6errera. t declared

the deeds of sale e5ected 2y "6A in favor of 6errera@s heirs nll and void.

The egister of eeds of Lagna, ala*2a Branch was ordered to cancel

the Transfer ertificate of Title issed. Attorney@s fees were also awarded to private respondent.

The egional Trial ort rled that the ;<in*paang <alaysay; was not an

assign*ent of rights 2t a disposition of property which shall take effect

pon death. t then held that the said doc*ent *st first 2e s2*itted to

pro2ate 2efore it can transfer property.

Both the "6A and the heirs of Francisca 6errera filed their respective

*otions for reconsideration which were 2oth denied on 8ly 9$, $(( for

lack of *erit. They 2oth appealed to the ort of Appeals. The 2rief for the

heirs of Francisca 6errera was denied ad*ission 2y the appellate cort in a

esoltion dated 8ne $', 9009 for 2eing a ;car2on copy; of the 2rief

s2*itted 2y the "6A and for 2eing filed seventy-nine /7(1 days late.

#n Agst 9, 9003, the ort of Appeals affir*ed the decision of the

egional Trial ort. The ort of Appeals rled that the "6A acted

ar2itrarily in awarding the lots to the heirs of Francisca 6errera. t pheld

the trial cort rling that the ;<in*paang <alaysay; was not an assign*ent

of rights 2t one that involved disposition of property which shall take

effect pon death. The isse of whether it was a valid will *st first 2e

deter*ined 2y pro2ate.

The petitioner frther arges that ass*ing that the ;<in*paang <alaysay;

was a will, it cold not 2ind the "6A. 3$ That, ;insofar as GtheH "6A is

concerned, it is an evidence that the s2Cect lots were indeed transferred 2y

!argarita 6errera, the original awardee, to Francisca 6errera was then

applying to prchase the sa*e 2efore it.;

6eld: hen the petitioner received the ;<in*paang <alaysay,; it shold

have noted that the effectivity of the said doc*ent co**ences at the ti*e

of death of the athor of the instr*ent in her words ; sakalin ako!"

ba#ian na n $ios n akin bu%a"O; 6ence, in sch period, all the

interests of the person shold cease to 2e hers and shall 2e in the possession

of her estate ntil they are transferred to her heirs 2y virte of Article 77' of

the ivil ode which provides that:

Art. 77'. <ccession is a *ode of ac)isition 2y virte of

which +* o*+y, + and o/a+on to the e5tent of the

vale of the inheritance, o2 a *on a* +an<++*d +o d*a+ +o ano+* o o+* *+* /y ; o /y o*a+on o2 a;.33

By considering the doc*ent, petitioner "6A shold have noted that the

original applicant has already passed away. !argarita 6errera passed away

on #cto2er 97, $(7$.3' The "6A issed its resoltion3% on Fe2rary %,

$(&. The "6A gave de corse to the application *ade 2y Francisca

6errera withot considering that the initial applicant@s death wold transfer

all her property, rights and o2ligations to the estate inclding whatever

interest she has or *ay have had over the dispted properties. To the e5tent

of the interest that the original owner had over the property, the sa*e shold

go to her estate. !argarita 6errera had an interest in the property and that

interest shold go to her estate pon her de*ise so as to 2e a2le to properly

distri2te the* later to her heirsEin accordance with a will or 2y operation

of law.
















19

The death of !argarita 6errera does not e5tingish her interest over the

property. !argarita 6errera had an e5isting ontract to <ell 3& with "6A as

the seller. ?pon !argarita 6errera@s de*ise, this ontract to <ell was

neither nllified nor revoked. This ontract to <ell was an o2ligation on

2oth partiesE!argarita 6errera and "6A. #2ligations are

trans*issi2le.37 !argarita 6errera@s o2ligation to pay 2eca*e trans*issi2le

at the ti*e of her death either 2y will or 2y operation of law.

f we sstain the position of the "6A that this doc*ent is not a will, then

the interests of the decedent shold transfer 2y virte of an operation of law

and not 2y virte of a resoltion 2y the "6A. For as it stands, "6A cannot

*ake another contract to sell to other parties of a property already initially

paid for 2y the decedent. <ch wold 2e an act contrary to the law on

sccession and the law on sales and o2ligations.3

hen the original 2yer died, the "6A shold have considered the estate of the decedent as the ne5t ;person;3(likely to stand in to flfill the o2ligation

to pay the rest of the prchase price. The opposition of other heirs to the

reprchase 2y Francisca 6errera shold have pt the "6A on gard as to

the award of the lots. Frther, the ecision in the said ivil ase "o. B-

$9&3 /)estioning the eed of <elf-AdCdication1 which rendered the deed

therein nll and void'0 shold have alerted the "6A that there are other

heirs to the interests and properties of the decedent who *ay clai* the

property after a testate or intestate proceeding is conclded. The "6A

therefore acted ar2itrarily in the award of the lots.

G.R. No. 8))50 F*/ay ), 1991

$EO$LE OF !E $!#L#$$#NE', plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLOR#AUMAL# y AMADO AND 'UZE! UMAL# y AMADO, defendants-

appellants.

Facts: n ri*inal ase "o. %-'73 of the egional Trial ort, Branch %3,

Lcena ity, Dloria ?*ali and <>eth ?*ali were charged for violation of

<ection ', Article $ of the angeros rgs Act of $(79. ?pon arraign*ent,

Dloria ?*ali entered a plea of ;not, gilty; as accsed <>eth ?*ali

re*ained at large. After trial, the lower cort rendered a decision on

<epte*2er (, $(7, the dispositive portion thereof states:

644F#4, pre*ises considered, this ort finds accsed

Dloria ?*ali gilty 2eyond reasona2le do2t of violating <ec. ',

Art. $ / sic1 of A &'9% as a*ended, otherwise known as the

angeros rgs Act of $(79, and is here2y sentenced to sffer

the penalty of Reclusion &erpetua. Accsed 2eing a detention

prisoner is entitled to enCoy the privileges of her preventive

i*prison*ent. The case against <>eth ?*ali, her co-accsed in

this case is here2y ordered A64 to 2e revived ntil the

arrest of said accsed is effected. The warrant of arrest issed

against her is here2y ordered reiterated.

=revios to the case of =ierre =angan was the case of Francisco !analo,who was likewise investigated 2y operatives of the Tiaong, Pe>on =olice

epart*ent and for which a case for violation of the angeros rg Act

was filed against hi*, covered 2y ri*inal ase "o. %-%$& 2efore Branch

&0 of the egional Trial ort of Lcena ity. Aside fro* said case,

accsed Francisco !analo was likewise facing other charges sch as

conceal*ent of deadly weapon and other cri*es against property. =at.

Felino "ogerra went to the Tiaong !nicipal 8ail, and soght the help of

Francisco !analo and told hi* the social and pernicios effect of

prohi2ited drgs like *ariCana 2eing peddled to *inors of Tiaong, Pe>on.

!analo althogh a detention prisoner was toched 2y the appeal *ade to

hi* 2y the police*an and agreed to help in the identification of the sorce

of the *ariCana. n retrn he asked the police*an to help hi* in so*e

cases pending against hi*. 6e did not negotiate his case for violating the

dangeros drg act, as he has entered a plea of gilty to the charged / sic1

2efore the sala of 8dge 4ri2erto osario.

ith the consent of Francisco !analo, =fc. <ar*iento, hief of the

nvestigation ivision gave hi* for /'1 *arked =%.00 2ills to 2y

*ariCana fro* sorces known to hi*. The serial n*2ers of the *oney















20

was entered in the police 2lotter. The instrction was / sic1 for !analo to

2ring 2ack the prohi2ited drg prchased 2y hi* to the police head)arters.

Few *intes there after / sic1, !analo retrned with two /91 foils of dried

*ariCana which lie allegedly 2oght fro* the accsed Dloria ?*ali.

Thereafter, he was asked 2y the police investigators to give a state*ent on

the *anner and circ*stances of how he was a2le to prchase two /91

*ariCana foils fro* accsed Dloria ?*ali. ith the affidavit of Francisco

!analo, spported 2y the two /91 foils of *ariCana. the hief of the

nvestigation ivision petitioned the ort for the issance of a search

warrant as a Cstification for the* to search the hose of Dloria ?*ali

located at ector / sic1 <treet. =o2lacion, Tiaong, Pe>on. After secring the

sa*e, the police operatives, went to the hose of Dloria ?*ali and served

the search warrant on her. onfiscated fro* the person of Dloria ?*ali

were the for =%.00 2ills with serial n*2ers BA9&('3, T300%,

%9000 and 4&(73, respectively as reflected in the police 2lotter.

Likewise, present in the for /'1 =%.00 2ills were the letters T which were placed 2y the police investigators to frther identify the *arked for /'1

=%.00 2ills. The searched / sic1 in the hose was *ade in the presence of

Brgy. apt. =n>alan. The search reslted in the confiscation of a can of

*ilo, containing si5teen /$&1 foils of dried *ariCana leaves which were

placed in a tpperware and kept in the kitchen where rice was 2eing stored.

n ri*inal ase "o. %-%$&, Francisco !analo was charged of having in

his possession ndian 6e*p on April %, $(%, in violation of <ection ,

Article $$ of ep2lic Act &'9% as a*ended, otherwise as the angeros

rgs Act of $(79. Accsed never dispted the clai* of Francisco !analo

that the *ariCana fond in his possession on April %, $(% in the

*nicipality of Tiaong, Pe>on was sold to hi* 2y the accsed Dloria?*ali. The defense also did not dispte the clai* of the prosection that in

the investigation of =ierre =angan, the police investigator ca*e to know that

Dloria ?*ali was the sorce of the *ariCana leaves which he sed and

s*oked reslting in his present drg dependency.

6eld: le $30, <ection 90 of the evised les of ort provides that:

45cept as provided in the ne5t scceeding section, all persons who

can perceive, and perceiving can *ake known their perception to

others *ay 2e witnesses.

eligios or political 2elief, interest in the otco*e of the case, or

conviction of a cri*e nless otherwise provided 2y law, shall not

2e a grond for dis)alification.

The phrase ;conviction of a cri*e nless otherwise provided 2y law; takes

into accont Article 9$ of the ivil ode which states that persons ($

convicted of falsification of a doc*ent, perCry or false testi*ony; are

dis)alified fro* 2eing witnesses to a will.; /=aras, R'()S *+ C*'R

*)$, ol. First 4d., p. ''1

<ince the witness Francisco !analo is not convicted of any of the a2ove-

*entioned cri*es to dis)alify hi* as a witness and this case does not

involve the pro2ate of a will, e rle that the fact that said witness is facing

several cri*inal charges when he testified did not in any way dis)alify hi*

as a witness.

The testi*ony of a witness shold 2e given fll faith and credit, in the

a2sence of evidence that he was actated 2y i*proper *otive /=eople v.

!elgar, D.. "o. 7%9&,9( 8anary $(, $%7 <A 7$1. 6ence, in the

a2sence of any evidence that witness Francisco !analo was actated 2y

i*proper *otive, his testi*ony *st 2e accorded fll credence.

haphazard wills digest june 26

Documents