170177684-Cases-in-Succession-and-LIST.docx

8/9/2019 170177684-Cases-in-Succession-and-LIST.docx

1/41


2/41

Case No. 1

G.R. No. 189776 December 15, 2010

AMELIA P. ARELLANO, rerese!"e# b$ %er #&'$ ao(!"e#

)&ar#(a!s, AGNE* P. ARELLANO a!# NONA P.ARELLANO,Petitioner, vs.

+RANCI*CO PA*CAL a!# MIGEL PA*CAL,Respondents.

+AC-*


3/41

Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate on January 2, 1999 leaving as heirs hissiblings, namely: petitioner Amelia P. Arellano ho is represented by herdaughters Agnes P. Arellano !Agnes" and Nona P. Arellano, and respondents#rancisco Pascual and $iguel N. Pascual.

Respondents %iled a petition %or &Judicial 'ettlement o% (ntestate )state and(ssuance o% *etters o% Administration,& on April 2+, 2 be%ore the Regional-rial ourt !R-" o% $a/ati, and alleged, inter alia, that a parcel o% land locatedin -eresa 0illage, $a/ati, hich as, by eed o% onation, trans%erred by thedecedent to petitioner the validity o% hich donation respondents assailed, &maybe considered as an advance legitime& o% petitioner.

-he probate court %ound the eed o% onation as valid and ent on to hold that itis subect to collation %olloing Article 131 o% the Ne ivil ode hich reads:

)very compulsory heir, ho succeeds ith other compulsory heirs, must bringinto the mass o% the estate any property or right hich he may have received %romthe decedent, during the li%etime o% the latter, by ay o% donation, or any othergratuitous title in order that it may be computed in the determination o% thelegitime o% each heir, and in the account o% the partition.

I**E

4hether or not the subect property donated by decedent to Amelia is subect tocollation5

/ELD

ollation ta/es place hen there are compulsory heirs, one o% its purposes beingto determine the legitime and the %ree portion. (% there is no compulsory heir,there is no legitime to be sa%eguarded. -he purposes o% collation are to securee6uality among the compulsory heirs in so %ar as is possible, and to determine the%ree portion, a%ter %inding the legitime, so that ino%%icious donations may bereduced.

-he records do not sho that the decedent le%t any primary, secondary, orconcurring compulsory heirs. 7e as only survived by his siblings, ho are his

collateral relatives and, there%ore, are not entitled to any legitime. -he decedentnot having le%t any compulsory heir ho is entitled to any legitime, he as atliberty to donate all his properties, even i% nothing as le%t %or his siblings8collateral relatives to inherit. 7is donation to petitioner, assuming that it asvalid, is deemed as donation made to a &stranger,& chargeable against the %reeportion o% the estate.-here being no compulsory heir, hoever, the donatedproperty is not subect to collation.


4/41

Case No. 2

DEL RO*ARIO *. +ERRERGR NO. 187056*EP-EMER 20, 2010

+AC-*

'pouses eecuted a &onationMortis Causa& the terms o% hich are as %ollos:

It is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall berespected by the surviving spouse.

It is our will that J and E will continue to occupy the portions now occupied bythem.

It is further our will that this DON!ION MO"!I# C$# shall not in any wayaffect any other distribution of other properties belonging to any of us donorswhether testate or intestate and where ever situated.

It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right%ownership% possession and administration of this property herein donated andaccepted and this Disposition and Donation shall be operative and effectiveupon the death of the DONO"#.

I**E

4hether the disposition o% the property is a donation mortis causa !e%%ectiveupon death", as in %act designated, or actually a donation inter vivos !e%%ectiveduring the li%etime o% the onors"5

/ELD


5/41

(- (' A ;NA-(;N (N-)R 0(0;'.

-hat the document in 6uestion in this case as captioned &onation $ortisausa& is not controlling. -his ourt has held that, i% a donation by its terms isinter vivos, this character is not altered by the %act that the donor styles it mortis

causa.

(n Austria8$agat v. ourt o% Appeals, the ourt held that &irrevocability& is a6uality absolutely incompatible ith the idea o% conveyances mortis causa, here&revocability& is precisely the essence o% the act. A donation mortis causa has the%olloing characteristics:

1. (t conveys no title or onership to the trans%eree be%ore the death o% thetrans%eror< or, hat amounts to the same thing, that the trans%eror should retainthe onership !%ull or na/ed" and control o% the property hile aliveut this ourt has consistently held that such reservation !reddendum" inthe contet o% an irrevocable donation simply means that the donors parted iththeir na/ed title, maintaining only bene%icial onership o% the donated propertyhile they lived.

Notably, the three donees signed their acceptance o% the donation, hichacceptance the deed re6uired. -his ourt has held that an acceptance clause

indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is a re6uirement only%or such /ind o% donations. onations mortis causa, being in the %orm o% a ill,need not be accepted by the donee during the donor?s li%etime.

#inally, as Justice J. >. *. Reyes said in Puig v. Pe@a%lorida, in case o% doubt, theconveyance should be deemed a donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, inorder to avoid uncertainty as to the onership o% the property subect o% the deed.


6/41

Case No.

MAGLA*ANG 3s. CAA-INGAN

June , 22

+AC-*

onchita abatingan eecuted deed o% donation over a house and lot in

%avor o% his brother. Also, she eecuted B other deeds o% donation in %avor o% the

petitioners. -he deeds provided that it shall ta/e e%%ect upon the donorCs death.onchita died. Respondents %iled an action to annul the B deeds on the ground

that it is void %or %ailure to comply ith the %ormalities o% a ill.

I**E4;N the deed is a donation mortis causa.

/ELD

Des, it is.

-he nature o% the donations as mortis causa is con%irmed by the %act that

the donations do not contain any clear provision that intends to pass proprietary

rights to petitioners prior to onchitaCs death.

Do!a"(o!s mor"(s ca&sa m&s" be e4ec&"e# (! accor#a!ce ("%

"%e re&(s("es o! so'em!("(es o (''s a!# "es"ame!"s.


7/41

-hough the deeds ere ac/noledge be%ore a notary public, they ere not

eecuted in the manner provided %or under Article +8+3 o% the ivil ode, thus it is

void.

Case No. MAGA- *. COR- O+ APPEAL*

7 *CRA 298

+AC-* Private respondent 'antiago A. uerrero as President and hairman o%&uerrero -ransport 'ervices&, a single proprietorship. 'ometime in 19E2, uerrero-ransport 'ervices on a bid %or the operation o% a %leet o% taicabs ithin the 'ubicNaval >ase, in ;longapo. As highest bidder, uerrero as to &provide radio8controlledtai service ithin the F.'. Naval >ase, 'ubic >ay, utiliGing as demand re6uires . . . 13operational tais consisting o% %our heel, %our8door, %our passenger, radio controlled,meter controlled, sedans, not more than one year . . . &

;n 'eptember 22, 19E2, ith the advent o% martial la, President #erdinand ). $arcosissued *etter o% (nstruction No. 1.

;n 'eptember 2, 19E2, pursuant to the a%ore6uoted *etter o% (nstruction, the Radioontrol ;%%ice issued Administrative ircular No. B: 'ubect: 'uspending the acceptanceand processing o% applications %or radio station construction permits and %or permits toon andHor possess radio transmitters or transceivers.

;n 'eptember 2, 19E2, uerrero and 0ictorino . $agat, as eneral $anager o%'pectrum )lectronic *aboratories, a single proprietorship, eecuted a letter8contract %orthe purchase o% transceivers at a 6uoted price o% F'IEE,32.9, #;> Do/ohoma.0ictorino as to deliver the transceivers ithin 3 to 9 days a%ter receiving notice %romuerrero o% the assigned radio %re6uency, &ta/ing note o% overnment Regulations. -hecontract as signed and 0ictorino contacted his Japanese supplier, Koide L o., *td.and placed an order %or the transceivers.

;n 'eptember 29, 19E2, Navy )change ;%%icer, A. . $ason con%irmed that uerreroon the bid %or the commercial transportation contract. ;n ;ctober B, 19E2, middleman and bro/er (sidro M. Aligada o% Reliance roup )ngineers, (nc. , rote 0ictorino,

in%orming him that a radio %re6uency as not yet assigned to uerrero and thatgovernment regulations might complicate the importation o% the transceivers. 7oever,in the same letter, 0ictorino as advised to advise his supplier &to proceed !ith"production pending %re6uency in%ormation.& 0ictorino as also assured o% uerrero?s%inancial capability to comply ith the contract. ;n ;ctober 3, 19E2, uerrero in%ormedAligada o% the %re6uency number assigned by 'ubic Naval >ase authorities. Aligada asinstructed to &proceed ith the order thru 'pectrum )lectronics *aboratories.& ;n;ctober E, 19E2, Aligada in%ormed $agat o% the assigned %re6uency number. Aligada


8/41

also advised 0ictorino to &proceed ith the order upon receipt o% letter o% credit.& ;nJanuary 1, 19E=, uerrero applied %or a letter o% credit ith the $etropolitan >an/ and-rust ompany. -his application as not pursued.

;n $arch 2E, 19E=, 0ictorino, represented by his layer, Atty. 'inesio '. 0ergara,

in%ormed uererro that the order ith the Japanese supplier has not been canceled.'hould the contract be canceled, the Japanese %irm ould %or%eit = o% the deposit andcharge a cancellation %ee in an amount not yet /non, uerrero to bear the loss.#urther, should the contract be canceled, 0ictorino ould demand an additional amounte6uivalent to 1 o% the contract price.

Fnable to get a letter o% credit %rom the entral >an/ due to the re%usal o% the Philippinegovernment to issue a permit to import the transceivers, uerrero commencedoperation o% the taicabs ithin 'ubic Naval >ase, using radio units borroed %rom theF.'. government. 0ictorino thus canceled his order ith his Japanese supplier.

;n $ay 22, 19E=, 0ictorino %iled ith the Regional -rial ourt, $a/ati a complaint %ordamages arising %rom breach o% contract against uerrero. ;n June E, 19E=, uerreromoved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause o% action. ;nJune 13, 19E=, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. ;n July11, 19E=, 0ictorino %iled a petition %or revie on certiorari ith this ourt assailing thedismissal o% the complaint.

;n April 2, 19+=, the 'upreme ourt ruled that the complaint su%%iciently averred acause o% action. -he ourt set aside the order o% dismissal and remanded the case to thetrial court %or %urther proceedings. ;n November 2E, 19+B, the trial court ordered thatthe case be archived %or %ailure o% 0ictorino to prosecute. ;n $arch 11, 19+, petitioners,;livia, ulce, $a. $agnolia, Ronald and ennis $agat, moved to reinstate the case and

to substitute 0ictorino in its prosecution. Apparently, 0ictorino died on #ebruary 1+,19+. ;n April 29, 19+, the trial court granted the motion.

;n July 12, 1991, the trial court decided in %avor o% the heirs o% 0ictorino and ordereduerrero to pay temperate, moral and eemplary damages, and attorney?s %ees. ;nAugust 21, 1991, uerrero appealed to the ourt o% Appeals. 7oever it as dismissed.;n ;ctober 23, 199, the heirs o% 0ictorino %iled ith the ourt o% Appeals a motion %orreconsideration. ;n $arch 12, 1993, the ourt o% Appeals denied the motion %orreconsideration.

I**E*

1. 4hether or not the transceivers ere contraband items prohibited by the *;(and Administrative ircular to import< hence, the contract is void.

2. 4hether or not the contract as breached.

RLINGAnent the 1st issue, N;. -he contract as not void ab initio. Nohere in the*;( and Administrative ircular is there an epress ban on the importation o%


9/41

transceivers. -he *;( and Administrative ircular did not render Oradios andtransceivers illegally per se. -he Administrative ircular merely ordered the Radioontrol ;%%ice to suspend the acceptance and processing o% application %or permitsto possess, on, trans%er, purchase and sell radio transmitters and transceiversthere%ore< possession and importation o% the radio transmitters and transceivers as

legal provided one had the necessary license %or it. -he *;( and Administrative irculardid not render the transceivers outside the commerce o% man. -hey ere valid obects o%the contract.

Anent the 2nd issue, N;. -he contract as not breached. A%%irming the validity o% thecontract, the la provides that hen the service !re6uired by the contract" has becomeso mani%estly beyond the contemplation o% the parties, the obligor may also be releasedthere %rom in hole or in parts. 7ere, uerreroCs inability to secure a letter o% credit andto comply ith his obligation as a direct conse6uence o% the denial o% the permit toimport. #or this, he cannot be %aulted. )ven i% the ourt assumes that there as a breacho% contract, damages cannot be aarded. amnum abs6ue inuria comes into the %ore.

Case No. 5/e(rs o &a! a!# +e'(e o!sa"o 3s. Co&r" o Aea's :G.R. No. L;6600, &'$ 0,

195, 95 P%(' 81onsato, then already a idoer, had beeninduced and deceived into signing to notarial deeds o% donations !)hibits 1 and 2" in %avoro% his brother Juan >onsato and o% his nephe #elipe >onsato, respectively, trans%erring tothem several parcels o% land covered by -a eclaration Nos. 32, 12B9, and 122, situatedin the municipalities o% $abini and >urgos, Province o% Pangasinan, both donations havingbeen duly accepted in the same act and documents.

Plainti%%s li/eise charged that the donations ere mortis causa and void %or lac/ o% there6uisite %ormalities. -he de%endants, Juan >onsato and #elipe >onsato, ansered averring

that the donations made in their %avor ere voluntarily eecuted in consideration o% pastservices rendered by them to the late omingo >onsato< that the same ere eecuted %reelyithout the use o% %orce and violence, misrepresentation or intimidation< and prayed %or thedismissal o% the case and %or damages in the sum o% P2,.

-he loer court ruled that the deeds o% donation ere eecuted by the donor hile the latteras o% sound mind, ithout pressure or intimidation< that the deeds ere o% donation intervivos ithout any condition ma/ing their validity or e%%icacy dependent upon the death o% the


10/41

donor< but as the properties donated ere presumptively conugal, having been ac6uiredduring the coverture o% omingo >onsato and his i%e Andrea Nacario, the donations ereonly valid as to an undivided one8hal% share in the three parcels o% land described therein.

(n the ourt o% Appeals, maority o% the ustices declared that the a%oresaid donations to be

null and void, because they ere donations mortis causa and ere eecuted ithout thetestamentary %ormalities prescribed by la, and ordered the de%endants8appellees >onsato tosurrender the possession o% the properties in litigation to the plainti%%s8appellants. -oustices, hoever, dissented, claiming that the said donations should be considered asdonations inter vivos.

/ELD'trictly spea/ing, the issue is hether the documents in 6uestion embody valid donations, orelse legacies void %or %ailure to observe the %ormalities o% ills !testaments". espite theidespread use o% the term &donations mortis causa,& it is ell8established at present that theivil ode o% 1++9, in its Art. 32, bro/e aay %rom the Roman *a tradition, and %olloedthe #rench doctrine that no one may both donate and retain !&donner at retenir ne vaut&", bymerging the ersthile donations mortis causa ith the testamentary dispositions, thussuppressing said donations as an independent legal concept.

ART. 620.Donations which are to become effective upon the death of the donor parta&e ofthe nature of disposals of property by will and shall be governed by the rules established fortestamentary successions.

id the late omingo >onsato ma/e donations inter vivos or dispositions post mortem in%avor o% the petitioners herein5 (% the latter, then the documents should reveal any or all o% the%olloing characteristics:

'() Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor* or% whatamounts to the same thing% that the transferor should retain the ownership 'full or na&ed)and control of the property while alive '+idal vs. ,osadas% - ,hil.% (/* 0u1man vs. Ibea% 23,hil.% 244)*

'5) !hat before his death% the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will% adnutum* but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in thedonor to dispose of the properties conveyed '6autista vs. #abiniano% 0. ".789452% November (% (:-5)*

'4) !hat the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

None o% these characteristics is discernible in the deeds o% donation, )hibits 1 and 2, eecutedby the late omingo >onsato. -he donor only reserved %or himsel%, during his li%etime, theoner?s share o% the %ruits or produce, a reservation that ould be unnecessary i% theonership o% the donated property remained ith the donor. $ost signi%icant is the absence o%stipulation that the donor could revo/e the donations< on the contrary, the deeds epressly


11/41

declare them to be &irrevocable&, a 6uality absolutely incompatible ith the idea o%conveyances mortis causa here revocability is o% the essence o% the act, to the etent that atestator can not la%ully aive or restrict his right o% revocation !;ld ivil ode, Art. E=E< Neivil ode, Art. +2+".

Case No. 6

G.R. No. L;5262 &'$ 2, 1990

RPER-O RE=E* a!# RE=NALDO C. *AN AN, (! %(s caac("$ as*ec(a' A#m(!(s"ra"or, petitioners,

vs./ON. LOREN>O R. MO*?EDA, )e o C+I, Pama!)a :ra!c%

IIenamin Reyes< and !B" )scolastica Pascual alusong !hal%8 blood Pedroalusong.

;n ecember =, 19E=, the heirs o% r. Pascual %iled a special proceeding %or theadministration o% his estate. ;n #ebruary 12, 19E3, Frsula Pascual %iled a motion toeclude some properties %rom the inventory o% Pascual?s estate and to deliver the titlesthereto to her. Frsula alleged that r. Pascual during his li%etime or on November 2,1933 eecuted a &onation $ortis ausa& in her %avor covering properties hich areincluded in the estate o% r. Pascual !subect o% 'pecial Proceedings No. E=8=8$" andthere%ore should be ecluded %rom the inventory.

I**E

4as the donation valid5

RLING

-he title given to a deed o% donation is not the determinative %actor hich ma/es thedonation &inter vivos& or &mortis causa& As early as the case o%7aureta v. Manta% et al.,!BB Phil. 33+ Q192+" this ourt ruled that the dispositions in a deed o% donation8hether &inter vivos& or &mortis causa& do not depend on the title or term used in thedeed o% donation but on the provisions stated in such deed.


12/41

-here is no doubt that the so8called ;NA-(;N $;R-(' AF'A is really a donationinter vivos. -he donation as eecuted by r. Pascual in %avor o% his sister FrsulaPascual out o% love and a%%ection as ell as a recognition o% the personal servicesrendered by the donee to the donor. -he trans%er o% onership over the propertiesdonated to the donee as immediate and independent o% the death o% the donor. -he

provision as regards the reservation o% properties %or the donor?s subsistence in relationto the other provisions o% the deed o% donation con%irms the intention o% the donor togive na/ed onership o% the properties to the donee immediately a%ter the eecution o%the deed o% donation.

CA*E NO. 7

I-G 3s. CA

1+= 'RA E

+AC-*

olores 0itug, deceased, during her li%etime together ith her husband Romarico

0itug, eecuted a survivorship agreement ith the ban/. (t provides that a%ter the death

o% either o% them, the %und shall belong eclusively to the survivor.

I**E*

4;N the survivorship agreement is a ill.

4;N it is valid.

RLING

>ecause the account as a oint account and they made a ill hile they ere

married, so naturally the cash ould be their absolute community or conugal property.

-he cash is oned in8common by them. 4hen the spouses opened savings account, they

merely put hat rightly belonged to them in a money8ma/ing venture. -hey did not

dispose o% it in %avor o% the other. *(!ce "%e (e re#ecease# %er %&sba!#, "%e

'a""er ac&(re# &o! %er #ea"% a 3es"e# r()%" o3er "%e amo&!" &!#er "%e

sa3(!)s acco&!".


13/41

Case No. 8

G.R. No. 16555 &'$ 26, 2010LA>ARO PA*CO a!# LARO PA*COvs./EIR* O+ +ILOMENA DE G>MAN, rerese!"e# b$ CRE*ENCIA DE

G>MAN;PRINCIPE

+AC-*-he present petition began ith a omplaint %or a 'um o% $oney and amages %iledonecember 1=, 2 by respondents, the heirs o% #ilomena de uGman, represented byresencia deuGman8Principe, against petitioners *auro Pasco and *aGaro Pasco. -hecase as %iled be%ore the$unicipal -rial ourt !$-" o% >ocaue, >ulacan, and doc/etedas ivil ase No. $$8=191.(n their omplaint, herein respondents alleged that on#ebruary E, 199E, petitioners obtained a loan inthe amount o% 1B,. %rom#ilomena !no deceased". -o secure the petitionersC loan, *auro eecuted a chattelmortgage on his (suGu Jeep in %avor o% #ilomena. Fpon her death, her heirs soughttocollect %rom the petitioners, to no avail. espite numerous demands, petitionersre%used to either paythe balance o% the loan or surrender the (suGu Jeep to therespondents. -hus, respondents ereconstrained to %ile the collection case to compel thepetitioners to pay the principal amount o% 1B,. plus damages in the amount o% monthly interest %rom #ebruary E, 199, 2 attorneyCs %ees, eemplary damagesand epenses o% litigation.

I**E*4;N the 'pecial Poer o% Attorney did not validly authoriGe resencia to enterinto theompromise Agreement on behal% o% her co8heirs.

RLINGNo. it is undisputed that resenciaCs co 8heirs eecuted a 'pecial Poer o%

Attorney, dated April3, 1999, designating the %ormer as their attorney8in8%act andempoering her to %ile cases %or collection o% all the accounts due to #ilomena or herestate. onse6uently, resencia entered into the subect ompromise Agreement inorder to collect the overdue loan obtained by Pasco %rom #ilomena. (n so doing,resencia as merely per%orming her duty as attorney8in8%act o% her co8heirs pursuantto the 'pecial Poer o% Attorney given to her.


14/41

Case No. 9CELE*-INO AL* 3s. *A-RNINO AL* G.R.No. 168970 a!&ar$ 15,

2010 Pera'"a, .+ac"s7erein petitioner and respondents are the children o% the spouses Ru%oand 'ebastiana >alus. ;n January =, 19E9, Ru%o mortgaged a parcel o% land,hich he ons, as a security %or a loan he obtained %rom the Rural >an/ o% $aigo,*anao del Norte. Ru%o %ailed to pay his loan. As a result, the mortgaged propertyas %oreclosed and as sold to the ban/ as the sloe bidder at a public auctionheld %or that purpose. -he property as not redeemed ithin the period alloedby la. $ore than to years a%ter the auction, or on January 2, 19+B, the sheri%%eecuted a e%inite eed o% 'ale in %avor o% the >an/. -herea%ter, a ne title asissued in the name o% the >an/.

;n ;ctober 1, 19+9, herein petitioner and respondents eecuted an)traudicial 'ettlement o% )state adudicating to each o% them a speci%ic one8third portion o% the subect property consisting o% 1,2B3 s6uare meters. -he)traudicial 'ettlement also contained provisions herein the parties admitted/noledge o% the %act that their %ather mortgaged the subect property to the>an/ and that they intended to redeem the same at the soonest possible time.

-hree years a%ter the eecution o% the )traudicial 'ettlement, hereinrespondents bought the subect property %rom the >an/. ;n ;ctober 12, 1992, aeed o% 'ale o% Registered *and as eecuted by the >an/ in %avor o%respondents. 'ubse6uently, a -- as issued in the name o% respondents.$eanhile, petitioner continued possession o% the subect lot.

;n June 2E, 199, respondents %iled a omplaint %or Recovery o% Possession andamages against petitioner, contending that they had already in%ormedpetitioner o% the %act that they ere the ne oners o% the disputed property, butthe petitioner still re%used to surrender possession o% the same to them.

-he R- held that the right o% petitioner to purchase %rom the respondents hisshare in the disputed property as recogniGed by the provisions o% the)traudicial 'ettlement o% )state, hich the parties had eecuted be%ore therespondents bought the subect lot %rom the >an/.

Aggrieved by the ecision o% the R-, herein respondents %iled an appeal iththe A. -he A ruled that hen petitioner and respondents did not redeem thesubect property ithin the redemption period and alloed the consolidation o%onership and the issuance o% a ne title in the name o% the >an/, their co8onership as etinguished. 7ence, the instant petition %or revie on certiorariunder Rule B.

Iss&e4hether or not co8onership by him and respondents over the subect
http://grazeeslucidinterval.blogspot.com/2010/04/celestino-balus-vs-saturnino-balus-grno_6884.htmlhttp://grazeeslucidinterval.blogspot.com/2010/04/celestino-balus-vs-saturnino-balus-grno_6884.htmlhttp://grazeeslucidinterval.blogspot.com/2010/04/celestino-balus-vs-saturnino-balus-grno_6884.htmlhttp://grazeeslucidinterval.blogspot.com/2010/04/celestino-balus-vs-saturnino-balus-grno_6884.html


15/41

property persisted even a%ter the lot as purchased by the >an/ and title theretotrans%erred to its name, and even a%ter it as eventually bought bac/ by therespondents %rom the >an/.

/e'#-he court is not persuaded.

At the outset, it bears to emphasiGe that there is no dispute ith respect to the%act that the subect property as eclusively oned by petitioner andrespondents? %ather, Ru%o, at the time that it as mortgaged in 19E9. -his asstipulated by the parties during the hearing conducted by the trial court on;ctober 2+, 1993. )vidence shos that a e%inite eed o% 'ale as issued in %avoro% the >an/ on January 2, 19+B, a%ter the period o% redemption epired. -here isneither any dispute that a ne title as issued in the >an/?s name be%ore Ru%odied on July 3, 19+B. 7ence, there is no 6uestion that the >an/ ac6uired eclusiveonership o% the contested lot during the li%etime o% Ru%o.

-he rights to a person?s succession are transmitted %rom the moment o% his death.(n addition, the inheritance o% a person consists o% the property and transmissiblerights and obligations eisting at the time o% his death, as ell as those hichhave accrued thereto since the opening o% the succession. (n the present case,since Ru%o lost onership o% the subect property during his li%etime, it only%ollos that at the time o% his death, the disputed parcel o% land no longer %ormedpart o% his estate to hich his heirs may lay claim. 'tated di%%erently, petitionerand respondents never inherited the subect lot %rom their %ather.

#urthermore, petitioner?s contention that he and his siblings intended tocontinue their supposed co8onership o% the subect property contradicts theprovisions o% the subect )traudicial 'ettlement here they clearly mani%ested

their intention o% having the subect property divided or partitioned by assigningto each o% the petitioner and respondents a speci%ic 1H= portion o% the same.Partition calls %or the segregation and conveyance o% a determinate portion o% theproperty oned in common. (t see/s a severance o% the individual interests o%each co8oner, vesting in each o% them a sole estate in a speci%ic property andgiving each one a right to enoy his estate ithout supervision or inter%erence%rom the other. (n other ords, the purpose o% partition is to put an end to co8onership, an obective hich negates petitioner?s claims in the present case.

CA*E NO. 10DELA MERCED 3s. DELA MERCED

#ebruary 2, 1999

+AC-*)varista $. dela $erced died intestate, ithout issue and le%t !" parcels o% land.

At the time o% her death, )varista as survived by three sets o% heirs.


16/41

;n April 2, 19+9, the three sets o% heirs o% the decedent, eecuted anetraudicial settlement, adudicating the properties o% )varista to them, each set ith ashare o% !1H=" pro8indiviso. Joselito P. ela $erced, illegitimate son o% the late#rancisco, %iled a &Petition %or Annulment o% the )traudicial and prayed that he beincluded to share in the !1H=" pro8indiviso share in the estate o% corresponding to the

heirs o% #rancisco.I**E

4;N Joselito as an illegitimate child is barred %rom inheriting %rom )varistaCsestate.

/ELDNo. Ar"(c'e 992 o "%e NCC (s !o" a'(cab'e beca&se (!3o'3e# %ere (s

!o" a s("&a"(o! %ere a! (''e)("(ma"e c%('# o&'# (!%er(" ab (!"es"a"o rom a'e)("(ma"e s(s"er o %(s a"%er, %(c% (s ro%(b("e# b$ "%e aoresa(# ro3(s(o!o 'a. Rather, it is a scenario here an illegitimate child inherits %rom his %ather, thelatter?s share in or portion o%, hat the latter already inherited %rom the deceased sister,)varista. As opined by the ourt o% Appeals, the la in point in the present case isArticle EEE o% the N, hich provides that the rights to succession are transmitted %romthe moment o% death o% the decedent. 'ince )varista died ahead o% her brother#rancisco, the latter inherited a portion o% the estate o% the %ormer as one o% her heirs.'ubse6uently, hen #rancisco died, his heirs inherited his !#rancisco?s" share in theestate o% )varista.

Case No. 11OPLENCIA * CA

FACTS:

Respondents fled a complaint or Specifc Perormance againstPetitioner on the basis o a Contract to Sell o a lot in Sta. Rosa Laguna

wherein a downpament o P!""#""" was recei$ed b the Petitioner. Petitioner admits these but claims that the sub%ect propert ormed

part o the estate o her ather in respect o which a petition orprobate was fled in the RTC. This was allegedl &nown b theRespondents.

Petitioner claims that the same should be appro$ed b the probate

court and upon reali'ation o the nullit o the contract# she wanted toha$e the contract rescinded and was willing to gi$e bac& thedownpament.

Trial Court ruled in a$or o the Petitioner citing Rule () Section * which

allows the sale o properties sub%ect o a probate proceeding pro$idedthat it is benefcial to the estate and complies with the re+uirements othe law. ,t urther stated that where the administratri- reali'es thenullit o the transaction entered into# she is not estopped rominterposing the contracts nullit.

The Court o Appeals re$ersed the Trial Courts decision. /ence# the

appeal.,SS01:


17/41

2hether a contract to sell a real propert in$ol$ed in an estate proceeding$alid and binding without the appro$al o the probate court3/1L4: 51SContract to Sell Valid

Section * o Rule () o the Rules o Court is not applicable# because

petitioner entered into the Contract to Sell in her capacit as anheiress# not as an e-ecutri- or administratri- o the estate. ,n thecontract# she represented hersel as the 6lawul owner6 and seller othe sub%ect parcel o land.

The Supreme Court emphasi'ed that hereditar rights are $ested in the

heir or heirs rom the moment o the decedent7s death. Petitioner#thereore# became the owner o her hereditar share the moment herather died. Thus# the lac& o %udicial appro$al does not in$alidate theContract to Sell# because the petitioner has the substanti$e right to sellthe whole or a part o her share in the estate o her late ather.

Administration of the Estate not Prejudiced by the Contract to Sell

The Contract to Sell stipulates that petitioner7s o8er to sell iscontingent on the 6complete clearance o the court on the Last 2illTestament o her ather.6 19Conse+uentl# although the Contract to Sellwas perected between the petitioner and pri$ate respondents duringthe pendenc o the probate proceedings# the consummation o thesale or the transer o ownership o$er the parcel o land to the pri$aterespondents is sub%ect to the ull pament o the purchase price and tothe termination and outcome o the testate proceedings. Thereore#there is no basis or petitioner7s apprehension that the Contract to Sellma result in a premature partition and distribution o the properties othe estate.

Estoppel Petitioner is estopped rom bac&ing out o her representations in her

$alid Contract to Sell with pri$ate respondents# rom whom she hadalread recei$ed P!""#""" as initial pament o the purchase price.Petitioner ma not renege on her own acts and representations# to thepre%udice o the pri$ate respondents who ha$e relied on them.9urisprudence teaches us that neither the law nor the courts wille-tricate a part rom an unwise or undesirable contract he or sheentered into with all the re+uired ormalities and with ull awareness oits conse+uences.

Case No. 12CORONEL V. CA (October 07, 1996)

FACTS:

Coronel et al. consummated the sale of his property located in Quezon City to

respondent Alcaraz. Since the title of the property was still in the name of the deceased


18/41

father of the Coronels, they agreed to transfer its title to their name upon payment of the

down payment of 50K. and thereafter an absolute deed of sale will be eecuted.

Alcaraz!s mother paid the down payment in behalf of her daughter and as such, Coronel

made the transfer of title to their name. "otwithstanding this fact, Coronel sold the

property to petitioner #abanag and rescinded its prior contract with Alcaraz.

ISSUE:

$%" the rescission of the first contract between Coronel and Alcaraz is &alid.

HELD:

'he case is a contract of sale sub(ect to a suspensi&e condition in which consummation

is sub(ect only to the successful transfer of the certificate of title from the name ofpetitioners) father, to their names. 'hus, the contract of sale became obligatory.

$ith regard to double sale, the rule that the first in time, stronger in right should apply.

'he contention of the petitioner that she was a buyer in good faith because the notice of

lis pendens in the title was annotated after she bought the property is of no merit. *n

case of double sale, what finds rele&ance and materiality is not whether or not the

second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers

such second sale in good faith, that is, without +nowledge of any defect in the title of the

property sold.

'he ruling should be in fa&or of Alcaraz because #abanag registered the property two

months after the notice of lis pendens was annotated in the title and hence, she cannot

be a buyer in good faith.

A') N;. 1=PAF*$(-AN 0. A8 ;8;4N)R'7(P ;# PR;P)R-D

;hen a co8owner sells the entire property without consent from the other co8owners% only his pro indiviso share on the property is transferred to the buyer.

+AC-*


19/41

-he dispute covers 2 lots, *ot EE and *ot 191, hich ere oned by AgatonaPaulmitan. 'he had 2 children, Pascual and onato. PascualCs !E" children !Alicio,)lena, Abelino, Adelina, Anita, >a/ing, Anito" are the respondents and onatoand his daughter and son8in8la are petitioners.

onato eecuted an A%%idavit o% eclaration o% 7eirship, adudicating to himsel%*ot EE claiming that he is the sole surviving heir thus the ;- o% Agatona ascancelled and a -- as issued in his name. 7e eecuted a deed o% sale o% *ot191 in %avor o% his daughter, Juliana. #or non8payment o% taes, the lot as%or%eited and sole at a public to the Provincial ovCt o% Negros ;ccidental,hoever, Juliana as able to redeem the property. Fpon learning these, thechildren o% Pascual %iled H the #( a complaint against petitioners to partitionthe land plus damages. PetitionersC de%ense as that the action has alreadyprescribed %or it as %iled more than 11 years a%ter the issuance o% the -- andthat Juliana has ac6uired eclusive onership thru the eed o% 'ale and byredeeming the said property.

-he #( dismissed the complaint and became %inal and eecutory. 4ith respect to*ot 191, the court decided in %avor o% respondents. -hey are entitled to S o% *ot191, pro indiviso. -he redemption did not in anyay preudice their rights. -heland as ordered to be partitioned and the petitioners ere ordered to pay therespondents their share o% the %ruits and the respondents to pay their share in theredemption o% the land. -he A a%%irmed the decision thus the case at bar.

I**E

!1" 4hether or not PascualCs children and onato and Juliana ere co8oners o%their motherCs lot!2" 4hether or not Juliana ac6uired %ull onership by redeeming the property

/ELD

!1" D)': 4hen Agatona died, her estate as still unpartitioned. Art. 1E+ states

that O4here there are 2 or more heirs, the hole estate o% the decedent is, be%oreits partition, oned in common by such heirs, subect to the payment o% debts o%the deceased. 'ince Pascual and onato ere still alive hen she died, they areco8oners o% the estate. 4hen Pascual died, his children succeeded him in the co8onership o% the property.

4hen onato sold to his daughter the lot, he as only a co8oner o% the same


20/41

thus he can only sell his undivided portion o% the property. Art. B9= states thatOeach co8oner shall have the %ull onership o% his part and o% the %ruits andbene%its pertaining thereto, and he may there%ore alienate, assign or mortgage itand even substitute another person in its enoyment, ecept hen personal rightsare involved. >ut the e%%ect o% the alienation or mortgage, ith respect to the co8

oners, shall be limited to the portion hich may be allotted to him in thedivision upon the termination o% the co8onership.;nly the rights o% the co8oner8seller are trans%erred ma/ing the buyer !Juliana"a co8oner.

!2" N;: 4hen she redeemed the property, it did not end the co8onership. -heright o% repurchase may be eercised by a co8oner H respect to hisHher sharealone as stated in Art. 1312. >ut she may compel them to reimburse her %or hal% o%the repurchase price %or a co8oner has the right to compel other co8oners tocontribute to the epenses %or the preservation o% the thing and to taes.

Case No. 1 a!# 2

RIO+ERIO 3s. CA

January 1=, 2B

+AC-*

Al%onso P. ;r%inada, Jr. died ithout a ill leaving several personal andreal properties. 7e also le%t a ido, respondent )speranGa P. ;r%inada, homhe had seven children ho are the herein respondents.

Also, the decedent also le%t his paramour and their children. -hey arepetitioner -eodora Rio%ero and co8petitioners 0eronica, Alberto and Roena.Respondents Al%onso James and *ourdes !legitimate children o% the deceased"discovered that petitioner -eodora and her children eecuted an )traudicial

'ettlement o% )state o% a eceased Person ith Muitclaim involving theproperties o% the estate o% the decedent located in agupan ity.

Respondent Al%onso %iled a Petition %or *etters o% Administration.Respondents %iled a omplaint %or the AnnulmentHRescission o% )tra Judicial'ettlement o% )state. Petitioners raised the a%%irmative de%ense that respondentsare not the real parties8in8interest but rather the )state o% Al%onso ;. ;r%inada,Jr. in vie o% the pendency o% the administration proceedings.


21/41

I**E

4hether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover property o% the estate

pending the appointment o% an administrator.

/ELD

Pending the %iling o% administration proceedings, the %e(rs ("%o&"#o&b" %a3e 'e)a' erso!a'("$ "o br(!) s&(" (! be%a' o "%e es"a"e o "%e#ece#e!"in accordance ith the provision o% Article EEE o% the Ne ivil ode&that !t"he rights to succession are transmitted %rom the moment o% the death o%the decedent.& -he provision in turn is the %oundation o% the principle that the

property, rights and obligations to the etent and value o% the inheritance o% aperson are transmitted through his death to another or others by his ill or byoperation o% la.

)ven i% administration proceedings have already been commenced, theheirs may still bring the suit i% an administrator has not yet been appointed. -hisis the proper modality despite the total lac/ o% advertence to the heirs in the ruleson party representation.

Case No. 15

EMNACE 3s. CA

November 2=, 21

+AC-*

)milio )mnace, 0icente -abanao and Jacinto ivinagracia ere partners in a

business concern /non as $a. Nelma #ishing (ndustry. 'ometime in January o% 19+3,

they decided to dissolve their partnership and eecuted an agreement o% partition and

distribution o% the partnership properties among them.


22/41

Petitioner %ailed to submit to -abanao?s heirs any statement o% assets and

liabilities o% the partnership, and to render an accounting o% the partnership?s %inances.

Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to -abanao?s heirs the deceased?s 1H=

share in the total assets o% the partnership. -abanao?s %iled against petitioner an action

%or accounting, payment o% shares, division o% assets and damages.

I**E

4;N the heirs o% 0icente -abanao *ac/s the capacity to sue the petitioner.

/ELD

No. -he surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as eecutri or

administratri o% the estate be%ore she can %ile the action. 'he and her children arecomplainants in their on right as successors o% 0icente -abanao. #rom the very

moment o% 0icente -abanao?s death, his rights inso%ar as the partnership as concerned

ere transmitted to his heirs, %or r()%"s "o "%e s&ccess(o! are "ra!sm(""e# rom

"%e mome!" o #ea"% o "%e #ece#e!".

4hatever claims and rights 0icente -abanao had against the partnership and

petitioner ere transmitted to respondents by operation o% la, more particularly by

succession, hich is a mode o% ac6uisition by virtue o% hich the property, rights and

obligations to the etent o% the value o% the inheritance o% a person are transmitted.

$oreover, respondents became oners o% their respective hereditary shares %rom the

moment 0icente -abanao died.

Case No. 16Limjuco vs. The Estate of Pedro Fragate

C!TAT!"N# $% "& No. '( ).*'+

+AC-*

Pedro #ragante, a #ilipino citiGen at the time o% his death, applied %or a certi%icate o%public convenience to install and maintain an ice plant in 'an Juan RiGal. 7is intestateestate is %inancially capable o% maintaining the proposed service. -he Public 'erviceommission issued a certi%icate o% public convenience to (ntestate )state o% thedeceased, authoriGing said (ntestate )state through its special or Judicial Administrator,appointed by the proper court o% competent urisdiction, to maintain and operate the


23/41

said plant. Petitioner claims that the granting o% certi%icate applied to the estate is acontravention o% la.

I**E4hether or not the estate o% #ragante may be etended an arti%icial udicialpersonality.

/ELD

-he estate o% #ragante could be etended an arti%icial udicial personality because underthe ivil ode, Oestate o% a dead person could be considered as arti%icial uridical person%or the purpose o% the settlement and distribution o% his properties. (t should be notedthat the eercise o% uridical administration includes those rights and %ul%illment o%obligation o% #ragante hich survived a%ter his death. ;ne o% those surviving rightsinvolved the pending application %or public convenience be%ore the Public 'erviceommission.

'upreme ourt is o% the opinion that O%or the purposes o% the prosecution o% said caseNo. BE2 o% the Public 'ervice ommission to its %inal conclusion, both the personalityand citiGenship o% Pedro ;. #ragrante must be deemed etended, ithin the meaningand intent o% the Public 'ervice Act, as amended, in harmony ith the constitution: it isso adudged and decreed.

Case No. 17

A*ILIA ARA=A-A,plainti%%8appellant, vs. +LOREN-INO O=A, E- AL.,de%endants8appellants. G.R. No. L-28067 March 10, 1928

ILLA;REAL,,.#

+AC-*

ecilio Joya, during his li%etime, inherited %rom his deceased parents theright o% lease to si lots o% the %riar lands at 'anta rus de $alabon, municipality

o% -anGa, Province o% avite. ;n June B, 193, ecilio Joya married the hereinplainti%%, >asilia Arayata. 4hen the (nsular overnment ac6uired the said land,ecilio Joya continued his lease in accordance ith the provisions o% the Act o%ongress o% July 1, 192 and Act No. 112 o% the Philippine ommission. 4hilemarried to the herein plainti%%8appellant, ecilio Joya purchase the lots he hadbeen leasing, on installments, %rom the overnment, under said Act No. 112,hich ere designated as lots Nos. 1=1, 1+, 1+3, 11=, 2=2 and BE. As thenumber o% lots hich a purchaser could ac6uire under the la as limited, lots


24/41

Nos. 11= and 2=2 ere ecluded and put up %or sale. (n order not to lose them,ecilio Joya had Pedro -iongco buy them, supplying him ith the necessary%unds. 'ubse6uently, Pedro -iongco trans%erred his right to said lots to ecilioJoya by donation. -hese trans%ers ere approved by the irector o% *ands andnoted in the proper registry boo/. ;n April 2B 1919, ecilio Joya conveyed his

right to lot No. 1+ to #lorentino Joya consideration o% the sum o% P2, saidconveyance having been approved by the irector o% *ands and registered in theproper registry boo/. ;n $ay 11, 1919, ecilio Joya conveyed his right to lot No.BE to $arcelina Joya and #rancisco Joya in consideration o% the sum o% PB,conveyance having been approved by the irector o% *ands and registered in theproper registry boo/. ;n April 2E, 1919, ecilio Joya eecuted a ill devising lotNo. 1+ to #lorentino Joya, lot No. 1+3 to Pablo Joya, lot No. 1=1 to el%inand #elicisima >lanca%lor, lot No. 11= to the brothers Agustin and Pedro Joya,lot No. 2=2 to #eliciano and Asuncion >obadilla, and lot No. BE to $arcelinaand #rancisca Joya. At the time o% his death, ecilio Joya had not yet completedthe payment o% the price o% the lots mentioned above to the (nsular overnment.All the lots in 6uestion ecept lot No. BE, are in the possession o% the de%endants,ho enoy their products. ;n $ay 1, 192 lots Nos. 2=2, 1+3, 11= and 1=1,ere trans%erred to #lorentino Joya as administrator o% the estate o% the deceasedecilio Joya.

;n $ay 23, 1919, ecilio Joya died, and on June 9, 1919, his eecutor, theherein de%endant #lorentino Joya, presented said ill %or probate to the ourt o%#irst (nstance o% avite, hich as probated a%ter the proper proceedings. (n$arch, 192, in the course o% the testamentary proceedings, the eecutor#lorentino Joya presented an alleged agreement o% partition by the legatees,hich agreement as disapproved by the court in vie o% the herein plainti%%?sopposition, ho alleged that her signature had been obtained by %raud.

I**E*!1"7as the plainti%%8appellant, as the surviving spouse, eclusive right to all the

lots in 6uestion5!2" (n case she has, is she entitled to the possession and products thereo%5

/ELD

!1" D)'. Q7olderQs o% a certi%icate o% sale o% %riar lands, ho has not %ully

paid the purchase price may trans%er and convey his rights, but that thetrans%eree or grantee is not subrogated to all the trans%eror?s right until thetrans%er has been approved by the irector o% *ands and registered in the registryboo/ in the >ureau o% Public *ands. (n other ords, in order that a trans%er o% therights o% a holder o% a certi%icate o% sale o% %riar lands may be legally e%%ective, it isnecessary that a %ormal certi%icate o% trans%er be dran up and submitted to thehie% o% the >ureau o% Public *ands %or his approval and registration. -he laauthoriGes no other ay o% trans%erring the rights o% a holder o% a certi%icate o%


25/41

sale o% %riar lands. (%, as it as held in the case o%Jocson vs. #oriano, the rightcon%erred by Act No. 112 on the holder o% a certi%icate o% sale o% %riar lands insimilar to that con%erred on the holder o% a &homestead,& and i% the latter has noright to dispose o% said certi%icate by ill to the preudice o% his surviving spouseand %or his children !29 . J., 9=, par. =B2", then by analogy, the holder o% a

certi%icate o% sale o% %riar lands cannot dispose o% his rights to said lands by ill tothe preudice o% his ido and children.

!2" D)'. -he de%endants, ho are in possession o% the said lands, cannotinvo/e the provisions o% the ivil ode relative to possession in good %aith,inasmuch as the principle on hich the right o% a holder in good %aith is based isthe belie% that his possession is ith ust title under claim o% onership.

4hile a deceased heirs or legatees ac6uire the onership o% the propertygiven them in the ill and may ta/en possession o% their respective portions uponthe death o% their predecessor, yet upon the appointment o% an administrator, thelatter, by virtue o% his appointment, ac6uires a right to the possession o% theproperty o% estate, subect to the orders o% the court, unless he consents to theheirs continuing in possession thereo%. !,imentel vs. ,alanca*


26/41

Aniceto Danes oned 2 parcels o% land *ot EE=8A and *ot EE=8>. Aniceto Danes

as survived by his children, Ru%ino, #elipe and -eodora. 7erein private respondents,

)stelita, (luminado and Jesus, are the children o% Ru%ino ho died in 1932 hile the

other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Danes, are children o% #elipe. -eodora

as survived by her child, Jovita !Jovito" Albib. (t is established that Ru%ino and his

children le%t the province to settle in other places as a result o% the outbrea/ o% 4orld

4ar ((. According to )stelita, %rom the &Japanese time up to peace time&, they did not

visit the parcels o% land in 6uestion but &a%ter liberation&, hen her brother ent there

to get their share o% the sugar produced therein, he as in%ormed that #ortunato

'antiago, #uentebella !Puentevella" and AlvareG ere in possession o% *ot EE=. A%ter

#uentebella?s death, Arsenia 0da. de #uentebella sold said lots %or P3,. to

Rosendo AlvareG.;n $ay 23, 193, -eodora Danes and the children o% her brother Ru%ino %iled a

complaint against #ortunato 'antiago, Arsenia 0da. de #uentebella, AlvareG and the

Register o% eeds o% Negros ;ccidental %or the &return& o% the onership and possession

o% *ots EE= and +2=. uring the pendency o% said case, AlvareG sold the *ots %or

P2,. to r. Rodol%o 'iason. #( rendered udgment ordering de%endant Rosendo

AlvareG to reconvey to plainti%%s the lots.

I**E

4;N the liability o% Rosendo AlvareG arising %rom the sale o% *ots Nos. EE=8A

and EE=8> could be legally passed or transmitted by operation o% la to the petitioners

ithout violation o% la and due process.

RLING

-he doctrine obtaining in this urisdiction is on the )e!era' "ra!sm(ss(b('("$

o "%e r()%"s a!# ob'()a"(o!s o "%e #ecease# "o %(s 'e)("(ma"e c%('#re! a!#

%e(rs. -he binding e%%ect o% contracts upon the heirs o% the deceased party is not altered

by the provision o% our Rules o% ourt that money debts o% a deceased must be

li6uidated and paid %rom his estate be%ore the residue is distributed among said heirs

!Rule +9". -he reason is that hatever payment is thus made %rom the estate is


27/41

ultimately a payment by the heirs or distributees, since the amount o% the paid claim in

%act diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs ould have been entitled to receive.

&Fnder our la, there%ore, the general rule is that a party?s contractual rights and

obligations are transmissible to the successors. -he rule is a conse6uence o% the

progressive ?depersonaliGation? o% patrimonial rights and duties. #rom the Roman

concept o% a relation %rom person to person, the obligation has evolved into a relation

%rom patrimony to patrimony, ith the persons occupying only a representative

position, barring those rare cases here the obligation is strictly personal, in

consideration o% its per%ormance by a speci%ic person and by no other. . . .&Petitioners

being the heirs o% the late Rosendo AlvareG, they cannot escape the legal conse6uences

o% their %ather?s transaction, hich gave rise to the present claim %or damages.

ase No. ==

RAMIRE> 3s. RAMIRE>


28/41

111 'RA +2

+AC-*

Jose RamireG a #ilipino, died in 'pain leaving only his ido $arcelle

RamireG, a #rench. (n the proect partition, the property as divided into 2

parts: 1st part to the ido, and 2nd part to the grandnephes the na/ed

onership. #urthermore, as to the usu%ruct o% the 2ndpart, 1H= as given to the

ido and 2H= to 4anda de 4robles/i, an Austrian.-he grandnephes opposed

on the ground that usu%ruct to 4anda is void because it violates the

constitutional prohibition against the ac6uisition o% lands by aliens.

I**E

4;N the ground %or the opposition is correct.

/ELD

No, it is not correct.

-he ' held that "%e Co!s"("&"(o!a' ro3(s(o! %(c% e!ab'es a'(e!s

"o ac&(re r(3a"e 'a!#s #oes !o" e4"e!# "o "es"ame!"ar$ s&ccess(o!

%or otherise the prohibition ill be %or naught and meaningless. -he ' upheld

the usu%ruct in %avor o% 4anda because although it is a real right, it does not vest

title to the land in the usu%ructuary and it is the vesting o% title to land in %avor o%

aliens hich is proscribed by the onstitution.


29/41

Case No. 71

RAADILLA 3s. CA

June 29, 2

+AC-*

(n a odicil appended to the *ast 4ill and -estament o% testatri Alea

>elleGa, r. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor8in8interest o% the herein petitioner,

Johnny '. Rabadilla, as instituted as a devisee o% parcel o% land. -he odicil

provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to

give $aria $arlina oscolluela y >elleGa, !E" !sic" piculs o% )port sugar and

!2" piculs o% omestic sugar, until the said $aria $arlina oscolluela y >elleGa

dies.

r. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a complaint, to en%orce the

provisions o% subect odicil.

I**E


30/41

4;N the obligations o% Jorge Rabadilla under the odicil are inherited by his

heirs.

/ELD

Fnder Article EE3 o% the N, inheritance includes all the property, rights and

obligations o% a person, not etinguished by his death. on%ormably, hatever rights r.

Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue o% subect odicil ere transmitted to his %orced heirs, at

the time o% his death. And since ob'()a"(o!s !o" e4"(!)&(s%e# b$ #ea"% a'so orm

ar" o "%e es"a"e o "%e #ece#e!"< corollarily, the obligations imposed by the

odicil on the deceased r. Jorge Rabadilla, ere li/eise transmitted to his

compulsory heirs upon his death.

A') N;. 11

-E*-A-E E*-A-E O+ AADA 3s. AAA

January =1, 2

+AC-*

Abada eecuted his ill in 19=2. Abada died in 19B. (t as asserted that the ill

o% Abada does not indicate that it as ritten in a language or dialect /non to the

testator and that the ill as not ac/noledged be%ore a notary public, citing Articles

+B and +3 o% the Ne ivil ode.

I**E

4hat la shall govern the validity o% the ill5


31/41

/ELD :

-he la that governs the validity o% the ill o% Abada is the ode o% ivil

Procedure. Although the las in %orce at that time are the ivil ode o% 1++9 and Act

No. 19 or the ode o% ivil Procedure !hich governed the eecution o% ills be%ore the

enactment o% the Ne ivil ode", the ode o% ivil Procedure repealed Article 3+ o%

the ;ld ivil ode. Fnder the ode o% ivil Procedure, the intervention o% a notary is

not necessary in the eecution o% any ill. AbadaCs ill does not re6uire

ac/noledgement be%ore a notary public. Fnder Article E9, the validity o% a ill as to its

%orm depends upon the obser3a!ce o "%e 'a (! orce a" "%e "(me (" (s ma#e .

Case No. 127

ALARADO 3s. GAIOLA

'eptember 1B, 199=

+AC-*

-he testator did not read the %inal dra%t o% the ill himsel%. (nstead, private

respondent, as the layer ho dra%ted the +8paged document, read the same aloud in

the presence o% the testator, the = instrumental itnesses and the notary public. -he

latter B %olloed the reading ith their on respective copies previously %urnished them.

'aid ill as admitted to probate. *ater on, a codicil as eecuted, and by that

time, the testator as already su%%ering %rom glaucoma. >ut the disinheritance and


32/41

revocatory clauses ere unchanged. As in the case o% the notarial ill, the testator did

not personally read the %inal dra%t o% the codicil. (nstead, it as private respondent ho

read it aloud in his presence and in the presence o% the three instrumental itnesses

!same as those o% the notarial ill" and the notary public ho %olloed the reading using

their on copies.

I**E

4as there substantial compliance to the reading o% the ill5

/ELD

Ar"(c'e 808 !o" o!'$ a'(es "o b'(!# "es"a"ors, b&" a'so "o "%ose %o,

or o!e reaso! or a!o"%er, are (!caab'e o rea#(!) "%e(r (''s. 7ence, theill should have been read by the notary public and an instrumental itness. 7oever,

the spirit behind the la as served though the letter as not. (n this case, there as

substantial compliance. *&bs"a!"(a' com'(a!ce (s acce"ab'ehere the purpose

o% the la has been satis%ied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the

eecution o% ills are intended to protect the testator %rom all /inds o% %raud and tric/ery

but are never intended to be so rigid and in%leible as to destroy the testamentary

privilege.

(n this case, private respondent read the testator?s ill and codicil aloud in the

presence o% the testator, his three instrumental itnesses, and the notary public. Prior

and subse6uent thereto, the testator a%%irmed, upon being as/ed, that the contents read

corresponded ith his instructions. ;nly then did the signing and ac/noledgement

ta/e place.


33/41

A') N;. 133

RODRIGE> 3s. ORA

1E 'RA B1

+AC-*

(n this case, there ere 2 proceedings. #irst as an intestate proceeding

instituted meaning, a proceeding to settle the estate o% a deceased person ho died

ithout a ill. >ut subse6uently, a ill as %ound and again another proceeding as

instituted, this time, testate proceeding herein the estate o% the deceased person is

settled i% that person has le%t a ill. 4e are con%ronted here o% 2 proceedings, one as

instituted ahead o% the other.

I**E


34/41

4hich proceeding should be pre%erred5

RLING

As 'o!) as "%ere (s a ('', e3e! ( "%a" ('' (s o&!# 'a"er a!# e3e! ( "%e

rocee#(!) or "%e se""'eme!" o "%e es"a"e o a erso! ("% a ('' (s ('e#

'a"er, "%a" s%o&'# be reerre#. -he ill should be probated. -he ill should be

given e%%ect as much as possible in order to give e%%ect to the ishes o% the testator. -he

ishes o% the testator must be given such pre%erence %irst. Probate o% the ill is needed

in order to determine hether or not the ill as indeed valid, hether or not the ill

as eecuted in observance ith the %ormalities re6uired by la and hether or not the

testator eecuted it ith a sound mind.

(% later on in the probate proceeding, the ill is %ound not to have validlyeecuted, then you go to intestate proceeding. >ut %irst you go to testate.

Case No. 178

ACAIN 3s. IAC

;ctober 2E, 19+E

+AC-*

onstantino %iled a petition %or the probate o% the ill o% the late Nemesio. -he

ill provided that all his shares %rom properties he earned ith his i%e shall be given to

his brother 'egundo !%ather o% onstantino". (n case 'egundo dies, all such property

shall be given to 'egundoCs children. 'egundo pre8deceased Nemesio.

-he oppositors 0irginia, a legally adopted daughter o% the deceased, and the

latter?s ido Rosa %iled a motion to dismiss on the %olloing grounds:

!1" the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dawi
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

170177684-Cases-in-Succession-and-LIST.docx

Documents