succession full text art 1082 and 1088 ncc.pdf

8/9/2019 SUCCESSION FULL TEXT Art 1082 and 1088 NCC.pdf

1/61

SUCCESSION FULL TEXT

ART 1082 NCC. ACT INTENDED TO END INDIVISION AMONG CO-HEIRS AND LEGATEES ORDEVISEES DEEMED TO BE A PARTITION

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3404 Ap!" 2# 1$%1

ANGELA I. TUASON#plaintiff-appellant,vs.ANTONIO TUASON# &R.# '() GREGORIO ARANETA# INC.#defendants-appellees.

Alcuaz & Eiguren for appellant.Araneta & Araneta for appellees.

MONTEMA*OR# J.+

In 191 the siste!s An"ela I. #uason and Nieves #uason de Ba!!eto and thei! b!othe! Antonio

#uason $!., held a pa!cel of land %ith an a!ea of &,9'(.& s). *. cove!ed b+ Ce!tificate of #itle No.&911 in a*paloc, Manila, in co**on, each o%nin" an undivided 1/ po!tion. Nieves %anted andas0ed fo! a pa!tition of the co**on p!ope!t+, but failin" in this, she offe!ed to sell he! 1/ po!tion.#he sha!e of Nieves %as offe!ed fo! sale to he! siste! and he! b!othe! but both declined to bu+ it. #heoffe! %as late! *ade to thei! *othe! but the old lad+ also declined to bu+, sa+in" that if the p!ope!t+late! inc!eased in value, she *i"ht be suspected of havin" ta0en advanta"e of he! dau"hte!. inall+,the sha!e of Nieves %as sold to 2!e"o!io A!aneta Inc., a do*estic co!po!ation, and a ne% Ce!tificateof #itle No. &13'1 %as issued in lieu of the old title No. &911 cove!in" the sa*e p!ope!t+. #he th!eeco-o%ne!s a"!eed to have the %hole pa!cel subdivided into s*all lots and then sold, the p!oceeds ofthe sale to be late! divided a*on" the*. #his a"!ee*ent is e*bodied in a docu*ent 4E5h. &6 entitled7Me*o!andu* of A"!ee*ent7 consistin" of ten pa"es, dated $une /, 191.

Befo!e, du!in" and afte! the e5ecution of this cont!act 4E5h. &6, Att+. $. Antonio A!aneta %as actin"

as the atto!ne+-in-fact and la%+e! of the t%o co-o%ne!s, An"ela I. #uason and he! b!othe! Antonio#uason $!. At the sa*e ti*e he %as a *e*be! of the Boa!d of 8i!ecto! of the thi!d co-o%ne!,A!aneta, Inc.

#he pe!tinent te!*s of the cont!act 4E5h. &6 *a+ be b!iefl+ stated as follo%s #he th!ee co-o%ne!sa"!eed to i*p!ove the p!ope!t+ b+ fillin" it and const!uctin" !oads and cu!bs on the sa*e and thensubdivide it into s*all lots fo! sale. A!aneta Inc. %as to finance the %hole develop*ent andsubdivision: it %as p!epa!e a schedule of p!ices and conditions of sale, sub;ect to the sub;ect to theapp!oval of the t%o othe! co-o%ne!s: it %as invested %ith autho!it+ to sell the lots into %hich thep!ope!t+ %as to be subdivided, and e5ecute the co!!espondin" cont!acts and deeds of sale: it %asalso to pa+ the !eal estate ta5es due on the p!ope!t+ o! of an+ po!tion the!eof that !e*ained unsold,the e5penses of su!ve+in", i*p!ove*ents, etc., all adve!tisin" e5penses, sala!ies of pe!sonnel,co**issions, office and le"al e5penses, includin" e5penses in institutin" all actions to e;ect alltenants o! occupants on the p!ope!t+: and it unde!too0 the dut+ to fu!nish each of the t%o co-o%ne!s,

An"ela and Antonio #uason, copies of the subdivision plans and the *onthl+ sales and !ents andcollections *ade the!eon. In !etu!n fo! all this unde!ta0in" and obli"ation assu*ed b+ A!aneta Inc.,pa!ticula!l+ the financial bu!den, it %as to !eceive


2/61

496 #his cont!act shall !e*ain in full fo!ce and effect du!in" all the ti*e that it *a+ benecessa!+ fo! the PAR#= > #?E EC>N8 PAR# to full+ sell the said p!ope!t+ in s*all andsubdivided lots and to full+ collect the pu!chase p!ices due the!eon: it bein" unde!stood anda"!eed that said lots *a+ be !ented %hile the!e a!e no pu!chase!s the!eof:

4116 #he PAR#= > #?E EC>N8 PAR# 4*eanin" A!aneta Inc.6 is he!eb+ "iven full po%e!and autho!it+ to si"n fo! and in behalf of all the said co-o%ne!s of said p!ope!t+ all cont!acts

of sale and deeds of sale of the lots into %hich this p!ope!t+ *i"ht be subdivided: the po%e!she!ein vested to the PAR#= > #?E EC>N8 PAR# *a+, unde! its o%n !esponsibilit+ and!is0, dele"ate an+ of its po%e!s unde! this cont!act to an+ of its office!s, e*plo+ees o! to thi!dpe!sons:

41 #?E IR# PAR# 4*eanin" An"elaand Antonio6 shall be bound b+ this cont!act as lon" as the PAR#= > #?E EC>N8

PAR#, na*el+, the 2RE2>RI> ARANE#A, INC. is cont!olled b+ the *e*be!s of theA!aneta fa*il+, %ho a!e stoc0holde!s of the said co!po!ation at the ti*e of the si"nin" of thiscont!act ando! thei! la%ful hei!s:

>n epte*be! 1&, 19, An"ela I. #uason !evo0ed the po%e!s confe!!ed on he! atto!ne+-in-fact andla%+e!, $. Antonio A!aneta. #hen in a lette! dated >ctobe! 19, 19&, An"ela notified A!aneta, Inc.that because of alle"ed b!each of the te!*s of the 7Me*o!andu* of A"!ee*ent7 4E5h. &6 and abuseof po%e!s "!anted to it in the docu*ent, she had decided to !escind said cont!act and she as0ed thatthe p!ope!t+ held in co**on be pa!titioned. @ate!, on Nove*be! ', 19&, An"ela filed a co*plaintin the Cou!t of i!st Instance of Manila as0in" the cou!t to o!de! the pa!tition of the p!ope!t+ in)uestion and that she be "iven 1/ of the sa*e includin" !ents collected du!in" the ti*e that thesa*e includin" !ents collected du!in" the ti*e that A!aneta Inc., ad*iniste!ed said p!ope!t+.

#he suit %as ad*iniste!ed p!incipall+ a"ainst A!aneta, Inc. Plaintiffs b!othe!, Antonio #uason $!.,

one of the co-o%ne!s evidentl+ did not a"!ee to the suit and its pu!pose, fo! he evidentl+ did nota"!ee to the suit and its pu!pose, fo! he ;oined A!aneta, Inc. as a co-defendant. Afte! hea!in" andafte! conside!in" the e5tensive evidence int!oduce, o!al and docu*enta!+, the t!ial cou!t p!esidedove! b+ $ud"e E*ilio Pea in a lon" and conside!ed decision dis*issed the co*plaint %ithoutp!onounce*ent as to costs. #he plaintiff appealed f!o* that decision, and because the p!ope!t+ isvalued at *o!e than P


3/61

plaintiff An"ela and he! husband, a b!o0e!, and both had eve!+ oppo!tunit+ to "o ove! and co*pa!ethe* and decide on the advisabilit+ of o! disadvanta"e in ente!in" into the cont!act 4E5h. &6: thatalthou"h Att+. Antonio A!aneta %as an official of the A!aneta Inc.: bein" a *e*be! of the Boa!d of8i!ecto!s of the Co*pan+ at the ti*e that E5hibit 7&7 %as e5ecuted, he %as not the pa!t+ %ith %hich

An"ela cont!acted, and that he co**itted no b!each of t!ust. Acco!din" to the evidence A!aneta, thepe!tinent pape!s, and sent to he! chec0s cove!in" he! !eceive the sa*e: and that as a *atte! of fact,

at the ti*e of the t!ial, A!aneta Inc., had spent about P113, in i*p!ove*ent and had !eceived asp!oceeds on the sale of the lots the !espectable su* of P1,'&


4/61

But the *ain contention of the appellant is that the cont!act 4E5h. &6 should be decla!ed null and voidbecause its te!*s, pa!ticula!l+ pa!a"!aphs 9, 11 and 1< %hich %e have !ep!oduced, violate thep!ovisions of A!t. of the Civil Code, %hich fo! the pu!poses of !efe!ence %e )uote belo%

AR#. . No co-o%ne! shall be obli"ed to !e*ain a pa!t+ to the co**unit+. Each *a+, atan+ ti*e, de*and the pa!tition of the thin" held in co**on.

Neve!theless, an a"!ee*ent to 0eep the thin" undivided fo! a specified len"th of ti*e, note5ceedin" ten +ea!s, shall be valid. #his pe!iod *a+ be a ne% a"!ee*ent.

e a"!ee %ith the t!ial cou!t that the p!ovisions of A!t. of the Civil Code a!e not applicable. #hecont!act 4E5h., &6 fa! f!o* violatin" the le"al p!ovision that fo!bids a co-o%ne! bein" obli"ed to!e*ain a pa!t+ to the co**unit+, p!ecisel+ has fo! its pu!pose and ob;ect the dissolution of the co-o%ne!ship and of the co**unit+ b+ sellin" the pa!cel held in co**on and dividin" the p!oceeds ofthe sale a*on" the co-o%ne!s. #he obli"ation i*posed in the cont!act to p!ese!ve the co-o%ne!shipuntil all the lots shall have been sold, is a *e!e incident to the *ain ob;ect of dissolvin" the co-o%ne!s. B+ vi!tue of the docu*ent E5h. &, the pa!ties the!eto p!acticall+ and substantiall+ ente!edinto a cont!act of pa!tne!ship as the best and *ost e5pedient *eans of eventuall+ dissolvin" the co-o%ne!ship, the life of said pa!tne!ship to end %hen the ob;ect of its c!eation shall have been attained.

#his aspect of the cont!act is ve!+ si*ila! to and %as pe!haps based on the othe! a"!ee*ent o!

cont!act 4E5h. 7@76 !efe!!ed to b+ appellant %he!e the pa!ties the!eto in e5p!ess te!*s ente!ed intopa!tne!ship, althou"h this ob;ect is not e5p!essed in so *an+ %o!ds in E5h. &. e !epeat that %e seeno violation of A!t. of the Civil Code in the pa!ties ente!in" into the cont!act 4E5h. &6 fo! the ve!+!eason that A!t. is not applicable.

@oo0in" at the case f!o* a p!actical standpoint as did the t!ial cou!t, %e find no valid "!ound fo! thepa!tition insisted upon the appellant. e find f!o* the evidence as %as done b+ the t!ial cou!t that ofthe &,9'(.& s). *. %hich is the total a!ea of the pa!cel held in co**on, onl+ 1,& s). *. o! '.< pe!cent of the enti!e a!ea !e*ained unsold at the ti*e of the t!ial in the +ea! 193, %hile the "!eat bul0of 93.< pe! cent had al!ead+ been sold. As %ell obse!ved b+ the cou!t belo%, the pa!tne!ship is in thep!ocess of bein" dissolved and is about to be dissolved, and even assu*in" that A!t. of the CivilCode %e!e applicable, unde! %hich the pa!ties b+ a"!ee*ent *a+ a"!ee to 0eep the thin" undividedfo! a pe!iod not e5ceedin" 1 +ea!s, the!e should be no fea! that the !e*ainin" 1,& s). *. could

not be disposed of %ithin the fou! +ea!s left of the ten-+ea!s pe!iod fi5ed b+ A!t. .e dee* it unnecessa!+ to discuss and pass upon the othe! points !aised in the appeal and %hichcounsel fo! appellant has e5tensivel+ and abl+ discussed, citin" nu*e!ous autho!ities. As %e haveal!ead+ said, %e have vie%ed the case f!o* a p!actical standpoint, b!ushin" aside technicalities anddis!e"a!din" an+ *ino! violations of the cont!act, and in decidin" the case as %e do, %e a!e full+convinced that the t!ial cou!t and this #!ibunal a!e ca!!+in" out in a p!actical and e5peditious %a+ theintentions and the a"!ee*ent of the pa!ties contained in the cont!act 4E5h. &6, na*el+, to dissolvethe co**unit+ and co-o%ne!ship, in a *anne! *ost p!ofitable to the said pa!ties.

In vie% of the fo!e"oin", the decision appealed f!o* is he!eb+ affi!*ed. #he!e is no p!onounce*entas to costs.

o o!de!ed.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ.,concu!.Paras, C. J.,I ce!tif+ that M!. $ustice e!ia voted to affi!*.


5/61


Manila

IR# 8III>N

G.R. No. L-2$%41 &'(,' 2#1$8$

CARLOS GABILA# plaintiff-appellant,vs.PABLO PERE/# RAMON PERE/ MERCEDES PERE/# defendants-appellees.

Isidra . A!pig for plaintiff"appellant.

Castillo #a$ %ffices for defendants"appellees.

GRIO-AUINO# J.:

#his is an appeal f!o* a decision of the Cou!t of i!st Instance of 8avao dated $anua!+ '1, 19&1dis*issin" plaintiff-appellants co*plaint, %hich the Cou!t of Appeals ce!tified to this Cou!t becauseonl+ a )uestion of la% is involved.

>n epte*be! 1&, 19(, in the Cit+ of 8avao, defendants-appellees Pablo, Ra*on and Me!cedes,all su!na*ed Pe!eF, e5ecuted in favo! of plaintiff-appellant Ca!los 2abila, a 8eed of ale of a pa!celof land !e"iste!ed in the na*e of thei! deceased fathe! Ma!iano Pe!eF unde! #!ansfe! Ce!tificate of#itle No. (99 of the Re"ist!+ of 8eeds of 8avao, %hich the+ inhe!ited upon his de*ise. #he deed ofale 4E5h. A6 !eads


6/61

GN> A@@ MEN B= #?EE PREEN#

#his C>N#RAC#, *ade and e5ecuted in the place and date *entioned he!einbelo%b+ and bet%een PAB@> PEREH, *a!!ied: RAM>N PEREH, *a!!ied, ilipina citiFen,and MERCE8E PEREH, *a!!ied, ilipino, all of le"al a"e, and all !esidents ofBuna%an, 8avao Cit+, Philippines, he!einafte! !efe!!ed to as the EN8>R, andCAR@> . 2ABI@A, also of le"al a"e, *a!!ied to @eona!da P. 2abila and a !esident

of Ponciano t., 8avao Cit+, Philippines, he!einafte! !efe!!ed to as the EN8EE,%itnesseth

?EREA, the EN8>R are te o$ners of one parcel of agricultural landsituatedin Buna%an, Cit+ of 8avao, Philippines, %ith all the i*p!ove*ents, %hich is *o!epa!ticula!l+ bounded and described as follo$s

A pa!cel of land 4@ot No. &/ of the cadast!al su!ve+ of 8avao, Cadast!al Case No.1, [email protected].>. Cadast!al Reco!d No. /136, situated in the *unicipalit+ of 8avao.Bounded on the N and NE, b+ @ot No. PEREH, the fathe! of the EN8>R, %ho died on >ctobe! 11, 19'andte erein 'endors inerited said land fro! teir deceased fater, being telegiti!ate cildren(

?EREA, the EN8EE has a"!eed to pu!chase the above- desc!ibed p!ope!t+ andthe EN8>R have a"!eed to sell the sa*e to the EN8EE, sub;ect to the te!*sand conditions he!einbelo% specified:

N>, #?ERE>RE, fo! and in conside!ation of the su* of #> #?>AN8 IE?N8RE8 PE> 4P',R he!eb+ sell, t!ansfe! and conve+ unto the saidEN8EE, his hei!s, e5ecuto!s, ad*inist!ato!s and assi"ns, the above-desc!ibed one

pa!cel of land, to"ethe! %ith the buildin"s and i*p!ove*ents the!eon, belon"in" tothe EN8>R, the afo!e*entioned su* of P', 4P1.6 each the fi!st install*ent tobeco*e due and pa+able on >ctobe! 1, 19(, and the succeedin" *onthl+install*ents to be paid on the sa*e date eve!+ *onth the!eafte! until the totala*ount is full+ paid.

It is ereby agreed, co'enanted and stipulated by and bet$een te parties eretotat te )endors $ill e*ecute i!!ediately an E*tra"Judicial Partition of all te

properties of teir deceased fater, and pay te corresponding estate andineritance ta*es so tat te abo'e"described title could be cancelled and in its steada ne$ transfer Certificate of title be issued in fa'or of te )endee.

It is finall+ a"!eed, covenanted and stipulated that i**ediatel+ upon the e5ecution ofthis docu*ent, the EN8EE ta0es i**ediate possession of the p!ope!t+ sold and%ill ha!vest the i*p!ove*ents inside of this land.

IN I#NE ?ERE>, the pa!ties he!eto have he!eunto set thei! hands this 1&thda+ of epte*be!, 19( at 8avao Cit+, Philippines. 4Italics ou!s.6 4p. 1, olde! ofE5hibits.6


7/61


8/61

co!!ectl+ obse!ved that the defendants-appellees *a+ no lon"e! pa!tition the land in )uestionbecause the+ had al!ead+ sold it.

A ca!eful e5a*ination of the deed of sale 4E5h. A6 !eveals that it also se!ves the pu!pose of anaffidavit of ad;udication of the lot in )uestion to the defendants-appellees as hei!s of the fo!*e!o%ne! Ma!iano Pe!eF. #hei! decla!ation the!ein that the !e"iste!ed o%ne! of the land desc!ibed in#C# No. (99 Ma!iano Pe!eF, %ho died on >ctobe! 11, 19', is the fathe! of the vendo!s, that 7the

vendo!s inhe!ited said land f!o* thei! deceased fathe!, bein" the le"iti*ate child!en7 and that 7theendo!s a!e the o%ne!s7 of said land 4E5h. A6 is, in effect, an ad;udication of the land to the*selves.uch ad;udication !ende!s the stipulation in the deed of sale that 7the endo!s %ill e5ecutei**ediatel+ an E5t!a;udicial Pa!tition of all the p!ope!ties of thei! deceased fathe!7 4E5hibit A-16,supe!fluous and unnecessa!+. It *a+ be ove!loo0ed o! dee*ed not %!itten at all.

All that needs to be done no% is to !e"iste! on the #C# No. (99 of the late Ma!iano Pe!eF the deedof sale 4E5h. A6 %hich *a+ also be t!eated as an affidavit of ad;udication of the land to the vendo!s ino!de! that thei! fathe!s title *a+ be cancelled and a ne% one can be issued to thei! vendee, Ca!los2abila.

?ERE>RE, the appealed decision is he!eb+ set aside. #he defendants-appellees, the+ have notdone so +et, a!e o!de!ed to su!!ende! ando! delive! #C# No. (99 to the plaintiff-appellant in o!de!that the latte! *a+ p!esent it to the Re"iste! of 8eeds of 8avao fo! cancellation upon the !e"ist!ationof the 8eed of ale dated epte*be! 1&, 19( *ade in his favo! b+ the appellees. #he Re"iste! of8eeds of 8avao shall the!eupon cancel said #C# No. (99 of the late Ma!iano Pe!eF and issue a ne%title in the na*e of the plaintiff-appellant Ca!los 2abila, sub;ect to a lien in favo! of an+ dep!ivedhei!s unde! Rule 3 of the Rules of Cou!t. #he defendants-appellees a!e o!de!ed to pa+ the estateand inhe!itance ta5es, if an+, and the+ should p!esent p!oof of such pa+*ent to the Re"iste! of8eeds %ithin si5t+ 4&6 da+s afte! the finalit+ of this decision.

> >R8ERE8.

-ar'asa, Cruz, ancayco and edialdea, JJ., concur.


9/61


Manila

IR# 8III>N

G.R. No. 80821 F,' 21# 1$$1GREGORIO FAVOR# petitione!,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS# PRUDENCIO FAVOR HEIRS+ EUFEMIO FAVOR '()AGUSTIN FAVOR# !espondents.

#eo /iocos for petitioner.

0aludario %. 0onaco for pri'ate respondents.

CRU/# J.:p

It is sad %hen b!othe! is pitted a"ainst b!othe! in a bitte! cont!ove!s+ ove! p!ope!t+ left the* b+ a

co**on fo!ebea!. #he ancesto! *ust be tu!nin" in his "!ave to see that the bonds of blood thatused to unite his child!en have tu!ned into a !ope of sand.

#he deceased fathe! in this case %as Re"ino avo!, %ho left th!ee sons and seve!al pa!cels of landin his na*e. Befo!e the p!ope!t+ could be divided a*on" the th!ee b!othe!s, one of the* died %ithneithe! %ife no! child!en. >nl+ the su!vivin" b!othe!s, 2!e"o!io and P!udencio 4o! lo!encio6, a!einvolved in this liti"ation.

#he dispute a!ose in 193' %hen 2!e"o!io filed a co*plaint in the Cou!t of i!st Instance of Ne"!os>!iental a"ainst his olde! b!othe! P!udencio fo! pa!tition of the follo%in" p!ope!ties the+ had inhe!itedf!o* thei! fathe!

4a6 A pa!cel of land, @ot No. .C.#. No. !iental, %ith#a5 8ecla!ation No. 1(!iental, cove!edb+ #a5 8ecla!ation No. /&/9 and assessed at P11. s)ua!e *ete!s, *o!e o! less.

lo!encios !eaction %as to *ove to dis*iss the co*plaint fo! lac0 of a cause of action. ?econtended that the p!ope!ties *entioned in the co*plaint had al!ead+ been pa!titioned unde! a


10/61

Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent concluded bet%een 2!e"o!io and hi* on >ctobe! , 19(, andac0no%led"ed befo!e the ;ustice of the peace of @uFu!ia"a, Ne"!os >!iental.

#he Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent %as !ep!oduced in the *otion as follo%s

#hat, %he!eas, %e a!e the t!ue and absolute o%ne!s of ce!tain pa!cels of landsituated in the Municipalities of Bacon", @uFu!ia"a and 8u*a"uete, Ne"!os >!iental,

%hich pa!cels of land %e have inhe!ited f!o* ou! deceased fathe!, Re"ino avo!:#hat, %he!eas, %e have volunta!il+ a"!eed to divide the afo!esaid !eal p!ope!t+bet%een ou!selves %ith te!*s and conditions *o!e specificall+ stated he!eunde!:

No%, the!efo!e, fo! and in conside!ation of the above p!e*ises, %e have covenantedand a"!eed, and b+ these p!esents do he!eb+ covenant and a"!ee

i!st, that the pa!cel of land situated in the Municipalit+ of Bacon", Ne"!os >!iental,%hich had been subse)uentl+ divided and su!ve+ed shall !e*ain ou! p!ope!t+ inacco!dance %ith the Cadast!al u!ve+ of Bacon" Ne"!os >!iental:

econd KK #hat P!udencio avo! shall beco*e the e5clusive o%ne! of that pa!cel ofland situated on the bounda!+ bet%een 8u*a"uete and @uFu!ia"a, and %hich pa!celof land is cove!ed b+ a !ee Patent unde! >!i"inal Ce!tificate of #itle Nu*be!ed

19/ in the >ffice of the Re"iste! of 8eeds in and fo! the P!ovince of Ne"!os>!iental, and also of that ce!tain pa!cel of land situated in Ba!!io Bon"-Bon",Municipalit+ of @uFu!ia"a, Ne"!os >!iental. . . .

#hi!d KK #hat 2!e"o!io avo! shall beco*e the e5clusive o%ne! of that ce!tain pa!celof land situated in Ba!vio Cantil-i, 8u*a"uete Cit+, Ne"!os >!iental, unde! ace!tificate of #o!!ens #itle in the na*e of ou! deceased b!othe!, ?ila!io avo!: and

ou!th, that upon the si"nin" of this a"!ee*ent, P!udencio avo! shall pa+ to2!e"o!io avo! the su* of >ne ?und!ed ift+ Pesos 4P1


11/61

Civil Code sustainin" the !i"ht of the petitione! as co-o%ne! to the pa!tition of the p!ope!ties indispute.

42!e"o!io died on Ap!il 1,19((, and is he!eb+ substituted as petitione!s he!ein b+ his %ife, Melodia,and thei! child!en, $esus, Cali5to, e!nando, @eona!do, Ci!ilo, 2!e"o!io and @ope.6

e *ust obse!ve at the outset that althou"h deno*inated a Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent, the docu*ent

in )uestion is dee*ed a deed of pa!tition unde! A!ticle 1(' of the Civil Code, %hich cate"o!icall+p!ovides as follo%s

Eve!+ act %hich is intended to put an end to in division a*on" co-hei!s and le"ateeso! devisees is dee*ed to be a pa!tition, althou"h it should pu!po!t to be a sale, ane5chan"e,a co!pro!ise,o! an+ othe! t!ansaction.

As fo! its validit+, %e a"!ee %ith the !espondent cou!t that the Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent *ust beupheld, the challen"e to it not havin" been substantiated. A public inst!u*ent en;o+s thep!esu*ption of validit+ that has not been ove!co*e b+ the petitione! in this case %ith the full, clea!and convincin" evidence %e have consistentl+ !e)ui!ed in si*ila! cases. 2#he docu*ent appea!s tohave been dul+ nota!iFed, and b+ the then ;ustice of the peace, ande* officionota!+ public, of the to%n%he!e it %as e5ecuted. Althou"h it %as %!itten in En"lish KK and p!ecisel+ because of this KK %e cansuppose that its contents %e!e sufficientl+ e5plained to the pa!ties the!eto, %ho both clai*ed to be

illete!ate #hat clai* is believable in P!udencio, %ho decla!ed he %as a fa!*e! and *e!el+ affi5ed histhu*b*a!0 to the docu*ent, but it is not as c!edible %ith !espect to 2!e"o!io, %ho actuall+ si"ned thea"!ee*ent.

2!e"o!io %as in fact a business*an and even !an fo! the position of ba!an"a+ captain, 3fo! %hich theabilit+ to !ead and %!ite is p!esc!ibed as an indispensable )ualification. It is %o!th notin" that he alsosi"ned his co*plaint of eb!ua!+ 1.C.#./'&&-A, is the sa*e lot *entioned in the thi!d p!ovision of the Co*p!o*ise

A"!ee*ent 7that ce!tain pa!cel of land situated at Ba!!io Cantil-i, 8u*a"uete, Ne"!os>!iental unde! ce!tificate of title in the na*e of ou! deceased b!othe! ?ila!ioavo! . . .7 and is ad;udicated to 2!e"o!io avo!.

'. #he second pa!cel of land *entioned in the co*plaint, @ot .C.#. ffice of the Re"iste! of8eeds in and fo! the p!ovince of Ne"!os >!iental . . . .7 and is ad;udicated toP!udencio avo!.

/. #he thi!d pa!cel of land *entioned in the co*plaint, @ot 11, cove!ed b+ >.C.#.>.. 3'91, is the sa*e lot *entioned in the fi!st p!ovision of the Co*p!o*ise


12/61

A"!ee*ent, 7the pa!cel of land situated in the *unicipalit+ of Bacon", Ne"!os>!iental, %hich had been subse)uentl+ divided and su!ve+ed sall re!ain our

property . . . .

. #he fou!th pa!cel of land *entioned in the co*plaint, the lot at Ba!!io Bon"bon",alencia, Ne"!os >!iental, is the sa*e lot *entioned in the second p!ovision of theCo*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent as 7that ce!tain pa!cel of land situated at Ba!!io Bon"bon",

@uFu!ia"a 4no% alencia6, Ne"!os >!iental7 is ad;udicated to P!udencio avo!.

!iental is not *entioned in the Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent.

#he!e still !e*ain t%o pa!cels of land that have not +et been pa!titioned, to %it, @ot 11, %hich b+a"!ee*ent of the b!othe!s 7shall !e*ain ou! p!ope!t+,7 and the lot at Ba!!io Bon"ao, %hich %as notincluded in the Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent as found b+ both the t!ial and the !espondent cou!ts.Pa!tition of these lots is *andato!+ unde! A!ticle 9 of the Civil Code, %hich p!ovides as follo%s

No co-o%ne! shall be obli"ed to !e*ain in the co-o%ne!ship. Each co-o%ne! *a+de*and at an+ ti*e the pa!tition of the thin" o%ned in co**on, insofa! as his sha!eis conce!ned.

Neve!theless, an a"!ee*ent to 0eep the thin" undivided fo! a ce!tain pe!iod of ti*e,

not e5ceedin" ten +ea!s, shall be valid. #his te!* *a+ be e5tended b+ a ne%a"!ee*ent.

555 555 555

A!ticle 1(/ bolste!s the above !ule b+ decla!in" that

Eve!+ co-hei! has a !i"ht to de*and the division of the estate unless the testato!should have e5p!essl+ fo!bidden its pa!tition, in %hich case the pe!iod of in divisionshall not e5ceed t%ent+ +ea!s as p!ovided in A!ticle 9. . . .

No such p!ohibition %as *ade b+ Re"ino avo!, %ho died intestate. And as the Co*p!o*iseA"!ee*ent %as ente!ed into in 19(, the p!ovision the!ein fo! the co-o%ne!ship of @ot 11 isdee*ed to have e5pi!ed in 19


13/61


Manila

#?IR8 8III>N

G.R. No. 108$4 Sp56 2$# 1$$

ROLANDO SANCHE/# FLORIDA MIERL* SANCHE/# ALFREDO T. SANCHE/ '() M*RNA T.SANCHE/#petitione!s,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS# ROSALIA S. LUGOD# ARTURO S. LUGOD# EVEL*NLUGOD-RANISES '() ROBERTO S. LUGOD# !espondents.

PANGANIBAN# J.:

Is a petition fo! certiorari, in lieu of appeal, the p!ope! !e*ed+ to co!!ect o!de!s of a p!obate cou!tnullif+in" ce!tain deeds of sale and, thus, effectivel+ passin" upon title to the p!ope!ties sub;ect ofsuch deedsL Is a co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent pa!titionin" inhe!ited p!ope!ties valid even %ithout the

app!oval of the t!ial cou!t hea!in" the intestate estate of the deceased o%ne!LTe Case

#hese )uestions a!e ans%e!ed b+ this Cou!t as it !esolves the petition fo! !evie% on certioraribefo!eus assailin" the Nove*be! '/, 199' 8ecision1of the Cou!t of Appeals2in CA-2.R. P No. '(3&1%hich annulled the decision3of the t!ial cou!t4and %hich decla!ed the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent a*on" thepa!ties valid and bindin" even %ithout the said t!ial cou!ts app!oval. #he dispositive po!tion of theassailed 8ecision !eads

?ERE>RE, fo! the !easons he!einabove set fo!th and discussed, the instantpetition is 2RAN#E8 and the challen"ed decision as %ell as the subse)uent o!de!sof the !espondent cou!t a!e ANN@@E8 and E# AI8E. #he te*po!a!+ !est!ainin"o!de! issued b+ this Cou!t on >ctobe! 1, 199' is *ade PERMANEN#. #heco*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent dated >ctobe! /, 19&9 as *odified b+ the *e*o!andu* of

a"!ee*ent of Ap!il 1/, 193 is 8EC@ARE8 valid and bindin" upon he!ein pa!ties.And pecial P!oceedin"s No. -M and 1'' a!e dee*ed C@>E8 and#ERMINA#E8.

> >R8ERE8.%

Te Antecedent 3acts

#he facts a!e na!!ated b+ the Cou!t of Appeals as follo%s


14/61

?e!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia . @u"od is the onl+ child of spouses $uan C.ancheF and Ma!ia illaf!anca %hile he!ein p!ivate !espondents A!tu!o . @u"od,Evel+n @. Ranises and Robe!to . @u"od a!e the le"iti*ate child!en of he!ein p!ivate!espondent Rosalia.

?e!ein petitione!s Rolando, lo!ida Mie!l+, Alf!edo and M+!na, all su!na*edancheF, a!e the ille"iti*ate child!en of $uan C. ancheF.

ollo%in" the death of he! *othe!, Ma!ia illaf!anca, on epte*be! '9, 19&3, he!einp!ivate !espondent Rosalia filed on $anua!+ '', 19&(, th!u counsel, a petition fo!lette!s of ad*inist!ation ove! the estate of he! *othe! and the estate of he! fathe!,$uan C. ancheF, %ho %as at the ti*e in state of senilit+ 4Anne5 7B7, Petition6.

>n epte*be! /, 19&(, he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia, as ad*inist!at!i5 of theintestate estate of he! *othe!, sub*itted an invento!+ and app!aisal of the !eal andpe!sonal estate of he! late *othe! 4Anne5 7C7, Petition6.

Befo!e the ad*inist!ation p!oceedin"s pecial in P!oceedin"s No. -M couldfo!*all+ be te!*inated and closed, $uan C. ancheF, he!ein p!ivate !espondentRosalias fathe!, died on >ctobe! '1, 19&(.

>n $anua!+ 1, 19&9, he!ein petitione!s as hei!s of $uan C. ancheF, filed a petition

fo! lette!s of ad*inist!ation 4pecial P!oceedin"s No. 1''6 ove! the intestate estateof $uan C. ancheF, %hich petition %as opposed b+ 4he!ein p!ivate !espondent6Rosalia.7

>n >ctobe! /, 19&9, ho%eve!, he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia and he!einpetitione!s assisted b+ thei! !espective counsels e5ecuted a co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent4Anne5 787, Petition6 %he!ein the+ a"!eed to divide the p!ope!ties enu*e!ated the!ein ofthe late $uan C. ancheF.

>n Nove*be! /, 19&9, petitione! Rosalia %as appointed b+ the t!ial cou!t, and too0he! oath as the ad*inist!at!i5 of he! fathe!s intestate estate.

>n $anua!+ 19, 193, he!ein petitione!s filed a *otion to !e)ui!e ad*inist!at!i5,he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia, to delive! deficienc+ of ' hecta!es and o! to set

aside co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent 4Anne5 7E7, Petition6.nde! date of Ap!il 1/, 193, 4he!ein p!ivate !espondent6 Rosalia and he!einpetitione!s ente!ed into and e5ecuted a *e*o!andu* of a"!ee*ent %hich *odifiedthe co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent 4Anne5 77. Petition6

>n >ctobe! '


15/61

#he pa!ties %e!e subse)uentl+ o!de!ed to sub*it thei! !espective position pape!s,%hich the+ did 4Anne5es 7N7 and 7>7, Petition6. >n epte*be! 1, 19(9, fo!*e!counsel of 4he!ein petitione!s6 ente!ed his !e-appea!ance as counsel fo! 4he!einpetitione!s6.

>n the bases of *e*o!anda sub*itted b+ the pa!ties, the t!ial cou!t, this ti*ep!esided b+ $ud"e ivencio A. 2alon, p!o*ul"ated its decision on $une '&, 1991, the

dispositive po!tion of %hich states

?ERE>RE, p!e*ises conside!ed, ;ud"*ent is he!eb+ !ende!edas follo%s b+ decla!in" and o!de!in"

1. #hat the enti!e intestate estate of Ma!ia illaf!anca ancheF unde!pecial P!oceedin"s No. -M consists of all he! pa!aphe!nalp!ope!ties and one-half 41'6 of the con;u"al p!ope!ties %hich *ust bedivided e)uall+ bet%een Rosalia ancheF de @u"od and $uan C.ancheF:

'. #hat the enti!e intestate estate of $uan C. ancheF unde! pecialP!oceedin"s No. 1'' consists of all his capital p!ope!ties, one-half41'6 f!o* the con;u"al pa!tne!ship of "ains and one-half 41'6 of the

intestate estate of Ma!ia illaf!anca unde! pecial P!oceedin"s No.-M:

/. #hat one-half 41'6 of the enti!e intestate estate of $uan C.ancheF shall be inhe!ited b+ his onl+ le"iti*ate dau"hte!, Rosalia .ancheF de @u"od %hile the othe! one-half 41'6 shall be inhe!itedand be divided e)uall+ b+, bet%een and a*on" the si5 4&6 ille"iti*atechild!en, na*el+ Pat!icia Albu!o, Ma!ia Ra*uso ancheF, RolandoPed!o #. ancheF, lo!ida Mie!l+ #. ancheF, Alf!edo #. ancheFand M+!na #. ancheF:

. #hat all the 8eed 4sic6 of Absolute ales e5ecuted b+ $uan C.ancheF and Ma!ia illaf!anca in favo! of Rosalia ancheF @u"od,

A!tu!o . @u"od, Evel+n . @u"od and Robe!to . @u"od on $ul+ '&,

19&/ and $une '&, 19&3 a!e all decla!ed si*ulated and fictitious and*ust be sub;ect to collation and pa!tition a*on" all hei!s:

ffice! 4CENR>6 of 2in"oo" Cit+ as *e*be!s the!eof, %ith the tas0

to p!epa!e the p!o;ect of pa!tition and delive! to all hei!s thei!!espective sha!es %ithin ninet+ 496 da+s f!o* the finalit+ of saiddecision:

&. #hat %ithin thi!t+ 4/6 da+s f!o* !eceipt of this decision,Ad*inist!at!i5 Rosalia ancheF da. de @u"od is he!eb+ o!de!ed tosub*it t%o 4'6 sepa!ate ce!tified t!ue and co!!ect accountin", one fo!the inco*e of all the p!ope!ties of the enti!e intestate estate of Ma!iaillaf!anca unde! pecial P!oceedin"s No. -M, and anothe! fo! thep!ope!ties of the enti!e intestate estate of $uan C. ancheF unde!


16/61

pecial P!oceedin"s No. 1'' dul+ both si"ned b+ he! and bothve!ified b+ a Ce!tified Public Accountant and dist!ibute and delive! tohe! si5 4&6 ille"iti*ate b!othe!s and siste!s in e)ual sha!es, one-half41'6 of the net inco*e of the estate of $uan C. ancheF f!o*>ctobe! '1, 19&( up to the finalit+ of this decision:

3. o! failu!e to !ende! an accountin" !epo!t and failu!e to "ive cash

advances to the ille"iti*ate child!en of $uan C. ancheF du!in" thei!*ino!it+ and hou! of need f!o* the net inco*e of the estate of $uanC. ancheF, %hich adve!sel+ p!e;udiced thei! social standin" andpu!suit of colle"e education, 4the t!ial cou!t6 he!eb+ o!de!s RosaliaancheF da. de @u"od to pa+ he! si5 4&6 ille"iti*ate b!othe!s andsiste!s the su* of ive ?und!ed #housand 4P >R8ERE8.

?e!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia filed a *otion fo! !econside!ation dated $ul+ 13,1991 4Anne5 7P7, Petition6 on Au"ust &, 1991.

>n Au"ust 1/, 1991, he!ein petitione!s filed a *otion fo! e5ecution and oppositionto he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalias *otion fo! !econside!ation 4Anne5 7O7,Petition6.

>n epte*be! /, 1991, the t!ial cou!t issued an >*nibus >!de! 4Anne5 77,Petition6 decla!in", a*on" othe! thin"s, that the decision at issue had beco*e final

and e5ecuto!+.

?e!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia then filed a *otion fo! !econside!ation of said>*nibus >!de! 4Anne5 7#7, Petition6. aid he!ein p!ivate !espondent %as allo%ed tofile a *e*o!andu* in suppo!t of he! *otion 4Anne5 77, Petition6.

>n $une '&, 1991, the t!ial cou!t issued and >!de! den+in" petitione! Rosalias*otion fo! !econside!ation 4Anne5 77, Petition6.

#he!eafte!, p!ivate !espondents elevated the case to the Cou!t of Appeals via a petitionfo! certiorariand contended

I

#he t!ial cou!t has no autho!it+ to distu!b the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent.

II#he t!ial cou!t has a!bit!a!il+ faulted he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia . @u"odfo! alle"ed failu!e to !ende! an accountin" %hich %as i*possible.

III

#he t!ial cou!t acted %ithout ;u!isdiction in de!o"ation of the constitutional !i"hts ofhe!ein p!ivate !espondents A!tu!o . @u"od, Evel+n @. Ranises and Robe!to .@u"od %hen the t!ial cou!t decided to annul the deed of sale bet%een the said


17/61

he!ein p!ivate !espondents and $uan C. ancheF %ithout affo!din" the* thei! da+ incou!t.

I

#he t!ial cou!t ;ud"e defied %ithout !h+*e o! !eason %ell-established andent!enched ;u!isp!udence %hen he dete!*ined facts sans an+ evidence the!eon.

#he t!ial cou!t "!ossl+ *isinte!p!eted he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia . @u"ods!i"ht to appeal.8

o! cla!it+s sa0e, this Cou!t he!eb+ !ep!oduces ve!bati* the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent $of the pa!ties

C%PR%I0E AREEE-T

C>ME N>, the pa!ties in the above-entitled case, *otivated b+ thei! *utual desi!eto p!ese!ve and *aintain ha!*onious !elations bet%een and a*on" the*selves, fo!*utual valuable conside!ations and in the spi!it of "ood %ill and fai! pla+, and, fo! thepu!pose of this Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent, a"!ee to the follo%in"

1. #hat the deceased $uan C. ancheF %ho died intestate on >ctobe! '1, 19&( %asle"all+ *a!!ied to Ma!ia illaf!anca de ancheF, %ho p!edeceased he! on epte*be!'9, 19&3, out of %hose %edloc0 Rosalia ancheF @u"od, >pposito! he!ein, %as bo!n,thus *a0in" he! the sole and onl+ su!vivin" le"iti*ate hei! of he! deceased pa!ents:

'. #hat the said deceased $uan C. ancheF, left ille"iti*ate child!en, Inte!veno!s->pposito!s and Petitione!s, !espectivel+, he!ein na*el+:

416 Pat!icio Albu!o, bo!n out of %edloc0 on Ma!ch 13,19'& at Cebu Cit+, Philippines, to E*ilia Albu!o:

4'6 Ma!ia Ra*oso ancheF, bo!n out of %edloc0 onMa+ 9, 19/3 at 2in"oo", Misa*is >!iental, no%,2in"oo" Cit+, to Albe!ta Ra*oso:

4/6 4a6 Rolando Ped!o ancheF, bo!n on Ma+ 19,

193,4b6 lo!ida Mie!l+ ancheF, bo!n on eb!ua!+ 1&,199,

4c6 Alf!edo ancheF, bo!n on $ul+ '1, 19


18/61

II. C>N$2A@ PR>PER#= > $AN C. ANC?EH AN8 MARIA I@@ARANCA8E ANC?EH

416 A"!icultu!al @and. Cove!ed b+ #a5 8ecl. No. &3, Cad. @ot No. '3R#EEN #?>AN8 EEN ?N8RE8 41,36 s). *s.

*o!e o! less.

P1,9.

4'6 A"!icultu!al @and. Cove!ed b+ #a5 8ecl. No. &9, Cad, @ot No. /'31 C-3located at Pan+an"an, @anao, 2in"oo" Cit+ and bounded on the No!th b+ @ot No./'3: outh b+ @ot Nos. '9 D /&': East b+ Pan+an"an Rive! D . @u*anao: andPa!t of @ot /'3': and est b+ a*a+ C!ee0, containin" an a!ea of >NE ?N8RE8>R #?>AN8 I ?N8RE8 41,&6 s). *s. *o!e o! less.

P11,AN8 #> ?N8RE8 #EN#= IE 4/,''R ?N8RE8 EI2?# #?REE#?>AN8 I ?N8RE8 4(/,&6 s). *s. *o!e o! less.

P&1,&(.

4&6 A"!icultu!al @and. Cove!ed b+ #a5 8ecl. No. &


19/61

a!ea of >R #?>AN8 IE ?N8RE8 #?IR#EEN 4,NA@ E#A#E 4C>N$2A@6

NA#RE AN8 8ECRIP#I>N @>CA#I>N APPRAIA@

1. ift+ 4


20/61

. #hat, the pa!ties he!eto have a"!eed to divide the above-enu*e!ated p!ope!ties inthe follo%in" *anne!, to %it

4a6 #o Pat!icio Albu!o, Ma!ia Ra*oso ancheF,Roland Ped!o #. ancheF, lo!ida Mie!l+ ancheF,

Alf!edo #. ancheF and M+!na #. ancheF, in e)ualp!o-indiviso sha!es, conside!in" not onl+ thei!

!espective a!eas but also the i*p!ove*ents e5istin"the!eon, to %it

A"!icultu!al @and. Cove!ed b+ #a5 8ecl. No. &


21/61

dete!*ined b+ the Bu!eau of Inte!nal Revenue and shall li0e%ise be !esponsible fo!the e5penses of su!ve+ and se"!e"ation of thei! !espective sha!es:

(. #hat Pat!icio Albu!o, Ma!ia Ra*oso ancheF, Roland Ped!o ancheF, lo!idaMie!l+ ancheF, Alf!edo ancheF and M+!na ancheF he!eb+ %aive, !elin)uish and!enounce, ;ointl+ and individuall+, in a *anne! that is absolute and i!!evocable, allthei! !i"hts and inte!ests, sha!e and pa!ticipation %hich the+ have o! *i"ht have in all

the p!ope!ties, both !eal and pe!sonal, 0no%n o! un0no%n ando! %hich *a+ not belisted he!ein, o! in e5cess of the a!eas listed o! *entioned he!ein, ando! %hich *i"hthave been, at one ti*e o! anothe!, o%ned b+, !e"iste!ed o! placed in the na*e ofeithe! of the spouses $uan C. ancheF o! Ma!ia illaf!anca de ancheF o! both, and%hich eithe! one o! both *i"ht have sold, ceded, t!ansfe!!ed, o! donated to an+pe!son o! pe!sons o! entit+ and %hich pa!ties he!eto do he!eb+ confi!* and !atif+to"ethe! %ith all the i*p!ove*ents the!eon, as %ell as all the p!oduce and p!oceedsthe!eof, and pa!ticula!l+ of the p!ope!ties, !eal and pe!sonal listed he!ein, as %ell asde*andable obli"ations due to the deceased spouses $uan C. ancheF, befo!e andafte! the death of the afo!e*entioned spouses $uan C. ancheF and Ma!iaillaf!anca de ancheF, in favo! of opposito! Rosalia . @u"od:

9. #hat the e5penses of this liti"ation includin" atto!ne+s fees shall be bo!ne

!espectivel+ b+ the pa!ties he!eto:

1. #hat @au!eta #a*pus fo! he!self and "ua!dian ad-lite* of he! *ino! child!en,na*el+ lo!ida Mie!l+, Alf!edo, and M+!na, all su!na*ed ancheF, he!eb+ decla!ethat she has no !i"ht, inte!est, sha!e and pa!ticipation %hatsoeve! in the estate left b+$uan C. ancheF ando! Ma!ia illaf!anca de ancheF, o! both, and that she li0e%ise%aives, !enounces, and !elin)uishes %hateve! !i"id, sha!e, pa!ticipation o! inte!estthe!ein %hich she has o! *i"ht have in favo! of Rosalia . @u"od:

11. #hat, the pa!ties he!eto *utuall+ %aive and !enounce in favo! of each othe! an+%hateve! clai*s o! actions, a!isin" f!o*, connected %ith, and as a !esult of pecialP!oceedin"s Nos. -M and 1'' of the Cou!t of i!st Instance of Misa*is >!iental,Rosalia . @u"od, %a!!antin" that the pa!cel of land ceded to the othe! pa!ties he!eincontains ( hecta!es and /& a!es.

1'. #hat, Rosalia . @u"od shall assu*e as she he!eb+ assu*es the pa+*ent to@u"od Ente!p!ises, Inc., of the su* of P


22/61

4"d.6 4"d.6PA#RICI> A@BR> R>A@IA . @2>8Inte!veno!->pposito! >pposito!

4"d.6MARIA RAM>> ANC?EH AI#E8 B=Inte!veno!->pposito!

4"d.6AI#E8 B= PAB@> . RE=ER-11-Nava!!o Bld".4"d.6 8on A. eleF t.RE=NA@8> @. ERNAN8EH Ca"a+an de >!o Cit+2in"oon" Cit+

4"d.6 4"d.6R>@AN8> PE8R> #. ANC?EH A@RE8> #. ANC?EHPetitione! Petitione!

4"d.6 4"d.6@>RI8A MIER@= #. ANC?EH M=RNA #. ANC?EH

Petitione! Petitione!4"d.6@ARE#A #AMPo! he!self and as 2ua!dian

Ad-@ite* of the *ino!slo!ida Mie!l+, Alf!edo, andM+!na, all su!na*ed ancheF

AI#E8 B=

#E>2ENE E@EH, $R.Counsel fo! Petitione!sCa"a+an de >!o Cit+

#he Cle!0 of Cou!tCou!t of i!st InstanceB!anch III, Medina, Mis. >!.

2!eetin"s

Please set the fo!e"oin" co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent fo! the app!oval of the ?ono!ableCou!t toda+, >ct. /, 19&9.

4"d.6 4"d.6 4"d.6PAB@> . RE=E #E>2ENE E@EH, $R. RE=NA@8> @. ERNAN8EH

#he Me*o!andu* of A"!ee*ent dated Ap!il 1/, 193, %hich the pa!ties ente!ed into %ith theassistance of thei! counsel, a*ended the above co*p!o*ise. 4It %ill be !ep!oduced late! in ou!discussion of the second issue !aised b+ the petitione!s.6

#he Cou!t of Appeals, in a Resolution 10dated epte*be! , 199', initiall+ dis*issed p!ivate!espondents petition. Actin", ho%eve!, on a *otion fo! !econside!ation and a supple*ental *otion fo!!econside!ation dated epte*be! 1, 199' and epte*be! '


23/61

Te Issues

In this appeal, petitione!s invite the Cou!ts attention to the follo%in" issues

I

#he !espondent cou!t "!ossl+ e!!ed in "!antin" the petition fo! certiorariunde! Rule&< conside!in" that the special civil action of certiorari*a+ not be availed of as a

substitute fo! an appeal and that, in an+ event, the "!ounds invo0ed in the petitiona!e *e!el+ alle"ed e!!o!s of ;ud"*ent %hich can no lon"e! be done in vie% of the factthat the decision of the lo%e! cou!t had lon" beco*e final and e5ecuto!+.

II

P!escindin" f!o* the fo!e"oin", the !espondent cou!t e!!ed in annullin" the decisionof the lo%e! cou!t fo! the !eason that a co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent o! pa!tition as thecou!t const!ued the sa*e to be, e5ecuted b+ the pa!ties on >ctobe! /, 19&9 %asvoid and unenfo!ceable the sa*e not havin" been app!oved b+ the intestate cou!tand that the sa*e havin" been seasonabl+ !epudiated b+ petitione!s on the "!oundof f!aud.

III

#he !espondent cou!t "!ossl+ e!!ed in i"no!in" and dis!e"a!din" findin"s of facts ofthe lo%e! cou!t that the alle"ed conve+ances of !eal p!ope!ties *ade b+ the spouses$uan C. ancheF and Ma!ia illaf!anca ;ust befo!e thei! death in favo! of thei!dau"hte! and "!andchild!en, p!ivate !espondents he!ein, a!e tainted %ith f!aud o!*ade in conte*plation of death, hence, collationable.

I

In an+ event, the !espondent cou!t "!ossl+ e!!ed in t!eatin" the lo%e! cou!tsdecla!ation of fictitiousness of the deeds of sale as a final ad;udication of annul*ent.

#he !espondent cou!t "!ossl+ e!!ed in decla!in" the te!*ination of the intestatep!oceedin"s even as the lo%e! cou!t had not *ade a final and enfo!ceable

dist!ibution of the estate of the deceased $uan C. ancheF.

I

P!escindin" f!o* the fo!e"oin", the !espondent cou!t "!ossl+ e!!ed in not at leastdi!ectin" !espondent Rosalia . @u"od to delive! the deficienc+ of ei"ht 4(6 hecta!esdue petitione!s unde! the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent and *e*o!andu* of a"!ee*ent,and in not fu!the! di!ectin" he! to include in the invento!+ p!ope!ties conve+ed unde!the deeds of sale found b+ the lo%e! cou!t to be pa!t of the estate of $uan C.ancheF. 13

#he salient aspects of so*e issues a!e closel+ inte!t%ined: hence, the+ a!e he!eb+ consolidated intoth!ee *ain issues specificall+ dealin" %ith the follo%in" sub;ects 416 the p!op!iet+ of certiorarias a!e*ed+ befo!e the Cou!t of Appeals, 4'6 the validit+ of the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent, and 4/6 the

p!esence of f!aud in the e5ecution of the co*p!o*ise ando! collation of the p!ope!ties sold.Te Court4s Ruling

#he petition is not *e!ito!ious.

3irst Issue Propriety of CertiorariBefore te Court of Appeals

ince p!ivate !espondents had ne"lected o! failed to file an o!dina!+ appeal %ithin the !e"le*enta!+pe!iod, petitione!s alle"e that the Cou!t of Appeals e!!ed in allo%in" p!ivate !espondents !ecou!se toRule &< of the Rules of Cou!t. #he+ contend that p!ivate !espondents invocation of certiorari%as


24/61

7p!ocedu!all+ defective.7 14#he+ fu!the! a!"ue that p!ivate !espondents, in thei! petition befo!e the Cou!tof Appeals, alle"ed e!!o!s of the t!ial cou!t %hich, bein" *e!el+ e!!o!s of ;ud"*ent and not e!!o!s of

;u!isdiction, %e!e not co!!ectable b+ certiorari. 1%#his Cou!t disa"!ees.

8oct!inall+ ent!enched is the "ene!al !ule thatcertiorari is not a substitute fo! a lost appeal. ?o%eve!,$ustice lo!enF 8. Re"alado lists seve!al e5ceptions to this !ule, 'iz. 7416 %he!e the appeal does notconstitute a speed+ and ade)uate !e*ed+ 4alvadades vs. Pa;a!illo, et al., 3( Phil. 336, as %he!e //

appeals %e!e involved f!o* o!de!s issued in a sin"le p!oceedin" %hich %ill inevitabl+ !esult in ap!olife!ation of *o!e appeals 4PCIB vs. Escolin, et al., @-'3(& and '3(9&, Ma!. '9, 1936: 4'6 %he!ethe o!de!s %e!e also issued eithe! in e5cess of o! %ithout ;u!isdiction 4A"uila! vs. #an, @-'/&, $un/, 193, Cf. Bautista, et al. vs. a!*iento, et al., @-


25/61

#he fo!e"oin" issues clea!l+ involve not onl+ the co!!ectness of the t!ial cou!ts decision but also thelatte!s ;u!isdiction. #he+ enco*pass plain e!!o!s of ;u!isdiction and "!ave abuse of disc!etion, not*e!el+ e!!o!s of ;ud"*ent. 2%ince the t!ial cou!t e5ceeded its ;u!isdiction, a petition fo! certiorariisce!tainl+ a p!ope! !e*ed+. Indeed, it is %ell-settled that 74a6n act done b+ a p!obate cou!t in e5cess of its

;u!isdiction *a+ be co!!ected b+ certiorari.7 27

Consistent %ith the fo!e"oin", the follo%in" dis)uisition b+ !espondent appellate cou!t is apt

As a "ene!al p!oposition, appeal is the p!ope! !e*ed+ of petitione! Rosalia he!eunde! Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Cou!t. But the availabilit+ of the o!dina!+cou!se of appeal does not constitute sufficient "!ound to p!event a pa!t+ f!o**a0in" use of the e5t!ao!dina!+ !e*ed+ of certiorari%he!e appeal is not an ade)uate!e*ed+ o! e)uall+ beneficial, speed+ and sufficient 4EchauF vs. Cou!t of Appeals,199 CRA /(16. ?e!e, conside!in" that the !espondent cou!t has dis!e"a!ded theco*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent %hich has lon" been e5ecuted as ea!l+ as >ctobe!, 19&9and decla!ed null and void the deeds of sale %ith finalit+, %hich, as a p!obate cou!t, ithas no ;u!isdiction to do, e dee* o!dina!+ appeal is inade)uate. Conside!in"fu!the! the t!ial cou!ts "!antin" of he!ein petitione!s6 *otion fo! e5ecution of theassailed decision, 2he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalias !eso!t to the instant petitionfo! !evie% on certiorari is all the *o!e %a!!anted unde! the ci!cu*stances. 28

e thus hold that the )uestioned decision and !esolutions of the t!ial cou!t *a+ be challen"edth!ou"h a special civil action fo! certiorariunde! Rule &< of the Rules of Cou!t. At the ve!+ least, thiscase is a clea! e5ception to the "ene!al !ule that certiorariis not a substitute fo! a lost appealbecause the t!ial cou!ts decision and !esolutions %e!e issued %ithout o! in e5cess of ;u!isdiction,%hich *a+ thus be challen"ed o! attac0ed at an+ ti*e. 7A void ;ud"*ent fo! %ant of ;u!isdiction is no

;ud"*ent at all. It cannot be the sou!ce of an+ !i"ht no! the c!eato! of an+ obli"ation. All actspe!fo!*ed pu!suant to it and all clai*s e*anatin" f!o* it have no le"al effect. ?ence, it can neve!beco*e final and an+ %!it of e5ecution based on it is void: . . . it *a+ be said to be a la%less thin"%hich can be t!eated as an outla% and slain at si"ht, o! i"no!ed %he!eve! and %heneve! it e5hibitsits head. 7 2$

0econd Issue)alidity of Co!pro!ise Agree!ent

Petitione!s contend that, because the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent %as e5ecuted du!in" the pendenc+ ofthe p!obate p!oceedin"s, ;udicial app!oval is necessa!+ to sh!oud it %ith validit+. #he+ st!ess that thep!obate cou!t had ;u!isdiction ove! the p!ope!ties cove!ed b+ said a"!ee*ent. #he+ add thatPetitione!s lo!ida Mie!l+, Alf!edo and M+!na %e!e all *ine!s !ep!esented onl+ b+ thei!*othe!natu!al "ua!dian, @au!eta #a*pus. 30

#hese contentions lac0 *e!it. A!ticle ''( of the Civil Code defines a co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent as 7acont!act %he!eb+ the pa!ties, b+ *a0in" !ecip!ocal concessions, avoid a liti"ation o! put an end toone al!ead+ co**enced.7 Bein" a consensual cont!act, it is pe!fected upon the *eetin" of the*inds of the pa!ties. $udicial app!oval is not !e)ui!ed fo! its pe!fection. 31Petitione!s a!"u*ent that theco*p!o*ise %as not valid fo! lac0 of ;udicial app!oval is not novel: the sa*e %as !aised in ayuga's. Court of Appeals, 32%he!e the Cou!t, th!ou"h $ustice I!ene R. Co!tes, !uled

It is alle"ed that the lac0 of ;udicial app!oval is fatal to the co*p!o*ise. A

co*p!o*ise is a consensual cont!act. As such, it is pe!fected upon the *eetin" ofthe *inds of the pa!ties to the cont!act. 4?e!nandeF v. Ba!celon, '/ Phil.


26/61

In the case befo!e us, it is ineludible that the pa!ties 0no%in"l+ and f!eel+ ente!ed into a validco*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent. Ade)uatel+ assisted b+ thei! !espective counsels, the+ each ne"otiated itste!*s and p!ovisions fo! fou! *onths: in fact, said a"!ee*ent %as e5ecuted onl+ afte! the fou!thd!aft. As noted b+ the t!ial cou!t itself, the fi!st and second d!afts %e!e p!epa!ed successivel+ in $ul+,19&9: the thi!d d!aft on epte*be! '


27/61

#he petitione!s li0e%ise assail as void the p!ovision on %aive! contained in No. ( of the afo!e)uotedco*p!o*ise, because it alle"edl+ constitutes a !elin)uish*ent b+ petitione!s of 7a !i"ht to p!ope!ties%hich %e!e not 0no%n.7 4#he+ a!"ue that such %aive! is cont!a!+ to la%, public polic+, *o!als o! "oodcusto*. #he Cou!t disa"!ees. #he assailed %aive! pe!tained to thei! he!edita!+ !i"ht to p!ope!tiesbelon"in" to the decedents estate %hich %e!e not included in the invento!+ of the estates p!ope!ties. Italso cove!ed thei! !i"ht to othe! p!ope!ties o!i"inall+ belon"in" to the spouses $uan ancheF and Ma!ia

illaf!anca de ancheF %hich have been t!ansfe!!ed to othe! pe!sons. In addition, the pa!ties a"!eed inthe co*p!o*ise to confi!* and !atif+ said t!ansfe!s. #he %aive! is valid because, cont!a!+ to petitione!sp!otestation, the pa!ties %aived a 0no%n and e5istin" inte!est J thei! he!edita!+ !i"ht %hich %as al!ead+vested in the* b+ !eason of the death of thei! fathe!. A!ticle 333 of the Civil Code p!ovides that 74t6he!i"hts to the succession a!e t!ans*itted f!o* the *o*ent of death of the decedent.7 ?ence, the!e is nole"al obstacle to an hei!s %aive! of hishe! he!edita!+ sha!e 7even if the actual e5tent of such sha!e is notdete!*ined until the subse)uent li)uidation of the estate.7 48At an+ !ate, such %aive! is consistent %ith theintent and lette! of the la% advocatin" co*p!o*ise as a vehicle fo! the settle*ent of civil disputes. 4$

inall+, petitione!s contend that P!ivate Respondent Rosalia #. @u"ods alle"ed f!audulent acts,specificall+ he! conceal*ent of so*e of the decedents p!ope!ties, attended the actual e5ecution ofthe co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent.%0#his a!"u*ent is debun0ed b+ the absence of an+ substantial andconvincin" evidence on !eco!d sho%in" f!aud on he! pa!t. As aptl+ obse!ved b+ the appellate cou!t

?e!ein petitione!s accuse he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia of f!aud o! deceptionb+ alle"in", inter alia, that the pa!cel of land "iven to the* neve! confo!*ed to thestated a!ea, i.e., fo!t+-ei"ht 4(6 hecta!es, as stated in the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent.e find this a!"u*ent unconvincin" and un*e!ito!ious. ?e!ein petitione!save!*ent of f!aud on the pa!t of he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia beco*esuntenable %hen e conside! the *e*o!andu* of a"!ee*ent the+ late! e5ecuted%ith he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia %he!ein said co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent %as*odified b+ co!!ectin" the actual a!ea "iven to he!ein petitione!s f!o* fo!t+-ei"ht4(6 hecta!es to thi!t+-si5 4/&6 hecta!es onl+. If the actual a!ea allotted to the* did notconfo!* to the ( hecta!e a!ea stated in the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent, then %h+ didthe+ a"!ee to the *e*o!andu* of a"!ee*ent %he!eb+ thei! sha!e in the estate ofthei! fathe! %as even !educed to ;ust /& hecta!esL he!e is f!aud o! deceptionthe!eL Conside!in" that he!ein petitione!s %e!e abl+ !ep!esented b+ thei! la%+e!s in

e5ecutin" these docu*ents and %ho p!esu*abl+ had e5plained to the* the i*po!tand conse)uences the!eof, it is ha!d to believe thei! cha!"e that the+ %e!e def!audedand deceived b+ he!ein p!ivate !espondent Rosalia.

If the pa!cel of land "iven to he!ein petitione!s, %hen actuall+ su!ve+ed, happenedto be diffe!ent in a!ea to the stated a!ea of ( hecta!es in the co*p!o*isea"!ee*ent, this ci!cu*stance is not enou"h p!oof of f!aud o! deception on he!einp!ivate !espondent Rosalias pa!t. Note that #a5 8ecla!ation No. &


28/61

1. #o a*end the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent e5ecuted b+ the* on >ctobe! /, 19&9 soas to include the follo%in"

a. Co!!ection of the actual a!ea bein" "iven to the petitione!s andinte!veno!s, all ille"iti*ate child!en of the late $uan C. ancheF, fo!t+-ei"ht 4(6 hecta!es, thi!t+-si5 4/&6 a!es as e*bodied in theafo!e*entioned co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent to thi!t+-si5 4/&6 hecta!es

onl+, thus enablin" each of the* to "et si5 4&6 hecta!es each.

b. #hat the said /&-hecta!e a!ea shall be ta0en f!o* that pa!cel ofland %hich is no% cove!ed b+ >.C.#. No. 1& 4Patent No. /1'6 andthe ad;oinin" a!eas the!eof desi"nated as @ot A and @ot C as!eflected on the s0etch plan attached to the !eco!d of this casep!epa!ed b+ 2eodetic En"inee! >le"a!io E. Halles pu!suant to theCou!ts co**ission of Ma!ch 1, 193 p!ovided, ho%eve!, that if thesaid /&-hecta!e a!ea could not be found afte! addin" the!eto thea!eas of said lots A and C, then the additional a!ea shall be ta0enf!o* %hat is desi"nated as @ot B, li0e%ise also !eflected in the saids0etch plan attached to the !eco!ds:

c. #hat the pa!tition a*on" the si5 ille"iti*ate child!en of the late$uan C. ancheF 4petitione!s and inte!veno!s6 shall be effectivea*on" the*selves in such a *anne! to be a"!eed upon b+ the*,each unde!ta0in" to assu*e !ede*ption of %hateve! plants found inthei! !espective sha!es %hich need !ede*ption f!o* the tenantsthe!eof as %ell as the continuit+ of the tenanc+ a"!ee*ents no%e5istin" and cove!in" the said sha!es o! a!eas.

d. #he subdivision su!ve+ shall be at the e5pense of the saidpetitione!s and inte!veno!s p!o!ata.

e. #hat the ad*inist!at!i5 a"!ees to delive! te*po!a!+ ad*inist!ationof the a!ea desi"nated as @ot < of the alles 0etch Plan pendin"final su!ve+ of the said /&-hecta!e a!ea.

Ca"a+an de >!o Cit+, Ap!il 1/, 193.

4"d.6@ARE#A #AMP>o! he!self and as 2ua!dianad-lite* of Rolando, Mie!l+,

Alf!edo and M+!na, allsu!na*ed ancheF

Assisted b+

4"d.6#E>2ENE E@EH, $!.Counsel fo! Petitione!s

4"d.6R>A@IA . @2>8

Ad*inist!at!i5

Assisted b+

4"d.6PAB@> . RE=ECounsel fo! Ad*inist!at!i54"d.6


29/61

MARIA RAB>> ANC?EHInte!veno! %2

Not onl+ did the pa!ties 0no%in"l+ ente! into a valid co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent: the+ even a*ended it%hen the+ !ealiFed so*e e!!o!s in the o!i"inal. uch co!!ection e*phasiFes the volunta!iness of saiddeed.

It is also si"nificant that all the pa!ties, includin" the then *ino!s, had al!ead+ consu!!ated anda'ailed te!sel'es of te benefits of teir co!pro!ise. %3#his Cou!t has consistentl+ !uled that 7apa!t+ to a co*p!o*ise cannot as0 fo! a !escission afte! it has en;o+ed its benefits.7 %4B+ thei! acts, thepa!ties a!e ineludibl+ estopped f!o* )uestionin" the validit+ of thei! co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent. Bolste!in"this conclusion is the fact that petitione!s )uestioned the co*p!o*ise onl+ nine yearsafte! its e5ecution,%hen the+ filed %ith the t!ial cou!t thei! Motion to 8efe! App!oval of Co*p!o*ise A"!ee*ent, dated>ctobe! '&, 1939. %%In hindsi"ht, it is not at all fa!fetched that petitione!s filed said *otion fo! the sole!eason that the+ *a+ have felt sho!tchan"ed in thei! co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent o! pa!tition %ith p!ivate!espondents, %hich in thei! vie% %as un%ise and unfai!. hile %e *a+ s+*pathiFe %ith this !uefulsenti*ent of petitione!s, %e can onl+ st!ess that this alone is not sufficient to nullif+ o! dis!e"a!d the le"aleffects of said co*p!o*ise %hich, b+ its ve!+ natu!e as a pe!fected cont!act, is bindin" on the pa!ties.Mo!eove!, cou!ts have no ;u!isdiction to loo0 into the %isdo* of a co*p!o*ise o! to !ende! a decisiondiffe!ent the!ef!o*. %7It is a %ell-ent!enched doct!ine that 7the la% does not !elieve a pa!t+ f!o* the effectsof an un%ise, foolish, o! disast!ous cont!act, ente!ed into %ith all the !e)ui!ed fo!*alities and %ith fulla%a!eness of %hat he %as doin"7 %and 7a co*p!o*ise ente!ed into and ca!!ied out in "ood faith %ill notbe disca!ded even if the!e %as a *ista0e of la% o! fact, 4McCa!th+ vs. Ba!be! tea*ship @ines, < Phil.((6 because cou!ts have no po%e! to !elieve pa!ties f!o* obli"ations volunta!il+ assu*ed, si*pl+because thei! cont!acts tu!ned out to be disast!ous deals o! un%ise invest*ents.7 %8)olenti non fit inuria.

Co!olla!il+, the petitione!s contend that the Cou!t of Appeals "!avel+ abused its disc!etion in dee*in"pecial P!oceedin"s Nos. -M and 1'' 7C@>E8 and #ERMINA#E8,7 a!"uin" that the!e %as as+et no o!de! of dist!ibution of the estate pu!suant to Rule 9 of the Rules of Cou!t. #he+ add thatthe+ had not !eceived thei! full sha!e the!eto. %$e disa"!ee. nde! ection 1, Rule 9 of the Rules ofCou!t, an o!de! fo! the dist!ibution of the estate *a+ be *ade %hen the 7debts, fune!al cha!"es, ande5penses of ad*inist!ation, the allo%ance to the %ido%, and inhe!itance ta5, if an+,7 had been paid. #hiso!de! fo! the dist!ibution of the estates !esidue *ust contain the na*es and sha!es of the pe!sonsentitled the!eto. A pe!usal of the %hole !eco!d, pa!ticula!l+ the t!ial cou!ts conclusion, 70!eveals that all

the fo!e"oin" !e)ui!e*ents al!ead+ concu!!ed in this case. #he pa+*ent of the indebtedness of theestates of $uan C. ancheF and Ma!ia illaf!anca in the a*ount of P


30/61

All the fo!e"oin" sho% clea!l+ that the p!obate cou!t had essentiall+ finished said intestatep!oceedin"s %hich, conse)uentl+, should be dee*ed closed and te!*inated. In vie% of the abovediscussion, the Cou!t sees no !eve!sible e!!o! on the pa!t of the Cou!t of Appeals.

Tird Issue3raud and Collation

Petitione!s fault Respondent Cou!t fo! not o!de!in" P!ivate Respondent Rosalia #. @u"od to delive!

to the* the deficienc+ as alle"edl+ p!ovided unde! the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent. #he+ fu!the! contendthat said cou!t e!!ed in not di!ectin" the p!ovisional inclusion of the alle"ed deficienc+ in theinvento!+ fo! pu!poses of collatin" the p!ope!ties sub;ect of the )uestioned deeds of sale. 73e seeno such e!!o!. In the t!ial cou!t, the!e %as onl+ one hea!in" conducted, and it %as held onl+ fo! the!eception of the evidence of Rosalia . @u"od to install he! as ad*inist!at!i5 of the estate of Ma!iaillaf!anca. #he!e %as no othe! evidence, %hethe! testi*onial o! othe!%ise, 7!eceived, fo!*all+ offe!ed to,and subse)uentl+ ad*itted b+ the p!obate cou!t belo%7: no! %as the!e 7a t!ial on the *e!its of the pa!!iesconflictin" clai*s.7 74In fact, the petitione!s 7*oved fo! the defe!*ent of the co*p!o*ise a"!ee*ent onthe basis of alle"ed f!audulent conceal*ent of p!ope!ties J N># because of an+ deficienc+ in the landconve+ed to the* unde! the a"!ee*ents.7 7%?ence, the!e is no ha!d evidence on !eco!d to bac0 uppetitione!s clai*s.

In an+ case, the t!ial cou!t noted P!ivate Respondent Rosalias %illin"ness to !ei*bu!se an+deficienc+ actuall+ p!oven to e5ist. It subse)uentl+ o!de!ed the "eodetic en"inee! %ho p!epa!ed the

ce!tification and the s0etch of the lot in )uestion, and %ho could have p!ovided evidence fo! thepetitione!s, 7to b!in" !eco!ds of his !elocation su!ve+.7 77?o%eve!, 2eodetic En"inee! Idulsa did notco*pl+ %ith the cou!ts subpoena duces tecu!and ad testificandu!. Neithe! did he fu!nish the !e)ui!ed!elocation su!ve+. 7No %onde!, even afte! a tho!ou"h sc!utin+ of the !eco!ds, this Cou!t cannot find an+evidence to suppo!t petitione!s alle"ations of f!aud a"ainst P!ivate Respondent Rosalia.

i*ila!l+, petitione!s alle"ations of f!aud in the e5ecution of the )uestioned deeds of sale a!e be!eftof substance, in vie% of the palpable absence of evidence to suppo!t the*. #he le"al p!esu*ption ofvalidit+ of the )uestioned deeds of absolute sale, bein" dul+ nota!iFed public docu*ents, has notbeen ove!co*e. 78>n the othe! hand, f!aud is not p!esu*ed. It *ust be p!oved b+ clea! and convincin"evidence, and not b+ *e!e con;ectu!es o! speculations. e st!ess that these deeds of sale did not involve"!atuitous t!ansfe!s of futu!e inhe!itance: these %e!e cont!acts of sale pe!fected b+ the decedents du!in"thei! lifeti*e. 7$?ence, the p!ope!ties conve+ed the!eb+ a!e not collationable because, essentiall+,collation *andated unde! A!ticle 1&1 of the Civil Code conte*plates p!ope!ties conve+ed inter 'i'osb+the decedent to an hei! b+ %a+ of donation o! othe! "!atuitous title.

In an+ event, these alle"ed e!!o!s and deficiencies !e"a!din" the delive!+ of sha!es p!ovided in theco*p!o*ise, conceal*ent of p!ope!ties and f!aud in the deeds of sale a!e factual in natu!e %hich, asa !ule, a!e not !evie%able b+ this Cou!t in petitions unde! Rule


31/61

ART 1088 NCC. SUBROGATION OF CO-HEIRS


Manila

EC>N8 8III>N

G.R. No. L-278%% Ap!" 1# 1$8$

FRANCISCO GARCIA# PA/ GARCIA# '() MARIA GARCIA# petitione!s,vs.&OSE CALALIMAN# PACIENCIA TRABADILLO HON. COURT OF APPEALS# T!)D!9!:!o(# !espondents.

Jose aton for petitioners.

Ricardo 5. Castro for respondents.

PARAS#J.:

#his is a petition fo! !evie% on ce!tio!a!i of the decision Q of the Cou!t of Appeals in CA-2.R. No.

''139-R, p!o*ul"ated on Au"ust /1, 19&&, !eve!sin" the decision of the Cou!t of i!st Instance ofIloilo QQ in Civil Case No. /(9, and !ende!in" a ne% one dis*issin" the co*plaint of petitione!he!ein, the dispositive po!tion of %hich !eads as follo%s

?ERE>RE, the ;ud"*ent appealed f!o* is he!eb+ !eve!sed and anothe! ente!ed,dis*issin" plaintiffs co*plaint. No p!onounce*ent as to costs. 4p. '9 Rollo6

#he facts of the case a!e as follo%s

>n eb!ua!+ 11, 19&, one 2elacio 2a!cia died intestate, leavin" a pa!cel of un!e"iste!ed landabout /3' s). *ete!s, situated in the Municipalit+ of #ubun"an, P!ovince of Iloilo 4E5hibits, p. 196.>n his death the p!ope!t+ %as inhe!ited b+ his nephe%s, nieces, "!andnephe%s %ho a!e thedescendants of his late b!othe!s, Ped!o, i*eon, Buenaventu!a and Ma!cos 4#N, ept. &,19n 8ece*be! /, 19


32/61

*onu*ents to indicate its bounda!ies but the!e a!e di0es, stones and te*po!a!+fences used as land*a!0s and bounda!+ si"nals. #his pa!cel of land is cove!ed b+#a5 8ecla!ation No. 119, . of 193, in the na*e of 2elacio 2a!cia, and itsassessed value of P11.. 4p. 19, E5hibits6

#he last pa!a"!aph of the sa*e docu*ent states

#hat fo! and in conside!ation of the su* of IE ?N8RE8 PE> 4PE CA@A@IMAN, andPACIENCIA #RABA8I@@>, all of le"al a"e, ilipinos and !esidents of the *unicipalit+of #ubun"an, p!ovince of Iloilo, Philippines, !eceipt of %hich %e he!eb+ac0no%led"ed and confessed to ou! enti!e satisfaction, do b+ these p!esents, cede,sell, conve+ and t!ansfe! the above-desc!ibed pa!cel of land unto the said spouses,$ose Calali*an and Paciencia #!abadillo, thei! hei!s, successo!s and assi"ns f!eef!o* all liens and encu*b!ances %hateve!. 4p. 19, E5hibits6

#he docu*ent %as insc!ibed in the Re"iste! of 8eeds of Iloilo on eb!ua!+ ',19


33/61

(. #hat, the land he!ein desc!ibed is an ancest!al p!ope!t+ and plaintiffs have actuall+a house standin" the!eon and havin" lived the!eon eve! since, such that, thedefendants !efusal to allo% !ede*ption the!eof has caused the plaintiffs *entalto!tu!e, %o!!+ and an5iet+, fo!cin" the* to liti"ate and !etain se!vices of counsel,the!efo!e, plaintiffs de*and a"ainst the defendants Pn >ctobe! 1, 19ctobe! 1


34/61

>n appeal the Cou!t of Appeals in a decision p!o*ul"ated on Au"ust /1, 19&& !eve!sed the decisionof the t!ial cou!t and !ende!ed anothe! one dis*issin" plaintiffs co*plaint %ith no p!onounce*ent asto costs 4Rollo, p. ''6.

#he instant petition fo! !evie% b+ ce!tio!a!i %as filed %ith the Cou!t on 8ece*be! 1', 19&& 4Rollo, p.116. #he Cou!t at fi!st dis*issed the petition in a !esolution dated 8ece*be! '', 19&&, fo! insufficientsuppo!tin" pape!s 4Rollo, p. /


35/61

ale7 dated 8ece*be! /, 19


36/61

notification of the sale b+ the vendo!s, the /-da+ pe!iod has not even be"un to !un. Petitione!sclea!l+ can clai* atto!ne+s fees fo! bad faith on the pa!t of !espondents, fi!st, fo! !efusin"!ede*ption, and secondl+ fo! decla!in" the enti!e land as thei!s, althou"h the+ 0ne% so*e hei!s hadnot sold thei! sha!es.

PREMIE C>NI8ERE8, the decision of the Cou!t of Appeals is REERE8 and the decision ofthe t!ial cou!t is REIN#A#E8 %ith the *odification that petitione!s be a%a!ded da*a"es, atto!ne+s

fees and costs in the a*ount p!a+ed fo!.

> >R8ERE8.

elencio"6errera 7Cairperson8, Padilla, 0ar!iento and Regalado, JJ., concur.


Manila

EC>N8 8III>N

G.R. No. 101%22 M' 28# 1$$3

LEONARDO MARIANO# AVELINA TIGUE# LA/ARO MARIANO# MERCEDES SAN PEDRO#DIONISIA M. AUINO# '() &OSE N.T. AUINO# petitione!s,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS# ;S! ESTER GOSIENGFIAO# '::!:5) ,:'() AMADORBITONA> FRANCISCO GOSIENGFIAO# &R.# NORMA GOSIENGFIAO# '() PIN?* ROSEGUENO# !espondents.

Te Baristers #a$ %ffice for petitioners.

0i!eon T. Agustin for pri'ate respondents.

NOCON# J.:Befo!e s is a petition foe !evie% of the decision, dated Ma+ 1/, 1991 of the Cou!t of Appeals in CA-2.R. C No. 1/1'', entitledrace osiengfiao, et al.'.#eonardo ariano '.A!paroosiengfiao1 !aisin" as issue the distinction bet%een A!ticle 1(( 2and A!ticle 1&'3of the Civil Code.

#he Cou!t of Appeals su**a!iFed the facts as follo%s

It appea!s on !eco!d that the decedent !ancisco 2osien"fiao is the !e"iste!ed o%ne!of a !esidential lot located at "ac u!, #u"ue"a!ao, Ca"a+an, pa!ticula!l+ desc!ibedas follo%s, to %it


37/61

7#he easte!n po!tion of @ot 1/n epte*be! 1, 19&n Nove*be! '3, 19(', no settle*ent havin" been !eached b+ the pa!ties, theBa!an"a+ captain issued a ce!tificate to file action.

>n 8ece*be! (, 19(', defendant @eona!do Ma!iano sold the sa*e p!ope!t+ to hischild!en @aFa!o . Ma!iano and 8ionicia M. A)uino as evidenced b+ a 8eed of alenota!iFed b+ ?ila!ion @. A)uino as 8oc. No. 1/, Pa"e No. 19, Boo0 No. , e!ies of19('.

>n 8ece*be! '1, 19(', plaintiffs 2!ace 2osien"fiao, et al. filed a co*plaint fo!7!ecove!+ of possession and le"al !ede*ption %ith da*a"es7 a"ainst defendants@eona!do and Avelina Ma!iano. Plaintiffs alle"ed in thei! co*plaint that as co-hei!sand co-o%ne!s of the lot in )uestion, the+ have the !i"ht to !ecove! thei! !espectivesha!es in the sa*e, and p!ope!t+ as the+ did not sell the sa*e, and the !i"ht of!ede*ption %ith !e"a!d to the sha!es of othe! co-o%ne!s sold to the defendants.

8efendants in thei! ans%e! alle"ed that the plaintiffs has 4sic6 no cause of actiona"ainst the* as the *one+ used to !edee* lot in )uestion %as solel+ f!o* thepe!sonal funds of thi!d-pa!t+ defendant A*pa!o 2osien"fiao-Iba!!a, %hoconse)uentl+ beca*e the sole o%ne! of the said p!ope!t+ and thus validl+ sold theenti!e p!ope!t+ to the defendants, and the fact that defendants had al!ead+ sold the


38/61

said p!ope!t+ to the child!en, @aFa!o Ma!iano and 8ionicia M. A)uino. 8efendantsfu!the! contend that even "!antin" that the plaintiffs a!e co-o%ne!s %ith the thi!d-pa!t+defendants, thei! !i"ht of !ede*ption had al!ead+ been ba!!ed b+ the tatute of@i*itations unde! A!ticle 11 of the Civil Code, if not b+ laches. 4

Afte! t!ial on the *e!its, the Re"ional #!ial Cou!t of Ca"a+an, B!anch I, !ende!ed a decision datedepte*be! 1&, 19(&, dis*issin" the co*plaint and statin" that !espondents have no !i"ht of o%ne!ship o!

possession ove! the lot in )uestion. #he t!ial cou!t fu!the! said that %hen the sub;ect p!ope!t+ fo!eclosedand sold at public auction, the !i"hts of the hei!s %e!e !educed to a *e!e !i"ht of !ede*ption. And %hen

A*pa!o 2. Iba!!a !edee*ed the lot f!o* the Ru!al Ban0 on he! o%n behalf and %ith he! o%n *one+ shebeca*e the sole o%ne! of the p!ope!t+. Respondents havin" failed to !edee* the p!ope!t+ f!o* the ban0o! f!o* A*pa!o 2. Iba!!a, lost %hateve! !i"hts the *i"ht have on the p!ope!t+.%

#he Cou!t of Appeals in its )uestioned decision !eve!sed and set aside the !ulin" of the t!ial cou!t anddecla!ed he!ein !espondents as co-o%ne!s of the p!ope!t+ in the )uestion. #he Cou!t of Appeals said

#he %hole cont!ove!s+ in the case at ba! !evolves on the )uestion of 7%hethe! o! nota co-o%ne! %ho !edee*s the %hole p!ope!t+ %ith he! o%n pe!sonal funds beco*esthe sole o%ne! of said p!ope!t+ and te!*inates the e5istin" state of co-o%ne!ship.7

Ad*ittedl+, as the p!ope!t+ in )uestion %as *o!t"a"ed b+ the decedent, a co-o%ne!ship e5isted a*on" the hei!s du!in" the pe!iod "iven b+ la% to !edee* thefo!eclosed p!ope!t+. Rede*ption of the %hole p!ope!t+ b+ a co-o%ne! does not vestin hi* sole o%ne!ship ove! said p!ope!t+ but %ill inu!e to the benefit of all co-o%ne!s.In othe! %o!ds, it %ill not end to the e5istin" state of co-o%ne!ship. Rede*ption is nota *ode of te!*inatin" a co-o%ne!ship.

555 555 555

In the case at ba!, it is undisputed and suppo!ted b+ !eco!ds, that thi!d-pa!t+defendant A*pa!o 2. Iba!!a !edee*ed the p!opet+ in dispute %ithin the one +ea!!ede*ption pe!iod. ?e! !ede*ption of the p!ope!t+, even "!antin" that the *one+used %as f!o* he! o%n pe!sonal funds did not *a0e he! the e5clusive o%ne! of the*o!t"a"ed p!ope!t+ o%ned in co**on but inu!ed to the benefit of all co-o%ne!s. It%ould have been othe!%ise if thi!d-pa!t+ defendant A*pa!o 2. Iba!!a pu!chased the

said p!ope!t+ f!o* the *o!t"a"ee ban0 4hi"hest, bidde! in the fo!eclosu!e sale6 afte!the !ede*ption pe!iod had al!ead+ e5pi!ed and afte! the *o!t"a"ee ban0 hadconsolidated it title in %hich case the!e %ould no lon"e! be an+ co-o%ne!ship tospea0 of .7

#he decision of the Cou!t of Appeals is suppo!ted b+ a lon" line of case la% %hich states that a!ede*ption b+ a co-o%ne! %ithin the pe!iod p!esc!ibed b+ la% inu!es to the benefit of all the othe! co-o%ne!s.

#he *ain a!"u*ent of petitione!s in the case at ba! is that the Cou!t of Appeals inco!!ectl+ applied A!ticle1&' of the Civil Code, instead of A!ticle 1(( of the sa*e code %hich "ove!ns le"al !ede*ption b+ co-hei!s since the lot in )uestion, %hich fo!*s pa!t of the intestate estate of the late !ancisco 2osien"fiao,%as neve! the sub;ect of pa!tition o! dist!ibution a*on" the hei!s, thus, p!ivate !espondents and thi!d-pa!t+ defendants had not ceased to be co-hei!s.

>n that p!e*ise, petitione!s fu!the! contend that the !i"ht of le"al !ede*ption %as not ti*el+e5e!cised b+ the p!ivate !espondents, since A!ticle 1(( p!esc!ibes that the sa*e *ust be done%ithin the pe!iod of one *onth f!o* the ti*e the+ %e!e notified in %!itin" of the sale b+ the vendo!.

Acco!din" to #olentino, the fine distinction bet%een A!ticle 1(( and A!ticle 1&' is that %hen thesale consists of an inte!est in so*e pa!ticula! p!ope!t+ o! p!ope!ties of the inhe!itance, the !i"ht!ede*ption that a!ises in favo! of the othe! co-hei!s is that !eco"niFed in A!ticle 1&'. >n the othe!hand, if the sale is the he!edita!+ !i"ht itself, full+ o! in pa!t, in the abst!act sense, %ithout specif+in"an+ pa!ticula! ob;ect, the !i"ht !eco"niFed in A!ticle 1(( e5ists.8


39/61

Petitione!s alle"e that upon the facts and ci!cu*stances of the p!esent case, !espondents failed toe5e!cise thei! !i"ht of le"al !ede*ption du!in" the pe!iod p!ovided b+ la%, citin" as autho!it+ the caseofConeero, et al., '.Court of Appeals, et al.$%he!ein the Cou!t adopted the p!inciple that the "ivin" of acop+ of a deed is e)uivalent to the notice as !e)ui!ed b+ la% in le"al !ede*ption.

e do not dispute the p!inciple laid do%n in the Coneerocase. ?o%eve!, the facts in the said casea!e not fou! s)ua!e %ith the facts of the p!esent case. In Coneero,!ede*ptione! En!i)ue Cone;e!o

%as sho%nand gi'en a copy of the deed of sale of the sub;ect p!ope!t+. #he Cou!t in that casestated that the fu!nishin" of a cop+ of the deed %as e)uivalent to the "ivin" of a %!itten notice!e)ui!ed b+ la%. 11

#he !eco!ds of the p!esent petition, ho%eve!, sho% no %!itten notice of the sale bein" "iven %hatsoeve! top!ivate !espondents. Althou"h, petitione!s alle"e that so*eti*e on >ctobe! /1, 19(' p!ivate !espondent,2!ace 2osien"fiao %as "iven a cop+ of the )uestioned deed of sale and sho%n a cop+ of the docu*entat the >ffice of the Ba!an"a+ Captain so*eti*e Nove*be! 1(, 19(', this %as not suppo!ted b+ theevidence p!esented. >n the cont!a!+, !espondent, 2!ace 2osien"fiao, in he! testi*on+, decla!ed asfollo%s

O. hen +ou %ent bac0 to the !esidence of Att+. Ped!o @a""ui %e!e+ou able to see hi*L

A. =es, I did.

O. hen +ou sa% hi*, %hat did +ou tellL

A. I as0ed hi* about the 8eed of ale %hich M!s. A)uino had told *eand he also sho%ed *e a 8eed of ale. I %ent ove! the 8eed of aleand I as0ed Att+. @a""ui about this and he *entioned he!e about thena*es of the le"al hei!s. I as0ed %h+ *+ na*e is not included and I%as neve! info!*ed in %!itin" because I %ould li0e to clai* and hetold *e to bette! consult *+ o%n atto!ne+.

O. And did +ou "oL

A. =es, I did.

O. hat 0ind of cop+ o! docu*ent is thatL

A. It is a deed of sale si"ned b+ *+ *othe!, siste! A*pa!o and *+b!othe!s.

O. If sho%n to +ou the cop+ of the 8eed of ale %ill +ou be able toidentif+ itL

A. =es, si!.11

#he!eafte!, 2!ace 2osien"fiao e5plicitl+ stated that she %as neve! "iven a cop+ of the said 8eed of ale.

O. he!e did 8on Ma!iano, 8!. Ma!iano and +ou see each othe!L

A. In the house of B!"+. Captain Antonio Bassi".

O. hat t!anspi!ed in the house of the B!"+. Captain %hen +ou sa%each othe! the!eL

A. B!"+. Captain Bassi" info!*ed *+ intention of clai*in" the lot andI also info!*ed hi* about the 8eed of ale that %as not si"ned b+*e since it is *ine it is al!ead+ sold and I %as info!*ed in %!itin"about it. I a* a le"al hei! and I have also the !i"ht to clai*.

O. And %hat %as the !epl+ of 8on Ma!iano and 8!. Ma!iano to theinfo!*ation "iven to the* b+ B!"+. Captain Bassi" !e"a!din" +ou!clai*L


40/61

A. ?e insisted that the lot is al!ead+ his because of the 8eed of ale.I as0ed fo! the e5act cop+ so that I could sho% to hi* that I did notsi"n and he said he does not have a cop+. 12

#he above testi*on+ %as neve! !efuted b+ 8!. Ma!iano %ho %as p!esent befo!e B!"+. Captain Bassi".

#he !e)ui!e*ent of a %!itten notice has lon" been settled as ea!l+ as in the case of Castillo

'.0a!onte,13

%he!e this Cou!t )uoted the !ulin" in6ernaez '.6ernaez, /' Phil., '1, thusBoth the lette! and spi!it of the Ne% Civil Code a!"ue a"ainst an+ atte*pt to %identhe scope of the notice specified in A!ticle 1(( b+ includin" the!ein an+ othe! 0ind ofnotice, such as ve!bal o! b+ !e"ist!ation. If the intention of the la% had been toinclude ve!bal notice o! an+ othe! *eans of info!*ation as sufficient to "ive the effectof this notice, then the!e %ould have been no necessit+ o! !easons to specif+ in

A!ticle 1(( of the Ne% Civil Code that the said notice be *ade in %!itin" fo!, unde!the old la%, a ve!bal notice o! info!*ation %as sufficient. 14

Mo!eove!, petitione!s the*selves adopted in thei! a!"u*ent !espondents alle"ation In thei! co*plaint thatso*eti*e on >ctobe!, 19(' the+ sou"ht the !ede*ption of the p!ope!t+ f!o* spouses @eona!do Ma!ianoand Avelina #i"ue, b+ tende!in" the !epu!chase *one+ of P1',., %hich the spouses!e;ected.1%Conse)uentl+, p!ivate !espondents e5e!cised thei! !i"ht of !ede*ption at the fi!st oppo!tunit+

the+ have b+ tende!in" the !epu!chase p!ice to petitione!s. #he co*plaint the+ filed, befo!e the Ba!an"a+Captain and then to the Re"ional #!ial Cou!t %as necessa!+ to asse!t thei! !i"hts. As %e lea!ned in thecase of Castillo,supra

It %ould see* clea! f!o* the above that the !ei*bu!se*ent to the pu!chase! %ithinthe pe!iod of one *onth f!o* the notice in %!itin" is a !e)uisite o! conditionp!ecedent to the e5e!cise of the !i"ht of le"al !ede*ption: the b!in"in" of an action incou!t is the !e*ed+ to enfo!ce that !i"ht in case the pu!chase! !efuses the!ede*ption. #he fi!st *ust be done %ithin the *onth-pe!iod: the second %ithin thep!esc!iptive pe!iod p!ovided in the tatute of @i*itation. 17

#he !ulin" inCastillo '.0a!onte(supra, %as !eite!ated in the case of arcia '.Calali!an,%he!e e alsodiscussed the !eason fo! the !e)ui!e*ent of the %!itten notice. e said

Consistent %ith afo!esaid !ulin", in the inte!p!etation of a !elated p!ovision 4A!ticle

1&'/ of the Ne% Civil Code6 this Cou!t had st!essed that %!itten notice isindispensable, actual 0no%led"e of the sale ac)ui!ed in so*e othe! *anne!s b+ the!ede*ptione!, not%ithstandin". ?e o! she is still entitled to %!itten notice, as e5actedb+ the codeto re!o'e all uncertainty as to te sale, its ter!s and its 'alidity, and to2uiet and doubt tat te alienation is not definiti'e. #he la% not havin" p!ovided fo!an+ alte!native, the *ethod of notifications !e*ains e5clusive, thou"h the Code doesnot p!esc!ibe an+ pa!ticula! fo!* of %!itten notice no! an+ distinctive *ethod %!ittennotification of !ede*ption 4Cone;e!o et al.v. Cou!t of Appeals et al., 1& CRA 33 >R8ERE8.

-ar'asa, C.J., Padilla and -ocon, JJ., concur.


Manila

EC>N8 8III>N

G.R. No. 108%80 D@6 2$# 1$$8

CLARITA P. HERMOSO '() VICTORIA P. HERMOSO# petitione!s,vs.COURT OF APPEALS# SPOUSES CEFERINO C. PALAGANAS# A/UCENA R. PALAGANAS '()DR. AMANDA C. PALAGANAS# !espondents.

MARTINE/# J.:

#his petition see0s the !evie% of the decision dated $ul+ ', 199' 1of the Cou!t of Appeals %hich!eve!sed the decision dated eb!ua!+ 1


42/61

E*ilio ?e!*oso, no% deceased, and plaintiff Cla!ita ?e!*oso, %e!e husband and%ife %hose union %as blessed %ith the follo%in" child!en Ro"elio, icto!ia 4anothe!plaintiff-appellee6, A"ustinito and 8anilo Ci!iaco, all su!na*ed ?e!*oso 4the latte!t%o bein" thi!d pa!t+ defendants-appellees6. E*ilio ?e!*oso died on $une '', 19EC?AN2E above-*entioned, in %hich case the sha!e pe!tainin" toC@ARI#A P. CARIN shall be ad;acent to the stone$allthatse"!e"ates the sha!e of C>N>@ACI>N ?ERM>> CRH, then

follo%ed b+ the sha!es pe!tainin" to R>2E@I> P. ?ERM>>,8ANI@> CIRIAN> ?ERM>>, IC#>RINA P. ?ERM>>, and

A2#INI#> P. ?ERM>>, at the e5t!e*e end, !espectivel+.E*phasis and unde!sco!in" >u!s.

o*eti*e in $ul+, 1939, thi!d pa!t+ defendants-appellees A"ustinito ?e!*oso and8anilo ?e!*oso 4?e!*oso b!othe!s fo! b!evit+6 offe!ed to sell thei! !espectivesha!es to the land in dispute to one Ben;a*in Pala"anas, b!othe! of appelleesCefe!ino Pala"anas and A*anda Pala"anas, %ho a!e old fa*il+ ac)uaintances ofthe ?e!*osos since the lifeti*e of thei! late landlo!d, 8on Ma!cos ?e!*oso.

pon bein" sho%n a cop+ of the dul+ nota!iFed 7A"!ee*ent7 E5h. 71-A7, BenPala"anas, to"ethe! %ith the ?e!*oso b!othe!s, app!oached Att+. I!eneo E.2ua!diano conce!nin" the p!epa!ation of a cont!act of sale, %ith the latte! notin" that

the sha!es offe!ed fo! sale a!e sepa!ated b+ the sha!e of icto!ia ?e!*oso: hence, it%ould be *o!e feasible fo! 8anilo Ci!iaco to e5ecute a deed of e5chan"e %ith hissiste!, icto!ia #N, '9 >ctobe! 19(&, p. (. A 78eed if E5chan"e7 E5h. 7117 %asthe!eafte! d!a%n and si"ned b+ 8anilo Ci!iaco ?e!*oso but the sa*e %as notho%eve! si"ned b+ icto!ia ?e!*oso.

Nonetheless, this t!ansaction did not *ate!ialiFe fo! the !easons that Cla!ita Ca!insubse)uentl+ offe!ed to !edee* the sha!es sold b+ he! child!en b+ !etu!nin" thea*ount al!ead+ !eceived b+ he! son, A"ustinito. B+ !eason of thei! "ood !elations


43/61

and it appea!in" that the sale %as *ade %ithout the 0no%led"e and consent ofCla!ita Ca!in, Ben Pala"anas accepted the offe! %ithout suspi!ation.

In the *onth of >ctobe! of the sa*e +ea!, A"ustinito, then !evie%in" fo! the Ba!E5a*inations, and 8anilo, in di!e need of *one+, fo! the second ti*e offe!ed to sellthei! !espective sha!es to Ben Pala"anas %ho acted fo! and in behalf of his b!othe!,8!. Cefe!ino Pala"anas, and siste!, 8!. A*anda Pala"anas 4Pala"anases, fo!

b!evit+6, this ti*e "ivin" assu!ance that thei! *othe! 4Cla!ita Ca!in6 had al!ead+consented to the t!ansaction and that the+ could convince thei! siste!, icto!ia, tofinall+ a"!ee to an e5chan"e of sha!es %ith 8anilo. Elated %ith this develop*ent, thePala"anases even offe!ed a hi"he! p!ice Pve! #%o ndivided ha!es #o A Pa!cel of @and74Anne5 7B7, Plaintiffs-Appellees: E5hibit ', Appellants6 %ith the ?e!*oso b!othe!s!eceivin" P/,. upon the e5ecution of the cont!act, P1,. to be paidupon the eviction of the s)uatte!stenants the!eon, and the balance of P1,.to be paid upon the issuance of title in the na*e of the vendees.

pon the co**ence*ent of the p!esent action 4>ctobe! (, 19(6, the ?e!*osob!othe!s have al!ead+ !eceived a total a*ount of P1,ne #housand ive?und!ed 4P1,C# No. -1


44/61

/. >!de!in" the thi!d pa!t+ defendants to pa+ the defendants,da*a"es b+ %a+ of le"al inte!est in the a*ount co*puted at the !ateof t%elve 41'6 pe!cent of the P1,n appeal, the issues %e!e si*plified b+ the !espondent cou!t as follo%s

1. hethe! o! not the p!ope!t+ in dispute is still co-o%ned o! hasactuall+ been pa!titioned the!eb+ te!*inatin" the co-o%ne!ship:

'. If othe!%ise, %hethe! o! not the plaintiffs-appellees could stille5e!cise the !i"hts of !ede*ption.

#he !espondent cou!t disa"!eed %ith the findin"s of the t!ial cou!t and %as of the vie% 7that la%s and;u!isp!udence favo! the appellants, hence %e !eve!se.7 #he dispositive po!tion of the appellatecou!ts decision !eads

?ERE>RE, p!e*ises conside!ed, the ;ud"*ent appealed f!o* is he!eb+

REERE8, and a ne% one is ente!ed dis*issin" the Co*plaint and o!de!in" #hi!d-Pa!t+ 8efendants to pa+ on the #hi!d Pa!t+ Co*plaint, the #hi!d Pa!t+ Plaintiffs thea*ount of P1,. b+ %a+ of atto!ne+s fees.

#he pa!ties shall bea! thei! !espective costs. %

In this petition fo! !evie%, Cla!ita P. ?e!*oso, no% Cla!ita Ca!in afte! he! !e*a!!ia"e, and he!dau"hte! icto!ia P. ?e!*oso, !aise the follo%in" "!ounds

I.

#?E REP>N8EN# C>R# ERRE8 IN N># A2REEIN2 I#? #?E ?>@8IN2 >#?E #RIA@ C>R# #?A# #?E A2REEMEN#, MARGE8 A E?IBI# 71-A,7 IN># A 8EE8 > PAR#I#I>N B# I A MERE C?EME A #> ?> #>PAR#I#I>N #?E PR>PER#= IN OE#I>N ?IC? I #EMP>RAR= IN

C?ARAC#ER AN8 B$EC# #> C?AN2E A# AN= #IME AN8 I N@@ AN8>I8 A AR A PE#I#I>NER IC#>RIA P. ?ERM>> I C>NCERNE8BECAE ?E A #I@@ A MIN>R ?EN AI8 A2REEMEN# AEEC#E8 AN8 ?ER C>-PE#I#I>NER C@ARI#A P. ?ERM>> ?A8 N>

A#?>RI#= #> I2N AI8 A2REEMEN# IN ?ER BE?A@:

II.

#?E REP>N8EN# C>R# ERRE8 IN N># ?>@8IN2 #?A# #?E PR>PER#= INOE#I>N A #I@@ N8II8E8 AN8 A #I@@ N8ER C>->NER?IP8EPI#E #?E EEC#I>N > #?E A2REEMEN# MARGE8 A E?IBI# 71-A7BECAE C>N>@ACI>N ?ERM>>, C>->NER > '/ > AI8PR>PER#=, A N># A PAR#= #> AI8 A2REEMEN#:

III.

#?E REP>N8EN# C>R# ERRE8 IN C>N#IN2 #?E 8A#E ?EN #?ERI2?# > RE8EMP#I>N ?>@8 BE EERCIE8 R>M #?E #IME #?EPE#I#I>NER MA8E A >RMA@ >ER #> RE8EEM IN#EA8 > R>M #?E#IME #?E PE#I#I>NER #AR#E8 NE2>#IA#IN2 >R #?E RE8EMP#I>N >#?E #> N8II8E8 ?ARE A#ER #?E= ERE CER#AIN #?A# AI8N8II8E8 ?ARE ERE >@8 #> #?E PRIA#E REP>N8EN#. 7

#he t!ial and appellate cou!ts disa"!eed as to the inte!p!etation to be "iven to the a"!ee*ents andcont!acts and to the notice of sale involved in this case.


45/61

In the t!ial cou!t, petitione!s posited the theo!+ that the disputed land is still unde! co-o%ne!ship. >nthe basis of the sa*e docu*enta!+ evidence, the p!ivate !espondents contend that %hat the t%ob!othe!s sold %as al!ead+ definite since pa!tition had al!ead+ been effected.

#he fi!st t%o 4'6 "!ounds fo! this petition !efe! to the natu!e of the land sold to the !espondents. #he)uestion is as it still unde! co-o%ne!ship o! had it al!ead+ been pa!titioned and divided a*on" theco-o%ne!sL

In findin" that the pa!cel of land cove!ed and desc!ibed in >C# No. >-1


46/61

the docu*ent, is a hi"hl+ educated *an. As he had testified, he is an accountant b+p!ofession and he had se!ved as head of a depa!t*ent of the Cent!al Ban0 until his!eti!e*ent f!o* the "ove!n*ent. In the opinion of this cou!t, he 0ne% all alon" that%hat he o! his p!incipals %e!e bu+in" at the ti*e %e!e the undivided sha!es,pa!ticipation and inte!ests of the vendo!s to the land. ?is clai* late! in cou!t that thesha!es of the vendo!s could al!ead+ be identified and se"!e"ated is difficult to

believe. If his clai* %e!e t!ue, Ben Pala"anas %ith his e5pe!ience and educationalbac0"!ound could have easil+ *ana"ed to e5ecuted the p!ope! docu*ent as a basisof an ulti*ate issuance of title in the na*e of the vendees. #he docu*ent %hich he!elied upon %hich is E5hibit 1-A as the basis fo! his conclusion that the ?e!*osob!othe!s %e!e sellin" definite pa!cels of land is belied b+ the !ecitals of thedocu*ents he hi*self int!oduced to the cou!t, 'iz. E5hibits ' and /. #he docu*ent,E5hibit 1-A, if at all, could at best be conside!ed as a sche*e ho% the land could bedivided in the futu!e a*on" the hei!s of E*ilio ?e!*oso. #e*po!a!+ in natu!e andsub;ect to the confo!*it+ of the ' sets of co-o%ne!s to the land, the spouses ManuelC!uF and Consolacion ?e!*oso C!uF had not pa!ticipated in its e5ecution. As it %as,the!e %as no sound basis fo! Ben Pala"anas o! his p!incipals to have assu*ed thatE5hibit 1-A could be enfo!ced a"ainst the spouses Manuel C!uF and ConsolacionC!uF and othe! thi!d pe!sons.

In ove!tu!nin" the afo!e)uoted opinion of the t!ial cou!t, the !espondent cou!t said that

In asce!tainin" %hethe! the co**unit+ still subsists, o! that it had al!ead+ beene5tin"uished b+ pa!tition a*on" the co-o%ne!s, it is not a *andato!+ !e)ui!e*entthat the p!ope!t+ co-o%ned had been dete!*ined %ith un*ista0able definiteness andcla!it+, as %he!e the p!ope!t+ has been "iven a technical desc!iption afte! p!ope!"eodetic su!ve+: it is onl+ !e)ui!ed that the sha!es a!e p!ope!l+ d

succession full text art 1082 and 1088 ncc.pdf

Documents