Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III
Civil Law Review I
University of San Agustin
College of Law
Wills and Succession
Part 2.1
CHAPTER 4
Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Successions
Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Successions
SECTION 1
Right of Accretion
Right of Accretion
Article 1015. Accretion is a right by virtue of
which, when two or more persons are called to the same inheritance, devise or
legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share,
or who died before the testator, is added or incorporated to that of his
co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. (n)
Article 1016. In order that the right of
accretion may take place in a testamentary succession, it shall be necessary:
(1) That two or
more persons be called to the same inheritance, or to the same portion thereof,
pro indiviso; and
(2) That one of
the persons thus called die before the testator, or renounce the inheritance,
or be incapacitated to receive it. (928a)
Article 1017. The words "one-half for
each" or "in equal shares" or any others which, though
designating an aliquot part, do not identify it by such description as shall
make each heir the exclusive owner of determinate property, shall not exclude
the right of accretion.
In case of money or fungible goods, if
the share of each heir is not earmarked, there shall be a right of accretion.
(983a)
Article 1018. In legal succession the share of
the person who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his co-heirs.
(981)
Article 1019. The heirs to whom the portion
goes by the right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they
inherit. (n)
Article 1020. The heirs to whom the inheritance
accrues shall succeed to all the rights and obligations which the heir who
renounced or could not receive it would have had. (984)
Article 1021. Among the compulsory heirs the
right of accretion shall take place only when the free portion is left to two
or more of them, or to any one of them and to a stranger.
Should the part repudiated be the
legitime, the other co-heirs shall succeed to it in their own right, and not by
the right of accretion. (985)
Article 1022. In testamentary succession, when
the right of accretion does not take place, the vacant portion of the
instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall pass to the legal
heirs of the testator, who shall receive it with the same charges and
obligations. (986)
Article 1023. Accretion shall also take place
among devisees, legatees and usufructuaries under the same conditions
established for heirs. (987a)
SECTION 2
Capacity to Succeed by Will or by Intestacy
Capacity to Succeed by Will or by Intestacy
Article 1024. Persons not incapacitated by law
may succeed by will or ab intestato.
The provisions relating to incapacity
by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. (744, 914)
Article 1025. In order to be capacitated to
inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the
succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper.
A child already conceived at the time
of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later
under the conditions prescribed in article 41. (n)
Article 1026. A testamentary disposition may be
made to the State, provinces, municipal corporations, private corporations,
organizations, or associations for religious, scientific, cultural,
educational, or charitable purposes.
All other corporations or entities may
succeed under a will, unless there is a provision to the contrary in their
charter or the laws of their creation, and always subject to the same. (746a)
Article 1027. The following are incapable of
succeeding:
(1) The priest who
heard the confession of the testator during his last illness, or the minister
of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period;
(2) The relatives
of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree, the church,
order, chapter, community, organization, or institution to which such priest or
minister may belong;
(3) A guardian
with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor before
the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even if the testator
should die after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the
ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant, descendant,
brother, sister, or spouse, shall be valid;
(4) Any attesting
witness to the execution of a will, the spouse, parents, or children, or any
one claiming under such witness, spouse, parents, or children;
(5) Any physician,
surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during
his last illness;
(6) Individuals,
associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit. (745, 752, 753,
754a)
Article 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in
article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary
provisions. (n)
Article 1029. Should the testator dispose of
the whole or part of his property for prayers and pious works for the benefit
of his soul, in general terms and without specifying its application, the
executor, with the court's approval shall deliver one-half thereof or its
proceeds to the church or denomination to which the testator may belong, to be
used for such prayers and pious works, and the other half to the State, for the
purposes mentioned in article 1013. (747a)
Article 1030. Testamentary provisions in favor
of the poor in general, without designation of particular persons or of any
community, shall be deemed limited to the poor living in the domicile of the
testator at the time of his death, unless it should clearly appear that his
intention was otherwise.
The designation of the persons who are
to be considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by
the person appointed by the testator for the purpose; in default of such
person, by the executor, and should there be no executor, by the justice of the
peace, the mayor, and the municipal treasurer, who shall decide by a majority
of votes all questions that may arise. In all these cases, the approval of the
Court of First Instance shall be necessary.
The preceding paragraph shall apply
when the testator has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a
definite locality. (749a)
Article 1031. A testamentary provision in favor
of a disqualified person, even though made under the guise of an onerous
contract, or made through an intermediary, shall be void. (755)
Article 1032. The following are incapable of
succeeding by reason of unworthiness:
(1) Parents who
have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or
immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;
(2) Any person who
has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(3) Any person who
has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment
for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
(4) Any heir of
full age who, having knowledge of the violent death of the testator, should
fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month, unless the
authorities have already taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to
cases wherein, according to law, there is no obligation to make an accusation;
(5) Any person
convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who
by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence should cause the testator
to make a will or to change one already made;
(7) Any person who
by the same means prevents another from making a will, or from revoking one
already made, or who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
(8) Any person who
falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent. (756, 673, 674a)
Article 1033. The cause of unworthiness shall
be without effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he made the
will, or if, having known of them subsequently, he should condone them in
writing. (757a)
Article 1034. In order to judge the capacity of
the heir, devisee or legatee, his qualification at the time of the death of the
decedent shall be the criterion.
In cases falling under Nos. 2, 3, or 5
of article 1032, it shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is
rendered, and in the case falling under No. 4, the expiration of the month
allowed for the report.
If the institution, devise or legacy
should be conditional, the time of the compliance with the condition shall also
be considered. (758a)
Article 1035. If the person excluded from the
inheritance by reason of incapacity should be a child or descendant of the
decedent and should have children or descendants, the latter shall acquire his
right to the legitime.
The person so excluded shall not enjoy
the usufruct and administration of the property thus inherited by his children.
(761a)
Article 1036. Alienations of hereditary
property, and acts of administration performed by the excluded heir, before the
judicial order of exclusion, are valid as to the third persons who acted in
good faith; but the co-heirs shall have a right to recover damages from the
disqualified heir. (n)
Article 1037. The unworthy heir who is excluded
from the succession has a right to demand indemnity or any expenses incurred in
the preservation of the hereditary property, and to enforce such credits as he
may have against the estate. (n)
Article 1038. Any person incapable of
succession, who, disregarding the prohibition stated in the preceding articles,
entered into the possession of the hereditary property, shall be obliged to
return it together it its accessions.
He shall be liable for all the fruits
and rents he may have received, or could have received through the exercise of
due diligence. (760a)
Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed
by the law of the nation of the decedent. (n)
Article 1040. The action for a declaration of
incapacity and for the recovery of the inheritance, devise or legacy shall be
brought within five years from the time the disqualified person took possession
thereof. It may be brought by any one who may have an interest in the
succession. (762a)
SECTION 3
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
Article 1041. The acceptance or repudiation of
the inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free. (988)
Article 1042. The effects of the acceptance or
repudiation shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent.
(989)
Article 1043. No person may accept or repudiate
an inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person from whom he is
to inherit, and of his right to the inheritance. (991)
Article 1044. Any person having the free
disposal of his property may accept or repudiate an inheritance.
Any inheritance left to minors or
incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or
guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial
authorization.
The right to accept an inheritance left
to the poor shall belong to the persons designated by the testator to determine
the beneficiaries and distribute the property, or in their default, to those
mentioned in article 1030. (992a)
Article 1045. The lawful representatives of
corporations, associations, institutions and entities qualified to acquire
property may accept any inheritance left to the latter, but in order to
repudiate it, the approval of the court shall be necessary. (993a)
Article 1046. Public official establishments
can neither accept nor repudiate an inheritance without the approval of the
government. (994)
Article 1047. A married woman of age may
repudiate an inheritance without the consent of her husband. (995a)
Article 1048. Deaf-mutes who can read and write
may accept or repudiate the inheritance personally or through an agent. Should
they not be able to read and write, the inheritance shall be accepted by their
guardians. These guardians may repudiate the same with judicial approval.
(996a)
Article 1049. Acceptance may be express or
tacit.
An express acceptance must be made in a
public or private document.
A tacit acceptance is one resulting
from acts by which the intention to accept is necessarily implied, or which one
would have no right to do except in the capacity of an heir.
Acts of mere preservation or
provisional administration do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if,
through such acts, the title or capacity of an heir has not been assumed.
(999a)
Article 1050. An inheritance is deemed
accepted:
(1) If the heirs
sells, donates, or assigns his right to a stranger, or to his co-heirs, or to
any of them;
(2) If the heir
renounces the same, even though gratuitously, for the benefit of one or more of
his co-heirs;
(3) If he
renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs indiscriminately; but if
this renunciation should be gratuitous, and the co-heirs in whose favor it is
made are those upon whom the portion renounced should devolve by virtue of
accretion, the inheritance shall not be deemed as accepted. (1000)
Article 1051. The repudiation of an inheritance
shall be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to
the court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings.
(1008)
Article 1052. If the heir repudiates the
inheritance to the prejudice of his own creditors, the latter may petition the
court to authorize them to accept it in the name of the heir.
The acceptance shall benefit the
creditors only to an extent sufficient to cover the amount of their credits.
The excess, should there be any, shall in no case pertain to the renouncer, but
shall be adjudicated to the persons to whom, in accordance with the rules
established in this Code, it may belong. (1001)
Article 1053. If the heir should die without
having accepted or repudiated the inheritance his right shall be transmitted to
his heirs. (1006)
Article 1054. Should there be several heirs
called to the inheritance, some of them may accept and the others may repudiate
it. (1007a)
Article 1055. If a person, who is called to the
same inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates the
inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir, he is understood to have
repudiated it in both capacities.
Should he repudiate it as an intestate
heir, without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir, he may still accept
it in the latter capacity. (1009)
Article 1056. The acceptance or repudiation of
an inheritance, once made, is irrevocable, and cannot be impugned, except when
it was made through any of the causes that vitiate consent, or when an unknown
will appears. (997)
Article 1057. Within thirty days after the
court has issued an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance with
the Rules of Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court
having jurisdiction whether they accept or repudiate the inheritance.
If they do not do so within that time,
they are deemed to have accepted the inheritance. (n)
SECTION 4
Executors and Administrators
Executors and Administrators
Article 1058. All matters relating to the
appointment, powers and duties of executors and administrators and concerning
the administration of estates of deceased persons shall be governed by the
Rules of Court. (n)
Article 1059. If the assets of the estate of a
decedent which can be applied to the payment of debts are not sufficient for
that purpose, the provisions of articles 2239 to 2251 on Preference of Credits
shall be observed, provided that the expenses referred to in article 2244, No.
8, shall be those involved in the administration of the decedent's estate. (n)
Article 1060. A corporation or association
authorized to conduct the business of a trust company in the Philippines may be
appointed as an executor, administrator, guardian of an estate, or trustee, in
like manner as an individual; but it shall not be appointed guardian of the person
of a ward. (n)
SECTION 5
Collation
Collation
Article 1061. Every compulsory heir, who
succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate
any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the
lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in
order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each
heir, and in the account of the partition. (1035a)
Article 1062. Collation shall not take place
among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if
the donee should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be
reduced as inofficious. (1036)
Article 1063. Property left by will is not
deemed subject to collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided, but
the legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired. (1037)
Article 1064. When the grandchildren, who
survive with their uncles, aunts, or cousins, inherit from their grandparents
in representation of their father or mother, they shall bring to collation all
that their parents, if alive, would have been obliged to bring, even though
such grandchildren have not inherited the property.
They shall also bring to collation all
that they may have received from the decedent during his lifetime, unless the
testator has provided otherwise, in which case his wishes must be respected, if
the legitime of the co-heirs is not prejudiced. (1038)
Article 1065. Parents are not obliged to bring
to collation in the inheritance of their ascendants any property which may have
been donated by the latter to their children. (1039)
Article 1066. Neither shall donations to the
spouse of the child be brought to collation; but if they have been given by the
parent to the spouses jointly, the child shall be obliged to bring to collation
one-half of the thing donated. (1040)
Article 1067. Expenses for support, education,
medical attendance, even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, ordinary
equipment, or customary gifts are not subject to collation. (1041)
Article 1068. Expenses incurred by the parents
in giving their children a professional, vocational or other career shall not
be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or unless they impair
the legitime; but when their collation is required, the sum which the child
would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall
be deducted therefrom. (1042a)
Article 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in
satisfaction of the debts of his children, election expenses, fines, and
similar expenses shall be brought to collation. (1043a)
Article 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and
ascendants consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit, shall not be reduced as
inofficious except insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is
disposable by will. (1044)
Article 1071. The same things donated are not
to be brought to collation and partition, but only their value at the time of
the donation, even though their just value may not then have been assessed.
Their subsequent increase or
deterioration and even their total loss or destruction, be it accidental or
culpable, shall be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee. (1045a)
Article 1072. In the collation of a donation
made by both parents, one-half shall be brought to the inheritance of the father,
and the other half, to that of the mother. That given by one alone shall be
brought to collation in his or her inheritance. (1046a)
Article 1073. The donee's share of the estate
shall be reduced by an amount equal to that already received by him; and his
co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as much as possible, in property of the
same nature, class and quality. (1047)
Article 1074. Should the provisions of the
preceding article be impracticable, if the property donated was immovable, the
co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its equivalent in cash or securities, at
the rate of quotation; and should there be neither cash or marketable
securities in the estate, so much of the other property as may be necessary
shall be sold at public auction.
If the property donated was movable,
the co-heirs shall only have a right to select an equivalent of other personal
property of the inheritance at its just price. (1048)
Article 1075. The fruits and interest of the
property subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate except from the
day on which the succession is opened.
For the purpose of ascertaining their
amount, the fruits and interest of the property of the estate of the same kind
and quality as that subject to collation shall be made the standard of assessment.
(1049)
Article 1076. The co-heirs are bound to
reimburse to the donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred for the
preservation of the property donated to him, though they may not have augmented
its value.
The donee who collates in kind an
immovable which has been given to him must be reimbursed by his co-heirs for
the improvements which have increased the value of the property, and which
exist at the time the partition if effected.
As to works made on the estate for the
mere pleasure of the donee, no reimbursement is due him for them; he has,
however, the right to remove them, if he can do so without injuring the estate.
(n)
Article 1077. Should any question arise among
the co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to the things
which are subject to collation, the distribution of the estate shall not be
interrupted for this reason, provided adequate security is given. (1050)
SECTION 6
Partition and Distribution of the Estate
Partition and Distribution of the Estate
SUBSECTION 1. Partition
Article 1078. Where there are two or more
heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in
common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. (n)
Article 1079. Partition, in general, is the
separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to
whom it may belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value. (n)
Article 1080. Should a person make partition of
his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be
respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory
heirs.
A parent who, in the interest of his or
her family, desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing
enterprise intact, may avail himself of the right granted him in this article,
by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not
assigned, be paid in cash. (1056a)
Article 1081. A person may, by an act inter
vivos or mortis causa, intrust the mere power to make the partition after his
death to any person who is not one of the co-heirs.
The provisions of this and of the
preceding article shall be observed even should there be among the co-heirs a
minor or a person subject to guardianship; but the mandatary, in such case,
shall make an inventory of the property of the estate, after notifying the
co-heirs, the creditors, and the legatees or devisees. (1057a)
Article 1082. Every act which is intended to
put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to
be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, and exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction. (n)
Article 1083. Every co-heir has a right to
demand the division of the estate unless the testator should have expressly
forbidden its partition, in which case the period of indivision shall not
exceed twenty years as provided in article 494. This power of the testator to
prohibit division applies to the legitime.
Even though forbidden by the testator,
the co-ownership terminates when any of the causes for which partnership is
dissolved takes place, or when the court finds for compelling reasons that
division should be ordered, upon petition of one of the co-heirs. (1051a)
Article 1084. Voluntary heirs upon whom some
condition has been imposed cannot demand a partition until the condition has
been fulfilled; but the other co-heirs may demand it by giving sufficient
security for the rights which the former may have in case the condition should
be complied with, and until it is known that the condition has not been
fulfilled or can never be complied with, the partition shall be understood to
be provisional. (1054a)
Article 1085. In the partition of the estate,
equality shall be observed as far as possible, dividing the property into lots,
or assigning to each of the co-heirs things of the same nature, quality and
kind. (1061)
Article 1086. Should a thing be indivisible, or
would be much impaired by its being divided, it may be adjudicated to one of
the heirs, provided he shall pay the others the excess in cash.
Nevertheless, if any of the heirs
should demand that the thing be sold at public auction and that strangers be
allowed to bid, this must be done. (1062)
Article 1087. In the partition the co-heirs
shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them
may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary
expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or
neglect. (1063)
Article 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his
hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the
co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him
for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month
from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. (1067a)
Article 1089. The titles of acquisition or
ownership of each property shall be delivered to the co-heir to whom said
property has been adjudicated. (1065a)
Article 1090. When the title comprises two or
more pieces of land which have been assigned to two or more co-heirs, or when
it covers one piece of land which has been divided between two or more
co-heirs, the title shall be delivered to the one having the largest interest,
and authentic copies of the title shall be furnished to the other co-heirs at
the expense of the estate. If the interest of each co-heir should be the same,
the oldest shall have the title. (1066a)
SUBSECTION 2. Effects of Partition
Article 1091. A partition legally made confers
upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him.
(1068)
Article 1092. After the partition has been
made, the co-heirs shall be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and the
quality of, each property adjudicated. (1069a)
Article 1093. The reciprocal obligation of
warranty referred to in the preceding article shall be proportionate to the
respective hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any one of them should be
insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be liable for his part in the same
proportion, deducting the part corresponding to the one who should be
indemnified.
Those who pay for the insolvent heir
shall have a right of action against him for reimbursement, should his
financial condition improve. (1071)
Article 1094. An action to enforce the warranty
among heirs must be brought within ten years from the date the right of action
accrues. (n)
Article 1095. If a credit should be assigned as
collectible, the co-heirs shall not be liable for the subsequent insolvency of
the debtor of the estate, but only for his insolvency at the time the partition
is made.
The warranty of the solvency of the
debtor can only be enforced during the five years following the partition.
Co-heirs do not warrant bad debts, if
so known to, and accepted by, the distributee. But if such debts are not assigned
to a co-heir, and should be collected, in whole or in part, the amount
collected shall be distributed proportionately among the heirs. (1072a)
Article 1096. The obligation of warranty among co-heirs
shall cease in the following cases:
(1) When the testator
himself has made the partition, unless it appears, or it may be reasonably
presumed, that his intention was otherwise, but the legitime shall always
remain unimpaired;
(2) When it has
been so expressly stipulated in the agreement of partition, unless there has
been bad faith;
(3) When the
eviction is due to a cause subsequent to the partition, or has been caused by
the fault of the distributee of the property. (1070a)
SUBSECTION 3. Rescission and Nullity of
Partition
Article 1097. A partition may be rescinded or
annulled for the same causes as contracts. (1073a)
Article 1098. A partition, judicial or
extra-judicial, may also be rescinded on account of lesion, when any one of the
co-heirs received things whose value is less, by at least one-fourth, than the
share to which he is entitled, considering the value of the things at the time
they were adjudicated. (1074a)
Article 1099. The partition made by the
testator cannot be impugned on the ground of lesion, except when the legitime
of the compulsory heirs is thereby prejudiced, or when it appears or may
reasonably be presumed, that the intention of the testator was otherwise.
(1075)
Article 1100. The action for rescission on
account of lesion shall prescribe after four years from the time the partition
was made. (1076)
Article 1101. The heir who is sued shall have
the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new
partition.
Indemnity may be made by payment in
cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded
to the plaintiff.
If a new partition is made, it shall
affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received
more than their just share. (1077a)
Article 1102. An heir who has alienated the
whole or a considerable part of the real property adjudicated to him cannot
maintain an action for rescission on the ground of lesion, but he shall have a
right to be indemnified in cash. (1078a)
Article 1103. The omission of one or more
objects or securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of the
partition on the ground of lesion, but the partition shall be completed by the
distribution of the objects or securities which have been omitted. (1079a)
Article 1104. A partition made with preterition
of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be proved that
there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the other persons interested; but
the latter shall be proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the
share which belongs to him. (1080)
Article 1105. A partition which includes a
person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect
to such person.
In a September
7, 2016 ruling[1],
the SC did not mince words in lecturing about the following doctrinal-rules
which are the legal ramifications when a co-heir/ co-owner is EXCLUDED from a
deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement, which facts are strikingly similar to the
facts herein, viz:
1. Exclusion of a co-heir in the Extra-Judicial
Partition Results in Void Partition; As such, it cannot be the source of a
valid title; the Land Registration Law (Torrens Law) Notwithstanding
“This is a case of exclusion of
the rightful heirs in the partition of the estate of the deceased, followed by the sale of their shares to
third persons who claim good faith. Both petitioner and Spouses Cepeda
consistently contend that they were not aware that any person, other than the
seller, has interest over the Cagayan lot. Thus, they are innocent purchasers
for value. The preliminary question then is whether the excluded heirs could
recover what is rightfully theirs from persons who are innocent purchasers for
value. Segura v. Segura teaches that the answer would not depend
on the good faith or bad faith of the purchaser, but rather on the fact of
ownership, for no one can give what he does not have--nemo dat quad non ha
bet. Thus, the good faith or bad faith of petitioner is immaterial in
resolving the present petition. A person can only sell what he owns or is
authorized to sell; the buyer can as a consequence acquire no more than what
the seller can legally transfer.
2. The
Extra-Judicial Partition is
Not
Binding on Excluded Heirs
Petitioner's title
over the Cagayan lot was derived from the title of Spouses Cepeda, who in turn
obtained their title from Teodora. Teodora, meanwhile, gained title over the
entire Cagayan lot on the basis of the ExtraJudicial Partition dated October
20, 1969. The question therefore is, did
that partition validly pass ownership of the Cagayan lot to Teodora so that she
had the right to sell the entire lot?
We answer in the negative. Articles 979, 980 and 981 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines (Civil Code) state that all the children of
the deceased shall inherit from him and by implication should participate in
the settlement of his/her estate, to wit:
Art. 979. Legitimate
children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants,
without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from
different marriages. An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting
parents in the same manner as a legitimate child.
Art. 980. The
children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right,
dividing the inheritance in equal shares.
Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other
children who are dead, survive, the former shall inherit in their own right,
and the latter by right of representation.
Thus, the children of
Felipe in his two (2) marriages should be included in the execution of the
Extra-Judicial Partition. In this case, it is undisputed that
respondents-appellees were children of Felipe by his first marriage. Teodora,
Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora did not deny respondentsappellees' relation with
Felipe. Despite this, however, Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora declared in
the Extra-Judicial Partition that they are the only living heirs of
Felipe by operation of law. They claimed that Felipe had no child with his
first wife Elena, in effect depriving respondents-appellees of their rightful
shares in the estate of their parents. They arrogated upon themselves not only
the share of Felipe in the Cagayan lot but also the shares
belonging to
respondents-appellees. In this regard, we cite Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court which reads:
Sec. l. Extrajudicial
settlement by agreement between heirs.-lf the decedent left no will and no
debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their
judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties
may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves
as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the
register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action
of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the
entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of
deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument
or by stipulation in a
pending action for A/ partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the
entire estate !J Decision 8 G.R. No.
187942
to himself by means of an
affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing
of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the
affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register
of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved
as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the
payment of any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It
shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a
petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the
decedent.
The fact of the cxtrajudicial
settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in
the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding
upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Considering that
respondents-appellees have neither knowledge nor participation in the
Extra-Judicial Paiiition, the same is a total nullity. It is not binding upon them. Thus, in Neri v. Heirs of Hadji
Yusop Uy, 43 which involves facts analogous to the present case, we ruled
that: [I]n the execution of the Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate with
Absolute Deed of Sale in favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion
should have participated. Considering that Eutropia and Victoria were admittedly
excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas were not properly represented
therein, the settlement was not valid
and binding upon them andconsequently, a total nullity.
xxx
The effect of excluding the heirs in the
settlement ofestate was further elucidated in Segura v. Segura, thus: It is clear that Section 1 of Rule
74 does not apply to the partition in question which was null and void as far
as the plaintiffs were concerned. The rule covers only valid partitions. The
partition in the present case was invalid because it excluded six of the nine
heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the partitioned property. Under the rule
"no extrajuclicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof." As the partition was a
total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the
trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed
after two years from its execution x x x. (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner,
however, submits that the Extra-Judicial Partition is not void because it does
not fall within any of the inexistent and void contracts under Article 140945
of the Civil Code.
Petitioner
is not correct.
In Constantino v. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., we declared two (2) deeds of
extrajudicial settlements as void and inexistent for having a purpose or object
which is contrary to law.
The intention of the signatories
in both deeds is to exclude their co-heirs oftheir rightful share in the estate
of the deceased. Similarly, in the present case, Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora
acted in bad faith when they declared that they are the only living heirs of
Felipe, despite knowing that Felipe had children in his first marriage. It is well-settled that
a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs,
who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious. Thus, the
Extra-Judicial Partition is void under Article 1409 ( l) or those whose
cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or public policy. As a consequence, it has no force and effect from the
beginning, as if it had never been entered into and it cannot be validated
either by time or ratification.50
3. The
Sale of Entire Co-Owned Property
is Limited to Seller’s Aliquot Share
The nullity of the
Extra-Judicial Partition does not automatically result in the nullity of
the sale between ( l) Teodora and Spouses Cepeda, and that of (2)
Spouses Cepeda and petitioner. Respondents-appellees and Teodora (as the
surviving heirs of Felipe) are co-owners of the Cagayan lot. As such, they have
full ownership and 44 Id. at 560-561. 45 Art. 1409. The following
contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(I) Those whose cause, object or
purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely
simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object
did not exist at the time of the transaction;
( 4) Those whose object is outside
the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an
impossible service;
( 6) Those where the intention
of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot
be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited
or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be
ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be
waived.
Article 493 of the Civil Code
defines the rights of a co-owner, to wit:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall
have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the
co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Teodora may therefore sell
her undivided interest in the Cagayan lot, and such disposition shall affect
only her pro indiviso share. When she sold the entire property to
Spouses Cepeda, the latter legally and validly purchased only the part
belonging to Teodora. The sale did not include the shares of
respondents-appellees, who were not aware of, and did not give their consent to
such sale. Likewise, when Spouses Cepeda sold the entire Cagayan lot to
petitioner, the spouses only transferred to petitioner Teodora's pro
indiviso share. Our ruling in Vda. De Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla is on point:
Thus, when Carolina sold the entire
Lot No. 707 onDecember 11, 1962 to Hilaria and Felipa without the consent of
her co-owner Agripina, the disposition affected only Carolina's pro indiviso
share, and the vendees, Hilaria and Felipa, acquired only what corresponds
to Carolina's share. A co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share; hence,
a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other
co-owners is not null and void and only the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred,
thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
Accordingly, the deed of sale
executed by Carolina in favor of Hilaria and Felipa was a valid conveyance but
only insofar as the share of Carolina in the co-ownership is concerned. As
Carolina's successors-in-interest to the property, Hilaria and Felipa could not
acquire any superior right in the property than what Carolina is entitled to or
could transfer or alienate after partition.
In a contract of sale of
co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the
same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vendee merely steps into the
shoes of the vendor as co-owncr.52 (Emphasis supplied.) Simply put, the sale of
the Cagayan lot to Spouses Cepeda, then to petitioner is valid insofar as the
share of Teodora is concerned. In effect, petitioner merely holds the share of
respondents-appellees under an implied constructive trust. This is true though
the TCTs covering the entire Cagayan lot were issued in the name of Teodora,
Spouses Cepeda and then petitioner, by virtue of the subsequent sales. The
issuance of a certificate of title could not vest upon them ownership of the
entire property; neither could it validate their purchase of the same which is
null and void to the extent of the shares of the respondents-appellees. 54
Registration does not vest title, for it is merely the evidence of such title.
Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he
actually has. As it stands, petitioner which merely steps into the shoes of
Teodora, and respondents-appellees are now the pro indiviso co-owners of
the property”.
[1] G.R.
No. 176422, March 20, 2013
[2] Suntay
III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No, 183053, 683 SCRA 439 (2010)
[3] Art.
969, NCC
[4] Article
970, Ibid.
[5] Art.
971, Ibid.
[6] Art.
973, Ibid
[7] Art.
976, Ibid
[8] Art.
972, Ibid
[9] Arts.
902, 989, 990, Ibid.
[10] Art.
972, Ibid
[1] The Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao v. Florentina Prudencio
etc., G.R. No. 187942, September 7, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment