succession set 1

8/18/2019 Succession Set 1

1/15

EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner,

- versus-

COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF VICENTE TABANAO,SHERWIN

TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE

TABANAODEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA

TABANAO and VINCENTTABANAO, Respondents

G.R. No. 12!!". No#$%&$' 2!, 2((1

FACTS) Petitioner Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were

partners in a business concern known as Ma. Nelma Fising !ndustr". #ometime in

Januar" o$ %&'(, te" decided to dissolve teir partnersip and e)ecuted an

agreement o$ partition and distribution o$ te partnersip properties among tem,

conse*uent to Jacinto Divinagracia+s witdrawal $rom te partnersip. mong te

assets to be distributed were $ive -/ $ising boats, si) -(/ veicles, two -0/ parcels o$ land located at #to. Ni1o and Talisa", Negros 2ccidental, and cas deposits in te

local brances o$ te 3ank o$ te Pilippine !slandsand Prudential 3ank.Trougout

te e)istence o$ te partnersip, and even a$ter Vicente Tabanao+s untimel" demise in

%&&4, petitioner $ailed to submit to Tabanao+s eirs an" statement o$ assets and

liabilities o$ te partnersip, and to render an accounting o$ te partnersip+s

$inances. 5onse*uentl", Tabanao+s eirs, respondents erein, $iled against petitioner

an action $or accounting, pa"ment o$ sares, division o$ assets and damages.

Petitioner $iled a motion to dismiss te complaint on te grounds o$ improper venue,

lack o$ 6urisdiction over te nature o$ te action or suit, and lack o$ capacit" o$ te

estate o$ Tabanao to sue. 2nugust 78, %&&4, te trial court denied t

dismiss.

ISSUE) 9eter te eirs o$ Vicente Tabanao lack te capacit" to sue.

RU*IN) N2. Te surviving spouse does not need to be appointed asadministratri) o$ te estate be$ore se can $ile te action. #e and

are complainants in teir own rigt as successors o$ Vicente Tabanao. F

moment o$ Vicente Tabanao+s deat, is rigts inso$ar as te par

concerned were transmitted to is eirs, $or rigts to te succession ar

$rom te moment o$ deat o$ te decedent .9atever claims and ri

Tabanao ad against te partnersip and petitioner were transmitted to re

operation o$ law, more particularl" b" succession, wic is a mode o$ a

virtue o$ wic te propert", rigts and obligations to te e)tent o$ te

ineritance o$ a person are transmitted - Civil Code, Art. 774/. Moreove

became owners o$ teir respective ereditar" sares $rom te moTabanao died. prior settlement o$ te estate, or even te appointmen

Tabanao as e)ecutri) or administratri), is not necessar" $or an" o

ac*uire legal capacit" to sue. s successors wo stepped into te s

decedent upon is deat, te" can commence an" action originall" per

decedent. From te moment o$ is deat, is rigts as a partner an

$ul$illment o$ petitioner+s obligations as outlined in teir dissolution agr

transmitted to respondents. Te", tere$ore, ad te capacit" to

te court+s intervention to compel petitioner to $ul$ill is obligations.

WHEREFORE, in view o$ all te $oregoing, te instant petition is DEN

o$ merit, and te case isREMANDED to te :egional Trial 5ourt o


2/15

3ranc (8, wic is ORDERED to determine te proper docket $ee based on te

estimated amount tat plainti$$s terein seek to collect, and direct said plainti$$s to

pa" te same witin a reasonable time, provided te applicable prescriptive or

reglementar" period as not "et e)pired. Terea$ter, te trial court is ORDERED to

conduct te appropriate proceedings in 5ivil 5ase No. 4%(


3/15

contract o$ sale is binding upon te eirs o$ Macaria Vda. de 5ai*uep, including

petitioner wo alleges to be one o$ er eirs, in line wit te rule tat eirs are bound

b" contracts entered into b" teir predecessors


4/15

tis condition ad not been satis$ied, teir obligation to deliver te disputed parcels o$

land was converted into a mone" claim.

Te agreement between Eliodoro #r. and respondent is sub6ect to a suspensivecondition


5/15

capacit" as a one o$ er legal eirs. @ence, EliodoroCs sare sould be %%I08 o$ te

entire propert". :espondent poses no ob6ection to tis computation.

2n te oter and, te 5 eld tat, at te ver" least, te conditional sale souldcover te one al$ -%I0/ pro indiviso con6ugal sare o$ Eliodoro plus is one tent

-%I%8/ ereditar" sare as one o$ te ten legal eirs o$ te decedent, or a total o$ tree

$i$ts -7I/ o$ te lots in administration.

PetitionersC correct. Te 5 computed EliodoroCs sare as an eir based on one tent

o$ te entire disputed propert". !t sould be based onl" on te remaining al$, a$ter

deducting te con6ugal sare.

:uling

Te proper determination o$ te seller


6/15

!n teir 6oint answer to te complaint, petitioners denied te alleged $orger" or

simulation o$ te deed o$ sale. $ter due proceedings, on Jul" 0%, %&&4, te trial court

rendered a decision dismissing te complaint.

Te 5ourt o$ ppeals promulgated its decision reversing tat o$ te trial court.

ISSUE) Ma" a legitimate daugter be deprived o$ er sare in te estate o$ er

deceased $ater b" a simulated contract trans$erring te propert" o$ er $ater to is

illegitimate cildren

HELD) No. Te kasulatan was simulated. Tere was no consideration $or te

contract o$ sale. Felicitas de la 5ru;, a $amil" $riend o$ te Franciscos, testi$ied tat

Lenaida Pascual and :egina Francisco did not ave an" source o$ income in %&'7,

wen te" bougt te propert", until te time wen Felicitas testi$ied in %&&%.

s proo$ o$ income, owever, Lenaida Pascual testi$ied tat se was engaged in

operating a canteen, working as casier in Ma"on Nigt 5lub as well as bu"ing and

selling :T9 -:ead" to 9ear/ items in ugust o$ %&'7 and prior tereto.

Lenaida alleged tat se paid er $ater te amount o$ P%8,888.88. #e did not

witdraw mone" $rom er bank account at te :ural 3ank o$ Me"caua"an, 3ulacan,

to pa" $or te propert". #e ad personal savings oter tan tose deposited in te

bank. @er gross earnings $rom te :T9 $or tree "ears was P&,888.88, and se

earned P8.88 a nigt at te club.

:egina Francisco, on te oter and, was a market vendor, selling nilugaw, earning a

net income o$ P788.88 a da" in %&'7. #e bougt te propert" $rom te deceased $or

P%,888.88. #e ad no oter source o$ income.

9e $ind it incredible tat engaging in bu" and sell could raise t

P%8,888.88, or tat earnings in selling goto could save enoug to pa" P

cas $or te land.

Te testimonies o$ petitioners were incredible considering teir

statements as to weter tere was consideration $or te sale and also

te propert" was bougt below or above its supposed market value. Teven present a single witness to te kasulatan tat would prove receipt o

price.

#ince tere was no cause or consideration $or te sale, te same was a s

ence, null and void.

Even i$ te kasulatan was not simulated, it still violated te 5ivil 5o

inso$ar as te transaction a$$ected respondentCs legitime. Te sale wa

%&'7, wen te applicable law was te 5ivil 5ode, not te Famil" 5ode.

2bviousl", te sale was ?regorioCs wa" to trans$er te propert" to i

daugters at te e)pense o$ is legitimate daugter. Te sale was e)ecutrespondent l$onso $rom claiming er legitime and rigt$ul sare in

3e$ore is deat, ?regorio ad a cange o$ eart and in$ormed is daug

titles to te propert".

ccording to rticle ''', 5ivil 5ode=

Te legitime o$ legitimate cildren and descendants consists o$ on

ereditar" estate o$ te $ater and o$ te moter.

Te latter ma" $reel" dispose o$ te remaining al$ sub6ect to te rigts

illegitimate cildren and o$ te surviving spouse as ereina$ter provided.


7/15

?regorio Francisco did not own an" oter propert". !$ indeed te parcels o$ land

involved were te onl" propert" le$t b" teir $ater, te sale in $act would deprive

respondent o$ er sare in er $aterCs estate. 3" law, se is entitled to al$ o$ te

estate o$ er $ater as is onl" legitimate cild.

Te legal eirs o$ te late ?regorio Francisco must be determined in proper testate or

intestate proceedings $or settlement o$ te estate. @is compulsor" eir can not be

deprived o$ er sare in te estate save b" disineritance as prescribed b" law.

9@E:EF2:E, te petition is ereb" DEN!ED. Te decision o$ te 5ourt o$ ppeals

in 5


8/15

n ownerCs intention to con$er title in te $uture to persons possessing propert" b" is

tolerance, is not inconsistent wit te $ormerCs taking back possession in te meantime $or an" reason

deemed su$$icient. nd tat in tis case tere was su$$icient cause $or te ownerCs resumption o$

possession is apparent, wic is se needed to generate income $rom te ouse on account o$ te

p"sical in$irmities a$$licting er, arising $rom er e)treme age.

ROLANDO SANCHE, FLORIDA MERLY SANCHE, ALFREDO T.

SANCHE AND MYRNA T. SANCHE, 4$5/5/on$'0,

VS.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSALIA S. LUGOD,

ARTURO S. LUGOD, EVELYN LUGOD6RANISES AND ROBERTO S.

LUGOD, '$04ond$n50

G.R. No. 1(7-"8 2- S$45$%&$' 1--8

FACTS) Private respondent, :osalia #. Bugod is te onl" cild spouses Juan 5.

#ance; and Maria Villa$ranca wile te oter private respondents are te legitimate

cildren o$ respondent :osalia.

Petitioners are te illegitimate cildren o$ Juan 5. #ance;.

Following te deat o$ er moter, Maria Villa$ranca, :osalia a petition

administration over te estate o$ er moter and te estate o$ er $ater

te time in state o$ senilit".

!n te instant case, te trial court rendered a decision declaring as s

$ictitious all te deeds o$ absolute sale wic, on Jul" 0(, %&(7 and JuJuan 5. #ance; and Maria Villa$ranca e)ecuted in $avor o$ teir daug

#ance; Bugod and grandcildren, namel", rturo #. Bugod, Evel"n

:oberto #. Bugod. Te trial court ruled $urter tat te properties cover

sales must be sub6ect to collation. 5iting rticle %48& -0/ o$ te 5ivil 5o

court nulli$ied said deeds o$ sale and determined wit $inalit" te own

properties sub6ect tereo$. !n doing so, it clearl" overstepped its 6ur

probate court.

ISSUE) !s a petition $or certiorari, in lieu o$ appeal, te proper reme

orders o$ a probate court nulli$"ing certain deeds o$ sale and, tus, e$$ect

upon title to te properties sub6ect o$ suc deeds.

RULING= s a probate court, te trial court was e)ercising 6udicial $unc

issued its assailed resolution. Te said court ad 6urisdiction to act in

proceedings involved in tis case wit te caveat tat, due to its limited 6

could resolve *uestions o$ title onl" provisionall". !t is ornbook doctr

special proceeding $or te probate o$ a will te *uestion o$ own

e)traneous matter wic te probate court cannot resolve wit

pronouncement no doubt applies wit e*ual $orce to an intestate procee


9/15

case at bar.O Jurisprudence teaces= GH probate court or one in carge o$

proceedings weter testate or intestate cannot ad6udicate or determine title to

properties claimed to be a part o$ te estate and wic are claimed to be a part o$ te

estate and wic are claimed to belong to outside parties. ll tat te said court could

do as regards said properties is to determine weter te" sould or sould not be

included in te inventor" or list o$ properties to be administered b" te administrator.

!$ tere is not dispute, well and good, but i$ tere is, ten te parties, te

administrator, and te opposing parties ave to resort to an ordinar" action $or a $inal

determination o$ te con$licting claims o$ title because te probate court cannot do

so.O Furtermore, te trial court parties+ compromise agreement. #uc disregard, on

te ground tat te compromise agreement was not approved b" te court,O is

tantarmount to an evasion o$ positive dut" or to a virtual re$usal to per$orm te dut"

en6oined or to act in contemplation and witin te bounds o$ law.O

L$$ #0 Ta%&a


10/15

*eirs of For!nao.

" 'rivae (ee( of (onaion 'ro'er n!'ias )as eec!e( b

s'o!ses %imeon Doronio an( #ornelia Gane in favor of Marcelino

an( *e laers )ife. -ne of *e 'ro'eries s!bec of sai( (ee( of

(onaion )as covere( b -#$ No. 52. Ho)ever, *ere is a

si+ni3can (iscre'anc )i* res'ec o *e i(eni of *e o)ner ofa(acen 'ro'er a *e easern si(e. ase( on *e ile, *e

a(acen o)ners are acarias Naor(a an( "lean(ro Naor(a,

)*ereas base( on *e (ee( of (onaion, *e o)ner of *e a(acen

'ro'er is For!nao Doronio.

"ccor(in+ o 'eiioners, *e are no) *e o)ners of *e enire

'ro'er in vie) of *e 'rivae (ee( of (onaion 'ro'er n!'ias in

favor of *eir 're(ecessors.

$*e *eirs of Marcelino 3le( a 'eiion For *e Re+israion of a

/rivae Dee( of Donaion, )*ic* )as +rane(. $*is le( o *eiss!ance of a ne) $ransfer #eri3cae of $ile. $*e *eirs of For!nao

Doronio 3le( a 'eiion before *e R$# in *e same /8$$-N,

'rain+ *a an or(er be iss!e( (eclarin+ n!ll an( voi( *e

re+israion of *e 'rivae (ee( of (onaion an( *a *e ne) $#$be

cancelle(. Ho)ever, *e 'eiion )as (ismisse(.

Res'on(en *eirs of For!nao 3le( an acion for reconveance an(

(ama+es )i* 'raer for 'reliminar in!ncion a+ains 'eiioner

*eirs of Marcelino b! *e R$# r!le( in favor of *e *eirs of

Marcelino.

Res'on(ens a''eale( o *e #". $*e ar+!e( *a *e ri

erre( in no 3n(in+ *a res'on(ens 're(ecessor:in:iner

ac;!ire( one:*alf of *e 'ro'er covere( b -#$ No. 52

ra(iion an(*e ar+!e( *a *a onl *a'ro'er )as ac!all incor'orae( in *e sai( (ee( of (on

beca!se i sae( *a For!naoDoronio, insea( of acar

an( "lean(ro Naor(a, is *e o)ner of *e a(acen 'ro'e

easern si(e. Res'on(ens 'osi *a *e (onors res'ece(

se+re+ae( *e 'ossession of For!nao Doronio of *e eas

of *e lan(.?= an( *a res'on(ens ac;!ire( o)ners*i' of

*alf 'orion of *e 'ro'er b ac;!isiive 'rescri'ion.

$*e #" reverse( *e R$# (ecision. li@e)ise r!le( *a *e

of *e enire 'ro'er in favor of 'eiioners 're(ecessors

on *e +ro!n( *a i im'airs *e le+iime of res'on(ens're(ecessor, For!nao Doronio.

"++rieve( b *e (ecision, *e *eirs of Marcelino 'eiione

%%A8%&

1. B*e*er or no *e #" erre( in r!lin+ *a -NC H"CF -

D%/A$8D /R-/8R$ B"% D-N"$8D $- $H8 /R8D8#8%%-

N$8R8%$ of Marcelino >since *e (onaion of *e enire 'r

favor of 'eiioners 're(ecessors co!l( no *ave been va

+ro!n( *a i im'airs *e le+iime of res'on(ens 're(ec

For!nao?.


11/15

$*e iss!e re+ar(in+ *e im'airmen of le+iime of For!nao Doronio

m!s be resolve( in an acion for *e selemen of esaes of

s'o!ses %imeon Doronio an( #ornelia Gane. ma no be 'asse(

!'on in an acion for reconveance an( (ama+es. " 'robae co!r,

in *e eercise of is limie( !ris(icion, is *e bes for!m o

venilae an( a(!(+e *e iss!e of im'airmen of le+iime as )ell aso*er relae( maers involvin+ *e selemen of esae.

efore an concl!sion abo! *e le+al s*are (!e o a com'!lsor

*eir ma be reac*e(, i is necessar *a cerain se's be a@en

3rs. $*e ne esae of *e (ece(en m!s be asceraine(, b

(e(!cin+ all 'aable obli+aions an( c*ar+es from *e val!e of *e

'ro'er o)ne( b *e (ecease( a *e ime of *is (ea*= *en, all

(onaions s!bec o collaion )o!l( be a((e( o i. Bi* *e 'arible

esae *!s (eermine(, *e le+iime of *e com'!lsor *eir or *eirs

can be esablis*e(= an( onl *en can i be asceraine( )*e*er or

no a (onaion *a( 're!(ice( *e le+iimes.

2. B*e*er or no *e (ee( of (onaion is vali(.

$*e -l( #ivil #o(e a''lies in *is case as *e (onaion 'ro'er

n!'ias )as eec!e( in 1919, )*ile *e Ne) #ivil #o(e oo@ eEec

onl on "!+!s 0, 1950.

An(er *e -l( #ivil #o(e, (onaions 'ro'er n!'ias m!s be ma(e

in a '!blic insr!men in )*ic* *e 'ro'er (onae( m!s be

s'eci3call (escribe(. $*e la) li@e)ise 'rovi(e( *a *e +if of real

'ro'er, in or(er o be vali(, m!s a''ear in a '!blic (oc!men.

is sele( *a a (onaion of real esae 'ro'er n!'ias is

!nless ma(e b '!blic insr!men.

Co+icall, *en, *e cancellaion of -#$ No. 52 an( *e is

a ne) $#$ in favor of 'eiioners 're(ecessors *ave no le

. B*o *en are *e o)ners of *e s!bec 'arcel of lan(

Direc reconveance o an of *e 'aries is no 'ossible a

no e been (eermine( in a 'ro'er 'rocee(in+ )*o amo

*eirs of s'o!ses %imeon Doronio an( #ornelia Gane is en

is sill !n'roven )*e*er or no *e 'aries are *e onl

enile( o *e 'ro'eries of s'o!ses %imeon Doronio an(

Gane. $*ere are sill *in+s o be (one before *e le+al s*

*e *eirs can be 'ro'erl a(!(icae(.

Res'on(ens canno be (eeme( *e o)ners b ac;!isiive

'rescri'ion of *e 'orion of *e 'ro'er *e *ave been'ossessin+. $*e reason is *a *e 'ro'er )as covere( b

" ile once re+isere( !n(er *e orrens ssem canno be

even b a(verse, o'en an( noorio!s 'ossession= nei*er

(efeae( b 'rescri'ion.

$*e iss!es as o )*o r!l are *e 'resen o)ners of *e '

an( )*a is *e een of *eir o)ners*i' remain !nresolv

same ma be 'ro'erl *res*e( o! in *e selemen of *

of *e re+isere( o)ners of *e 'ro'er, namel& s'o!ses

Doronio an( #ornelia Gane.


12/15

$*!s, *e (ecision of *e #" *as been R88R%8D "ND %8$ "%D8.

$*e %# or(ere( *e cancellaion of *e $#$ in *e names of

Marcelino Doronio an( *is )ife, an( *e resoraion of *e -#$in *e

names of %imeon Doronio an( #ornelia Gane.

C'$0$n/a T:&o Rod'/ #. E#an


13/15

at te time o$ is deat. Tus, as owner o$ te propert", e ad te absolute rigt to

dispose o$ it during is li$etime

FRANCISCA MAGHIRANG and SERGIA GUTIERRE, plainti$$s


14/15

is *uestioned, it bears te signature o$ tilano 3alcita and two subscribing witnesses.

?ertrudis 3alcita died o$ d"senter" on December &, %&%0, and on December %0

terea$ter er $ater, tilano 3alcita, e)ecuted te document E)ibit 5, wereb" e

conve"ed, or purported to conve", te same parcel to ?regorio Empalmado, it beingrecited tat e ad inerited te land $rom is daugter ?ertrudis. ?regorio

Empalmado immediatel" entered into possession, and e as subse*uentl" maintained

possession under claim o$ ownersip.

For te plainti$$, ?utierre;, it is insisted tat te document, E)ibit b, is not autentic

and tat te name o$ ?ertrudis 3alcita subscribed tereto is a $orger". Te trial 6udge

was o$ te opinion tat te due e)ecution o$ tis instrument ad been proved b" a

preponderance o$ te evidence and altoug te *uestion is debatable, and te pointnot altogeter $ree $rom doubt, we are o$ te opinion tat te trial courtCs conclusion

on tis point sould be a$$irmed. Te two subscribing witnesses bot sa" tat te"

saw te girl sign te document upon te date stated terein, and tis is corroborated

not onl" b" te testimon" o$ ?regorio Empalmado, wo was present at te e)ecutiono$ te instrument, but also b" tilano 3alcita imsel$. Te onl" testimon" to te

contrar" is tat o$ #ergia ?utierre;, wo sa"s tat te girl was too sick $or some time

prior to er deat to admit te possibilit" o$ er aving signed te instrument. !t istrue tat te *uestioned signature appears somewat suspicious, but we ave not

su$$icient data upon wic to pronounce it a $orger", considered as a mere *uestion o$ penmansip. 5ertainl", te instrument e)presses te agreement tat would naturall"

ave been drawn upon under te proven circumstances wic gave rise to tetransaction.

Apon te $oregoing state o$ $acts te trial 6udge $ound as a matter o$ law tat te title

to parcel passed out o$ ?ertrudis 3alcita and became vested in ?regorioEmpalmado be$ore er deat and altoug ?ertrudis was ten a minor, te

conve"ance was onl" voidable and not void. Moreover, as is @onor pointed out, te

contract was evidentl" advantageous to te minor because se tereb" obtained te

mone" necessar" to get te propert" back $rom Vicente lmario, wit te conse*uentsaving o$ P&88.

Tese conclusions o$ te trial court seem to us well $ounded, and te resu

to tis parcel, te incoate reservable rigt asserted b" #ergia ?utierre; n

into e)istence. !n tis view te conve"ance e)ecuted b" tilano 3alcita a

a$ter te deat o$ is daugter ?ertrudis operated as a mere *uit


15/15

9e are o$ te opinion tat te conclusion tus reaced is erroneous. 9e ma" accept

te legal proposition tat occupanc" b" Esteban :e"es, pursuant to te contract o$

sale wit pacto de retro b" wic e ac*uired te propert", and prior to te e)piration

o$ te period $or redemption, ma" be considered an adverse possession as againstever"bod" aving a prescriptible interest, notwitstanding te e)istence o$ te

stipulation $or repurcase. s was said b" tis court in Santos vs. Heirs of Crisostomo

and Tiongson -4% Pil., 740, 70/, te insertion o$ a stipulation $or repurcase b" te

vendor in a contract o$ sale does not necessaril" create a rigt inconsistent wit terigt o$ ownersip in te purcaser. #uc a stipulation is in te nature o$ an option,

and te possible e)ercise o$ its rests upon contingenc". !t creates no subsisting rigt

watever in te propert", and so $ar $rom being inconsistent wit te idea o$ $ull

ownersip in te purcaser, it reall" rests upon te assumption o$ ownersip in im.

3ut it must be borne in mind tat te true owner o$ tis propert" was ?ertrudis

3alcita, a minor, and te period o$ limitation did not begin to run against er or an"

person claiming in er rigt until te date o$ er deat, wic was December &, %&%0.!t must $urtermore be remembered tat te plainti$$ does not claim in te caracter

o$ an ordinar" successor to te rigts o$ ?ertrudis 3alcita er claim is based upon a

positive provision o$ law, wic could no operate in an" wise until te deat o$?ertrudis 3alcita, wen te reservable caracter $irst attaced to te propert" in

*uestion. From tis it is obvious tat te rigt o$ te plainti$$ wic even "et is o$a purel" contingent nature could not be a$$ected b" an"ting tat ad occurred

prior to te deat o$ ?ertrudis 3alcita and as tis action was begun in Ma", %&%', teten o$ te Pilippine Begiordered, witout special pronouncement as to costs.

succession set 1

Documents