Case Digest (G.R. No. 116668)
Facts:
Erlinda A. Agapay v. Carlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 116668, July 28, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Erlinda A. Agapay (hereafter petitioner) and respondents Carlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz (hereafter private respondents) disputed ownership of two parcels in Binalonan, Pangasinan: a riceland (TCT No. 101736) and a house and lot (TCT No. 143120). The factual core involves the late Miguel Palang, who married Carlina in 1949, left intermittently to work abroad, and later lived with petitioner. Miguel and Carlina had one child, Herminia; Miguel and petitioner had a son, Kristopher (born 1977).
Miguel returned permanently in 1972 but refused to live with Carlina. On May 17, 1973 Miguel and petitioner executed a Deed of Sale for the rice land; they contracted marriage on July 15, 1973 (a union later found void because Miguel's prior marriage to Carlina subsisted). On September 23, 1975, a house and lot was conveyed in petitioner’s name; on October 30, 1975 Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation purportedly transferring their conjugal properties to their daughter Herminia as a compromise of a separate suit. Miguel and petitioner were later convicted of concubinage; Miguel died on February 15, 1981.
On July 11, 1981, Carlina and Herminia filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. U-4265). Petitioner asserted the riceland was purchased in her and Miguel’s names and that she owned the house and lot outright; she also claimed Kristopher was Miguel’s illegitimate son and asserted various defenses including the October 1975 donation.
The trial court (Judge Manuel D. Villanueva) issued judgment on June 30, 1989 dismissing the complaint, confirming petitioner’s ownership of the house and one-half of the riceland, and adjudicating Kristopher a one-half share of the riceland subject to a quitclaim condition; it refused damages. The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 24199) reversed on July 22, 1994, declaring the plaintiffs-appellants (Carlina and Herminia) owners, ordering petitioner to vacate and deliver the properties, and directing cancellation and reissuance of the TCTs in plaintiffs’ names.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court challenging (a) the CA’s failure to uphold the validity of the deeds of sale, (b) the CA’s treatment ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court improperly adjudicate questions of filiation and succession in an ordinary action for recovery of ownership and possession, thus depriving proper procedure for settlement of the decedent’s estate?
- Are the riceland and house-and-lot the separate property of petitioner by virtue of the deeds of sale and purchase, or do they belong to the conjugal estate of Miguel and Carlina (or to Carlina and Herminia) under the rules on cohabitation and donations between guilty parties?
- Was Kristopher A. Palang established as an illegitimate son and heir entitled to succeed to Miguel’s estate within the present ordinary civil action?
- Should Kri...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)