Case Digest (G.R. No. 96770)
Facts:
Agdeppa v. Ibe, G.R. No. 96770, March 30, 1993, Supreme Court Third Division, Bidin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the heirs of Hermenegildo Agdeppa (substituted by Magdalena S. Agdeppa et al.); the respondents are Emiliana Ibe (substituted by her husband Fructuoso Ibe and children Lolita and Cesar Ibe), Benjamin Ibe and Ferdinand Ibe. The dispute concerns the partition of the hereditary estate of Rosario Igarta, who died single and without issue on October 19, 1986.
Rosario was one of three daughters of Joaquin Igarta and Angela Gascon; her sisters were Carmen (mother of Hermenegildo) and Emiliana (mother of Benjamin and his siblings). At Rosario's death, most of her properties were in the possession of Emiliana's family; Hermenegildo claimed a right to partition as heir and from time to time received shares of produce from the land. On January 27, 1987 Hermenegildo and three nephews (sons of his deceased brother Jose) filed a complaint for partition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilocos Sur, Branch 24 at Cabugao (Civil Case No. 300-KC), listing ten parcels in the complaint and several additional parcels in a supplemental pleading; some parcels were declared for tax purposes in Rosario’s name, some in joint names with Emiliana, and others in third parties’ names.
The defendants answered, alleging that several parcels had been conveyed by Rosario to Benjamin and Ferdinand by instruments executed in 1984–1985. They offered three notarial documents as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 (deeds of quitclaim/transfer and a deed of sale). The plaintiffs presented a certification by the municipal treasurer (Exh. F) asserting that the residence certificate numbers shown in those deeds belonged to other persons; trial testimony from a preparer of the deeds (Florante Rosal) and the notary (Atty. Ernesto Yalao) was adduced by defendants. During the action Emiliana Ibe died (June 10, 1987) and her husband and children were substituted.
The RTC (Judge Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr.) found Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 defective because the residence-certificate numbers they bore corresponded to other persons per the municipal treasurer’s certification, and noted other anomalies (multiple instruments executed the same day covering the same parcel). The RTC nevertheless upheld as lawful a January 16, 1984 quitclaim covering several supplemental-parcel items (because tax declarations showed co-ownership) and ruled that most parcels (except certain supplemental parcels) comprised Rosario’s hereditary estate. It ordered partition between Hermenegildo (representing Carmen’s line) and Benjamin (representing Emiliana’s line) in equal shares, directed accounting and turnover of possession, and dismissed the counterclaim. Only Hermenegildo appealed; he died on October 23, 1989, and his heirs prosecuted the appeal.
On December 17, 1990 the Court of Appeals (presiding Justice Rodolfo A. Nocon) reversed/modifed the RTC, giving full faith and credit to the notarized documents. The CA held that the plaintiffs’ proof (including Exh. F) was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of public instruments, that forgery was not proved, and that consideration for the sale was presumed. The CA therefore declared Parcels IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, one-half of Parcel III and parcel a of the supplemental pleading to be the exclusive properties of Emiliana (not subject to partition).
The heirs of Hermen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may this Court review the conflicting factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court regarding the validity of the questioned documents?
- Are the deeds executed by Rosario Igarta (Exhs. 1, 2 and 3) valid public instruments that exclude the conveyed parcels from her hereditary estate and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)