Title
Agustines vs. Judge, Court of 1st Instance of Bulacan
Case
G.R. No. L-612
Decision Date
Apr 3, 1948
Dispute over nine-hectare land in Marilao between Valenzuela, Agustines' relatives, and the Archbishop; SC nullified 1944 order, upheld 1936 partition allocating land to church.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-612)

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over a nine-hectare land in Marilao, Bulacan, between Severo Valenzuela (the surviving husband of Generosa Agustines), the relatives of Generosa Agustines (the petitioners), and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (the intervenor).

2. The Will and Extrajudicial Partition:

  • Generosa Agustines died in August 1934, leaving a will naming Severo Valenzuela as her universal heir. The will also included specific bequests, including a directive for Valenzuela to donate a portion of her Quiririt farm, not exceeding nine hectares, to the Polo church for masses for her soul.
  • In February 1935, the petitioners (Generosa’s relatives) and Valenzuela executed an extrajudicial partition, agreeing to respect the terms of the will. The partition stipulated that Valenzuela would retain three hectares of the Quiririt land, while nine hectares would be allocated for masses (to the Polo church).
  • The probate court approved the partition on October 31, 1936, and the order became final and executory.

3. Breach of Trust and Subsequent Actions:

  • Valenzuela failed to transfer the nine-hectare lot to the Polo church. In May 1944, the petitioners filed a civil case (No. 153) against Valenzuela, seeking the return of the nine-hectare lot, alleging breach of trust.
  • In September 1944, Valenzuela filed a motion in the testamentary proceedings, claiming discretion under the will to determine the area to be donated. He proposed donating only one hectare to the Polo church. The court approved this motion on December 2, 1944, without notifying the other parties.
  • The petitioners later discovered this order and filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the 1936 partition had already allocated nine hectares to the church and that the 1944 order was invalid.

4. Positions of the Parties:

  • Petitioners: Argued that the 1936 partition allocated nine hectares to the Polo church and that Valenzuela’s attempt to reduce this to one hectare was a breach of trust.
  • Valenzuela: Claimed that the will granted him discretion to determine the area to be donated and that he had the right to donate only one hectare.
  • Intervenor (Archbishop of Manila): Supported the petitioners’ claim that the church was entitled to nine hectares and denied any renunciation of the legacy.

Issue:

  1. What was the share of the Polo church under the will and the extrajudicial partition?
  2. If the share was nine hectares, is the order of December 2, 1944, valid?
  3. If the order is invalid, is certiorari the proper remedy?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and the intervenor, declaring the order of December 2, 1944, null and void. The Court held that:

  1. The extrajudicial partition of 1936 definitively allocated nine hectares to the Polo church for masses.
  2. Valenzuela’s attempt to reduce the donation to one hectare was a breach of trust and an abuse of discretion.
  3. The 1944 order, which modified the final and executory 1936 partition, was issued without jurisdiction and was therefore invalid.
  4. Certiorari was the proper remedy to annul the 1944 order.

Ratio:

  1. Finality of the 1936 Partition: The extrajudicial partition, approved by the court in 1936, was a final settlement of the estate. It allocated nine hectares to the Polo church and three hectares to Valenzuela. The partition was binding and could not be modified unilaterally by Valenzuela.
  2. Valenzuela’s Discretion: While the will granted Valenzuela discretion to determine the area to be donated, the partition explicitly allocated nine hectares to the church. This allocation was a result of Valenzuela’s exercise of discretion at the time of the partition.
  3. Abuse of Discretion: Valenzuela’s attempt to donate only one hectare, eight years after the partition, was an abuse of discretion and a breach of trust. The Court emphasized that the will of the testatrix is law, and Valenzuela had no right to disregard her wishes.
  4. Jurisdiction and Certiorari: The 1944 order, which sought to modify the final 1936 partition, was issued without jurisdiction. Certiorari was the appropriate remedy to annul the order, as it was a nullity.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

  • Justice Perfecto: Dissented on constitutional grounds, arguing that the Catholic Church of Polo and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila were not qualified to acquire land under the Constitution, as they were not Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino ownership.
  • Justice Briones: Dissented on procedural grounds, arguing that the issue should have been resolved in the pending civil case (No. 158) rather than through certiorari.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.