Title
Alferez vs. Spouses Canencia
Case
G.R. No. 244542
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2021
Federico Alferez's intestate estate led to disputes over property sales, with petitioners alleging bad faith. SC upheld the Deed of Sale's validity, clarifying jurisdiction vs. venue and enforcing contract terms.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244542)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Death of Decedent and Estate Proceedings
    • Federico J. Alferez died intestate on September 23, 1980, survived by spouse Teodora and children Ma. Concepcion, Antonio, and Esperanza.
    • Half of the conjugal partnership estate comprised five parcels of land in Goma and Matti, Digos City, Davao del Sur.
    • Petition for Letters of Administration filed October 25, 1980 (SP No. 437, CFI Branch 5); Letters issued January 16, 1981 appointing Ma. Concepcion administratrix.
  • Extrajudicial Settlement and Authority to Sell
    • Extrajudicial Settlement with Donation executed January 15, 1982: Teodora donated her half-shares to Ma. Concepcion, Antonio, and Esperanza; petitioners waived specific interests in favor of each other.
    • Urgent motion to sell estate properties filed April 24, 1985; SPAs executed by Antonio (March 28, 1985) and Esperanza (1984) authorizing Ma. Concepcion to negotiate on their behalf.
    • CFI Order dated August 29, 1985 authorized sale of three parcels adjudicated to petitioners.
  • Deed of Sale and Litigation
    • Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed October 8, 1985 between petitioners (as owners) and respondents Canencia/Alforque for ₱300,000 covering the three parcels.
    • Petitioners later claimed respondents had misrepresented scope of sale (only half-shares) and filed annulment, recovery of possession, and damages suit in 1995; first filing dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; refiled August 26, 2007 in RTC Branch 19.
  • Lower Court Rulings
    • RTC Branch 19, May 17, 2016: Declared the Deed valid; held petitioners as owners free to convey and authorized by SPA.
    • CA Decision June 29, 2018 and Resolution January 16, 2019: Declared RTC judgment void for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 73, Sec. 1 (venue provision); dismissed complaint without prejudice.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the RTC’s judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Whether the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage is valid only as to one-half share of Federico’s estate or valid in its entirety as executed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.