Case Digest (G.R. No. 244542)
Facts:
Ma. Concepcion Alferez, Antonio S. Alferez, and Esperanza Alferez Evans v. Spouses Exequiel and Celestina Canencia, Norma A. Alforque, and Teresa A. Alforque, G.R. No. 244542, June 28, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the children and heirs of the late Federico J. Alferez (d. September 23, 1980). After Federico's death intestate, Ma. Concepcion filed a Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration (Special Proceedings No. 437) before the Court of First Instance (CFI), Branch 5, Davao del Sur; the CFI issued Letters of Administration in favor of Ma. Concepcion on January 16, 1981, appointing her administratrix of Federico’s estate. An Extrajudicial Settlement with Donation dated January 15, 1982 purportedly vested Teodora’s conjugal shares in three parcels to the children (Ma. Concepcion, Antonio, Esperanza), and the estate inventory listed several titled parcels in Goma and Digos City.
Acting as administratrix, Ma. Concepcion sought court authority to sell estate properties by motion (April 24, 1985). Esperanza and Antonio executed Special Powers of Attorney authorizing Ma. Concepcion to negotiate sales of their respective adjudicated lots; the CFI on August 29, 1985 authorized Ma. Concepcion to sell specified parcels. On October 8, 1985 Ma. Concepcion executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage with respondents (the Canencias and the Alforques) covering three titled parcels for a stated consideration of P300,000 (petitioners later allege the parties really agreed to different, limited terms).
Because Federico had outstanding bank debts, petitioners allege the sale was intended to cover only Federico’s one-half share; they contend respondents misrepresented the transaction and that the Deed included the conjugal share of Teodora. A dispute followed; after a Lupon certificate and an initial filing in RTC Branch 20 in 1995 (dismissed in 2007 for failure to allege value), petitioners refiled on August 26, 2007 in RTC Branch 19 (Civil Case No. 4805) seeking annulment of the Deed, recovery of possession and damages.
The RTC, Branch 19, rendered judgment on May 17, 2016 declaring the Deed valid and denying damages. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 29, 2018 the CA (pen. Badelles, J.) reversed and declared the RTC judgment VOID for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1, Rule 73 (holding that the court first taking cognizance of a decedent’s estate exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts), dismissing the complaint without prejudice; a motion for reconsideration w...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring the RTC, Branch 19, Digos City, completely devoid of jurisdiction under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court and therefore voiding the RTC judgment?
- Was the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed October 8, 1985 valid only as to the one-half share of the estate of Federico Alferez...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)