Case Digest (G.R. No. 129163)
Facts:
Voltaire Arbolario, Lucena Arbolario Ta-Ala, Fe Arbolario, Exaltacion Arbolario, Carlos Arbolario, and spouses Rosalita Rodriguez and Carlito Salhay v. Court of Appeals, Irene Colinco, Ruth Colinco, Orpha Colinco and Goldelina Colinco, G.R. No. 129163, April 22, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns title to Lot No. 323 (Ilog Cadastre) originally owned by spouses Anselmo Baloyo and Macaria Lirazan, who left five children. Through a series of extrajudicial declarations, conveyances and partitions, portions of the parcel came into the possession of various descendants: Agueda Colinco (survived by Antonio Colinco and, later, his daughters Irene, Ruth, Orpha and Goldelina), Catalina Baloyo (married to Juan Arbolario, mother of Purificacion Arbolario who died a spinster about 1984–1985), Eduardo Baloyo (who sold his interest in 1946), Gaudencia Baloyo, and Julian Baloyo (died without issue).
In 1951, a notarized Declaration of Heirship was executed by several Baloyo siblings, from which the record shows the Arbolario petitioners trace their claim as alleged half-siblings of Purificacion. In 1987 the Colincos (Irene and her cousins) executed a Declaration of Heirship and Partition, leading to cancellation of O.C.T. No. 16361 and issuance of T.C.T. No. T-140018 in their names, with Irene receiving one-half and the other half allotted among Ruth, Orpha and Goldelina.
On October 2, 1987 the Colincos filed Civil Case No. 367 against spouses Rosalita Rodriguez Salhay and Carlito Salhay to recover possession of a portion of the lot occupied by the Salhays since 1970. The Salhays claimed they had been lessees of Purificacion from 1971–1978 and that Purificacion sold them the portion in 1978, but they produced no written title. Before Case No. 367 was resolved, on May 9, 1988 the Arbolarios with the Salhays filed Civil Case No. 385 seeking cancellation of the 1987 Declaration of Heirship and Partition and asserting that the Arbolarios, as forced heirs of Purificacion, were excluded from distribution.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan, after trial on consolidated cases, ruled for the Arbolarios in Civil Case No. 385: it declared the 1987 Declaration and Partition void insofar as Purificacion’s share was concerned, ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-140018 and issuance of a new title in favor of the Arbolarios for a 3/8 share, awarded damages and attorneys’ fees, and dismissed Civil Case No. 367. The RTC found the Arbolarios to be the siblings of Purificacion and the Colincos only her collateral relatives.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed. The CA held that the Arbolarios were illegitimate children because they were born after Juan Arbolario had cohabited with Francisca Malvas (about 1951) while Catalina’s 1951 death was not proven; thus, under Article 992 of the Civil Code (as applied by the CA), illegitimate children could not inherit from legitimate descendants. The CA also found no clear proof of the alleged sale to the Salhays and concluded that partition had not been properly sought; it set aside the RTC judgment and ordered the Salha...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring the Arbolario petitioners illegitimate and therefore not entitled to inherit from their alleged half-sister Purificacion Arbolario?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the Salhays did not validly purchase the portion of Lot No. 323 they occupy?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction to partition the dis...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)