Facts:

In the intestate estate proceedings of Concepcion Gerona, Ignacio Arroyo submitted an application on September 5, 1928, asserting that the heirs Victor, Jacoba, Patricia, Ciriaca, and Clara Gerona, who were all of age, executed an agreement on June 13, 1913. This agreement stipulated a partition and adjudication of the estate, wherein they assigned all their rights to the estate of Concepcion Gerona to Ignacio Arroyo. In return, Arroyo would cede certain property to them. By an order dated October 8, 1928, the court recognized Arroyo and the Gerona heirs as the sole heirs and ratified the agreement. This order also closed the estate proceedings as the late Concepcion Gerona left no debts or claims.

On December 1, 1928, Arroyo filed the "Inheritance Tax Returns" with the court. However, on July 6, 1929, the court halted the approval of the stipulation because Maria Gerona had not expressed her consent. Maria later acquiesced, but on July 9, 1929, the counsel representin

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• The case involves the intestate estate of Concepcion Gerona.
• Ignacio Arroyo, petitioner and appellee, sought to be declared the sole assignee, successor, and heir of Concepcion Gerona based on an agreement executed by the heirs.
• The other involved parties are Victor, Jacoba, Patricia, Ciriaca, and Clara Gerona, all of legal age.

Agreement of Partition and Judicial Proceedings

• On September 5, 1928, during the intestate proceedings, Ignacio Arroyo filed an application alleging that the Gerona heirs executed an agreement of partition and adjudication which assigned the entire estate to him in exchange for other property.
• On October 8, 1928, the court issued an order declaring the following as the sole heirs: Ignacio Arroyo, Victor, Jacoba, Patricia, Ciriaca, and Clara Gerona, thereby ratifying the partition and adjudication agreement (referred to as Exhibit A).
• The order specifically approved the adjudication in favor of Arroyo, which included allotments such as one-half of lot No. 255 and lot No. 1175, and closed the intestate proceedings pursuant to Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Subsequent Developments and Stipulations

• On December 1, 1928, Arroyo submitted supporting documents including the receipt of “Inheritance Tax Returns” and related correspondence from the Collector of Internal Revenue.
• On July 6, 1929, the court stayed the final approval of the ratification of the partition agreement pending the acquiescence of the interested party, Maria Gerona, who had not yet manifested her acceptance regarding a partition enacted on June 13, 1913.

Filing of the Petition to Annul the Agreement

• On July 9, 1929, counsel for Jacoba, Ciriaca, Clara, and Patricia Gerona petitioned the court to annul the deed of partition dated June 13, 1913, as well as the subsequent agreement of ratification (executed on September 27, 1928).
• The petition alleged that these agreements were contrary to law and had been surreptitiously and fraudulently executed, thus rendering the earlier order of partition null and void.
• Legal representation for Ignacio Arroyo objected to the petition, leading to a motion for reconsideration, which was ultimately denied on October 29, 1929.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Considerations

• The only legal question that arose on appeal was whether the court that approved the partition agreement had the power to annul or revoke it on grounds of fraud.
• While the lower court initially held that the probate court could not entertain a petition to annul partition agreements (as such matters fell within the ordinary court's jurisdiction), the issue of fraud in procurement was set for review on appeal.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Competence

• Does the probate court that approved the partition agreement of June 13, 1913, possess the jurisdiction to annul or disapprove the same on the ground that it was procured by fraud?

Validity and Enforceability of Judicially Approved Partition

• Given that the partition agreement was executed by heirs of legal age and ratified by judicial approval, is it binding on all parties, or can it be rescinded if fraud is established?

Timing and Procedural Implications

• Was the petition to annul the partition agreement, filed on July 9, 1929, within the statutory period prescribed by Section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking such relief?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)