Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29192)
Facts:
Gertrudes de los Santos v. Maximo de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-29192, February 22, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villamor, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IX.
On August 24, 1963 the heirs of Pelagia de la Cruz executed an extrajudicial partition agreement (annexed to the complaint) to distribute an estate of about 20,000 sq. m.; under that agreement the defendant, Maximo de la Cruz, was adjudicated three lots (Lots 1–3) in addition to his share on the condition that he would develop and subdivide the estate and that the expenses for development would be defrayed from proceeds of the sale of those three lots. On May 21, 1965, Gertrudes de los Santos (plaintiff-appellee) sued for specific performance alleging that although the defendant had sold the three lots he refused to undertake the agreed development; she sought an order compelling performance and P1,000 for attorney’s fees and costs.
In his answer the defendant admitted the agreement but asserted affirmative defenses: that the plaintiff was not an heir of Pelagia de la Cruz and had been included in the partition by mistake (so the partition was void as to her), and that proceeds from the sold lots were insufficient to accomplish development. He counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff sold her share for P10,000 and claiming one-fourth of the proceeds by way of reversion (P2,500). On July 19, 1965 the trial court declared the plaintiff in default for failing to answer the counterclaim.
By stipulation of facts submitted July 6, 1966 the parties admitted (among other things) Pelagia’s intestate death on October 16, 1962; that the defendant is a nephew of Pelagia; that the plaintiff is Pelagia’s grandniece and participated in the partition in representation of her deceased mother, Marciana; and that Lots 1–3 had been sold but that there were no properly constructed roads or utilities. The Court of First Instance, in a decision dated November 3, 1966, held the defendant estopped from denying the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is plaintiff-appellee an heir of Pelagia de la Cruz such that she has a cause of action to enforce the extrajudicial partition agreement?
- Can defendant-appellant be estopped from denying plaintiff-appellee’s heirship and from questioning the validity of the partition as to her?
- Was the award of actual damages to plaintiff-appellee proper?
- Did the trial court err in not resolving the defendant-appellant’s counterclaim and in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)