G.R. No. L-28394 - Gayon vs. Gayon

On July 31, 1967, Pedro Gayon filed a complaint against spouses Silvestre Gayon and Genoveva de Gayon in Civil Case No. 7334 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
The complaint alleged that on October 1, 1952, Silvestre and Genoveva de Gayon executed a deed (Annex "A") whereby they sold to Pedro Gelera, for P500.00, an unregistered parcel of land in the barrio of Cabubugan, Guimbal, Iloilo with improvements.
The sale was conditional, subject to a right of redemption exercisable within five (5) years, but the redemption period expired on October 1, 1957 without any action by the sellers or their heirs.

It was further alleged that Pedro Gelera, along with his wife Estelita Damaso, transferred the land in a subsequent deed of sale (Annex "B") dated March 21, 1961, for the sum of P614.00 to plaintiff Pedro Gayon.
Since 1961, the plaintiff claimed to have made improvements on the property worth P1,000.00 and fully paid the taxes on the property up to 1967.
The plaintiff contended that Articles 1606 and 1616 of the Civil Code require a judicial decree for the consolidation of the title acquired through conditional sale.

Genoveva de Gayon, in her answer, asserted that her husband Silvestre died on January 6, 1954, long before the filing of the complaint.
She denied the authenticity of Annex "A", claiming the signature was fictitious, and stressed that neither she nor her deceased husband ever executed any document in the plaintiff's favor.
The defendant characterized the complaint as malicious, causing embarrassment to her and her children, and claimed that the heirs of Silvestre Gayon had incurred legal expenses.
She further argued that as a brother of the deceased, the plaintiff had not attempted an amicable settlement before filing the case.
Subsequently, she filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating the assertion that due to Silvestre Gayon’s death, the complaint needed amendment to include the proper parties (other successors-in-interest).

On September 16, 1967, the lower court ruled that, based on the motion to dismiss and evidence from Exhibit "A", Silvestre Gayon was deemed the absolute owner of the land.
The court emphasized that as Silvestre Gayon was dead, his wife Genoveva de Gayon “has nothing to do with the land subject of plaintiff’s complaint,” and dismissed the case without pronouncing costs.
The judicial decision was later challenged in the present appeal by Pedro Gayon.

The appellate court noted that Mrs. Gayon, as the widow and compulsory heir of Silvestre Gayon (per Art. 887(3) of the Civil Code), has a legal interest in the property.
It was observed that the defendant’s motion to dismiss essentially suggested amending the complaint to substitute the deceased Silvestre Gayon with his other successors.
The applicant emphasized that heirs are deemed parties by operation of law, even in the absence of a formal declaration of heirship, provided no special estate settlement proceedings are pending.
The issue of the plaintiff’s alleged failure to seek an amicable settlement was analyzed under Art. 222 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with the family relationships defined by Art. 217.

Whether Genoveva de Gayon, as the widow and compulsory heir of the deceased Silvestre Gayon, has a legal interest in the subject property.
Whether the heirs (or their administrator/executor) should be included as defendants in lieu of the decedent to reflect their ownership interest and succession rights.

Whether the complaint should be amended to name the other heirs or an administrator/executor of the estate of Silvestre Gayon.
Whether the absence of a declaration of heirship precludes the inclusion of the heirs as parties to the suit.

Whether the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust efforts for an amicable settlement, as mandated by Art. 222 of the Civil Code, serves as a procedural bar.
How the definition of “members of the same family” under Art. 217 influences the applicability of the compromise requirement.