Title
Supreme Court
Heirs of Roldan vs. Heirs of Roldan
Case
G.R. No. 202578
Decision Date
Sep 27, 2017
Heirs disputed ownership of Lot No. 4696; SC ruled Silvela's heirs co-own with Gilberto's, rejecting Leopoldo's claim due to insufficient filiation proof.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 184466)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Origin and Nature of Property
    • Natalia Magtulis owned Lot No. 4696, an agricultural parcel of 21,739 sq. m. in Kalibo, Aklan, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-7711.
    • Natalia’s heirs allegedly comprised three groups:
      • Gilberto Roldan (and his heirs) – child by first marriage.
      • Silvela Roldan (and her heirs) – child by first marriage.
      • Leopoldo Magtulis (and his heirs) – purported child by another man, Juan Aguirre.
  • Post-Death Occupation and Litigation
    • Upon Natalia’s death in 1961, Gilberto and his heirs took exclusive possession of the lot, excluding the heirs of Silvela and Leopoldo.
    • On May 19, 2003, the excluded heirs (respondents) filed before the RTC a Complaint for Partition and Damages, asserting co-ownership rights.
  • Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings
    • RTC Decision (Dec. 14, 2007):
      • No proof of sale by Silvela to Gilberto; Silvela’s heirs remain co-owners.
      • Baptismal and marriage certificates establish Leopoldo as Natalia’s son; each heir group entitled to one-third share.
      • Ordered petitioners to account for and deliver respondents’ shares.
    • CA Decision (Dec. 20, 2011) and Resolution (June 1, 2012):
      • Affirmed RTC findings on non-sale by Silvela and on Leopoldo’s filiation.
      • Petition for Reconsideration by heirs of Gilberto denied.
    • Petition for Review on Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court on July 6, 2012.

Issues:

  • Sale of Silvela’s Share
    • Did Silvela validly sell or transfer her hereditary share in Lot 4696 to Gilberto?
  • Filiation of Leopoldo Magtulis
    • Can Leopoldo’s baptismal and marriage certificates alone establish his status as Natalia’s child?
  • Prescription and Laches
    • Do prescription and laches bar the respondents from claiming co-ownership after 42 years of possession by petitioners?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.