Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19060)
Facts:
Ignacio Gerona, Maria Concepcion Gerona, Francisco Gerona and Delfin Gerona v. Carmen de Guzman, Jose de Guzman, Clemente de Guzman, Francisco de Guzman, Rustica de Guzman, Pacita de Guzman and Victoria de Guzman, G.R. No. L-19060. May 29, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Gerona children) alleged they were the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman, who in turn was a legitimate daughter by first marriage of Marcelo de Guzman. After the death of Marcelo's first wife, Marcelo married Camila Ramos and begot the respondent De Guzman siblings. Marcelo died on September 11, 1945.
On May 6, 1948, respondents executed an instrument styled an "extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman," in which they represented themselves as the only surviving heirs. By virtue of that instrument new transfer certificates of title were allegedly issued in the respondents' names, each taking a 1/7 interest; petitioners claim respondents thereby excluded them and committed a fraud upon the estate.
Petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (the trial court) alleging annulment of the extrajudicial settlement insofar as it deprived them of their 1/8 share in seven parcels, reconveyance of their share, cancellation of respondents' titles and issuance of new titles reflecting 1/8 shares, accounting, damages and attorney's fees; the complaint was filed in 1958. Respondents pleaded that Placida was spurious and that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial court found Placida to have been a legitimate child of Marcelo, that the seven parcels formed part of the conjugal partnership of Marcelo and Camila, but concluded the action was prescribed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari from the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issues:
- Is petitioners' action to annul the extrajudicial settlement and recover their hereditary share barred by the statute of limitations?
- If prescription applies, did the prescriptive period commence upon registration of the extrajudicial settlement (constructive notice) or upon petitioners' later alleged actual discovery of fraud?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)