Case Digest (G.R. No. 145379)
Facts:
Damiana Into v. Mario Valle, et al., G.R. No. 145379, December 09, 2005, the Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Damiana Into secured a final, executory judgment on August 13, 1990 from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, Branch 14, in Civil Case No. 19‑896‑89 against Eleanor Valle Siapno and Oscar Siapno for P283,000.00 plus interests. To satisfy that judgment, deputy sheriffs levied on and, on August 6–7, 1992, sold at public auction the interest described in the sheriff’s certificate as “all the rights, interests, title, claims and participation pro‑indiviso by Eleanor Valle Siapno” in six parcels covered by Torrens titles; the provisional certificate of sale named petitioner as highest bidder.
On November 23, 1992, Luisa vda. de Valle (as surviving spouse and administratrix of the estate of Victorio Valle) and her children (respondents) filed Civil Case No. 2671 with the RTC of Tagum (raffled to Branch 1) seeking declaration of nullity of the sheriff’s sale and recovery of hereditary shares, alleging that Eleanor had on February 2, 1991 executed a “Waiver of Hereditary Shares and/or Rights” conveying her share to her co‑heirs for consideration and that the sheriffs proceeded with the auction despite verbal notice of that waiver and without proper annotation or notice under the Rules of Court.
Petitioner and the sheriffs moved to dismiss (Feb. 3, 1993) asserting lack of capacity to sue, invalid repudiation under Article 1051 of the Civil Code, and that the waiver could not defeat petitioner’s judgment lien. The case was transferred (Mar. 12, 1993) to RTC, Branch 2, where Special Proceedings No. 63 (the intestate estate settlement of Victorio Valle) was pending. The RTC initially dismissed respondents’ complaint and declared the auction sale null and void (Order Aug. 31, 1993), but later set aside that declaration as to the sale after reconsideration (Order Apr. 28, 1994). Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 46382).
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated May 5, 2000, reversed the RTC orders, held that the complaint should be reinstated and tried (finding respondents had capacity and that their heirs’ inchoate rights warranted judicial protection), and ordered the RTC, Branch 2, to proceed with trial. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court challenging (among other points) the CA’s rulings on the validity of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the “Waiver of Hereditary Shares and/or Rights” executed by Eleanor Valle Siapno is valid and properly made?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that an heir’s inchoate interest in the decedent’s estate may not be levied upon and sold?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering the RTC, Branch 2, Tagum, to reinstate respondents’ complaint and proceed to trial; in particular, do re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)