Case Digest (G.R. No. 141882)
Facts:
J.L.T. Agro, Inc., represented by its manager, Julian L. Teves v. Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages. By his first wife, Antonia Baena, he had two children, Josefa Teves Escano and Emilio Teves; by his second wife, Milagros Donio Teves, he had four children (two legitimated, two acknowledged). A partition suit among heirs resulted in a court‑approved Compromise Agreement embodied in a CFI decision dated January 31, 1964, which adjudicated various properties among the parties. Paragraph 13 of that Compromise Agreement provided that upon Don Julian’s death certain properties would be understood to include both the children’s one‑half from their mother and the legitimes and successional rights corresponding to the other half from Don Julian; it also stated that properties then selected and adjudicated to Don Julian (excluding his share in Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa) "shall exclusively be adjudicated to" Milagros Donio and her children.
Pursuant to separate instruments, Don Julian, Josefa and Emilio executed a Deed of Assignment of Assets (November 16, 1972) and a Supplemental Deed (July 31, 1973) that purported to transfer, among other parcels, Lot No. 63 (954 sq. m.), originally registered as OCT No. 5203 in the names of Don Julian and Antonia, to petitioner J.L.T. Agro, Inc. Don Julian died intestate on April 14, 1974. A court entry on November 12, 1979 shows the replacement of OCT No. 5203 by TCT No. T‑375 in the name of petitioner; since issuance petitioner paid real property taxes on the lot.
After the Compromise Agreement, Milagros Donio and her children had taken possession of Lot No. 63 and in 1974 leased it to respondents Antonio Balansag (died 1997) and Hilaria Cadayday, who built a home and lumber yard thereon. Milagros Donio executed an extrajudicial partition (March 18, 1980) in which Lot No. 63 was allotted to her and two of her children; respondents purchased the lot from Milagros Donio by Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 9, 1983, but were unable to register the sale because the lot already bore TCT No. T‑375 in petitioner’s name.
Respondents filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Bais City, seeking annulment and cancellation of TCT No. T‑375, transfer of title to them, and damages. The RTC (decision dated May 7, 1993) dismissed respondents’ complaint, finding that (a) the Compromise Agreement’s direct adjudication was in favor of Don Julian and his two children by the first marriage and paragraph 13 was merely an amplification; (b) the properties adjudicated to Don Julian (except Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa) were free from the forced legitimary rights of Josefa and Emilio and thus Don Julian could validly dispose of Lot No. 63; and (c) by the time of his death Don Julian had already assigned Lot No. 63 to petitioner via the Supplemental Deed.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed by Decision dated September 30, 1999, declaring TCT No. T‑375 in the name of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. null and void and ordering costs against petitioner. The CA concluded that paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement adjudicated the heirs’ future legitimes and therefore the heirs from the two groups had acquired full ownership and possession of their respective adjudicated properties upon approval of the Compromise Agreement; it also questioned the validity of TCT No. T‑375 because the Book/Page blanks were not filled and labeled the title spurious.
Petitioner ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May future legitime be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of the decedent so as to vest ownership in the heirs before succession opens?
- Was the Supplemental Deed (July 31, 1973) and the subsequent issuance of TCT No. T‑375 a valid transfer of Lot No. 63 to petitioner, or is the instrument and title void for noncompliance with statutory formalities, absence of cause/consideration, and irregular reconstitution of title under the Torrens system and P.D. No. 1529?
- Does the doctrine of preterition apply to render the Supplemental Deed void as ha...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)