Case Digest (G.R. No. 57062) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves the heirs of the late Lupo Mariategui, a deceased who died intestate on June 26, 1953, leaving properties allegedly acquired before his marriages. Lupo contracted three marriages during his lifetime: first to Eusebia Montellano, with whom he had four children; second to Flaviana Montellano, with whom he had one daughter; and third to Felipa Velasco in about 1930, with whom he had three children: Jacinto, Julian, and Paulina Mariategui—the respondents in this case. The first family and second family descendants executed an extrajudicial partition on December 2, 1967, adjudicating Lot No. 163 of the Muntinglupa Estate among themselves, excluding the third set of children. This lot was registered under their names through OCT No. 8828 in 1971, and was subdivided with respective titles issued. On April 23, 1973, the third family children (Jacinto, Julian, and Paulina) filed an amended complaint to claim their rightful shares of Lot No. 163 and other lots, arguing
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 57062) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Deceased and His Marriages
- Lupo Mariategui died intestate on June 26, 1953.
- He contracted three marriages:
- First wife: Eusebia Montellano (died November 8, 1904) – Four children: Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbana, and Ireneo. Baldomera and Ireneo died leaving descendants.
- Second wife: Flaviana Montellano – One daughter, Cresenciana, born on May 8, 1910.
- Third wife: Felipa Velasco (married circa 1930; Felipa died in 1941) – Three children: Jacinto (born July 3, 1929), Julian (born February 16, 1931), and Paulina (born April 19, 1938).
- Properties Left by Lupo Mariategui
- Lupo left certain properties acquired while unmarried, specifically Lots Nos. 163, 66, 1346, and 156 of the Muntinglupa Estate.
- Extrajudicial Partition by Descendants of First and Second Marriages
- On December 2, 1967, descendants of Lupo’s first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, adjudicating Lot No. 163 among themselves.
- The land registration court issued a decree registering Lot No. 163 under the heirs’ names by Order Certificate Title (OCT) No. 8828 on April 1, 1971.
- The lot was subdivided into Lots Nos. 163-A to 163-H, with separate titles issued to respective parties.
- Action Filed by Children of the Third Marriage
- On April 23, 1973, Jacinto, Julian, and Paulina (children of the third marriage) filed an amended complaint in court claiming ownership over Lots Nos. 163, 669, 1346, and 154, properties of their deceased father.
- They sought partition of Lupo’s estate and annulment of the extrajudicial partition dated December 2, 1967.
- Certain unwilling defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs’ status and agreed to partition and accounting.
- Proceedings and Motions
- Defendants (petitioners) filed an answer with counterclaim and a motion to dismiss citing lack of cause of action and prescription.
- The trial court initially denied the motion to dismiss (August 14, 1974).
- Subsequently, on February 16, 1977, the trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove their continuous posession and status as children of Lupo Mariategui.
- Appeal and Decision of the Court of Appeals
- The plaintiffs appealed, contesting the trial court’s ruling that their parents’ marriage was not lawful and that they were not legitimate children.
- On December 24, 1980, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision, declaring all children and descendants of Lupo Mariategui— including the third marriage children—entitled to equal shares in the estate.
- The Court directed execution of deeds of reconveyance or payment of fair market value and submission of a partition plan.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Submission of Issues in the Petition
- Whether prescription barred the private respondents’ right to demand partition.
- Whether private respondents established their successional rights over the estate.
Issues:
- Whether the action filed by the private respondents was barred by prescription.
- Whether the private respondents, as children of the third marriage, proved their legitimate filiation and rights to inherit from Lupo Mariategui.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)