Case Digest (G.R. No. 133000)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 133000)
Facts:
Patricia Natcher, petitioner, v. Hon. Court of Appeals and the heirs of Graciano del Rosario (Leticia del Rosario, Emilia del Rosario-Manangan, Rosalinda Fuentes Llana, Rodolfo Fuentes, Alberto Fuentes, Evelyn del Rosario, and Eduardo del Rosario), G.R. No. 133000, October 02, 2001, was decided by the Supreme Court Second Division, Buena, J., writing for the Court.Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were registered owners of a 9,322 sq. m. parcel (TCT No. 11889). Upon Graciana’s death in 1951, Graciano and his six children executed an extrajudicial settlement on February 9, 1954, reallocating shares and prompting cancellation of TCT No. 11889 and issuance of TCT No. 35980 in the names of Graciano and the children. The heirs also executed an “Agreement of Consolidation-Subdivision of Real Property with Waiver of Rights,” and Graciano donated parts of his interest to his children, leaving a small portion registered to him (TCT No. 35988), later subdivided into TCT Nos. 107442 and 107443.
Graciano sold the lot under TCT No. 107442 to a third person but retained TCT No. 107443. On March 20, 1980, Graciano married petitioner Patricia Natcher, and during their marriage he executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property covered by TCT No. 107443 to petitioner, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 186059 in petitioner’s name. Graciano died on October 7, 1985.
The six children (respondents) filed Civil Case No. 71075 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55, seeking reconveyance and annulment of title with damages, alleging fraud, misrepresentation and forgery in the acquisition of TCT No. 107443 by petitioner and claiming impairment of their legitimes. Petitioner answered that she was a compulsory heir by virtue of marriage and that Graciano had already distributed properties in advance during his lifetime.
The RTC rendered judgment on January 26, 1996, holding (1) the Deed of Sale was prohibited by law and void as spouses may not sell conjugal property absent a property regime allowing it or judicial separation of property; (2) it could not be a valid donation; but (3) it could be regarded as an advancement (an extension of advance inheritance) in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (C.A.) reversed and set aside the RTC decision, annulled the Deed of Sale, ordered cancellation of TCT No. 186059 and reinstatement of TCT No. 107443, and added that any question of advancement should be raised in a special proceeding for settlement of the decedent’s estate. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- May a Regional Trial Court, acting in its general jurisdiction in an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person, particularly questions as to advancement made by the decedent to any of the heirs?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in reversing the RTC’s characterization of the Deed of Sale as an advancement and in annulling the Deed and ordering cancellation and reinstatement of the challenged titles?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)