Case Digest (G.R. No. 228854)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 228854)
Facts:
Nieves Navarro, in her capacity as one of the vendees of a portion of the estate of Dionisia Cayabyab and as one of the heirs of Victoria Cayabyab, and Irene Navarro, in her capacity as one of the heirs of Victoria Cayabyab, G.R. No. 228854, March 17, 2021, Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 29, 2016 and Resolution dated November 7, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 102366, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (Branch 41, Dagupan City) Decision of November 14, 2013 annulling an extrajudicial partition of the estate of Leoncia Tamondong.
During her lifetime, Leoncia owned two parcels: a 10,269-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 2570 (0-43633) and a 638-sq.m. lot covered by OCT No. 43631. Leoncia and Buenaventura Cayabyab had five children: Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo (deceased 1954), Dionisia, and Paciencia (died unmarried 1998). On September 16, 1961, the surviving heirs then living (Buenaventura, Remegio, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia) executed an Extrajudicial Partition that allotted Remegio a larger eastern portion (3,465 sq.m. plus the 638-sq.m. lot) and gave the other four signatories 1,701 sq.m. each; Rodrigo’s heirs (wife Josefina and daughter Zenaida) were excluded.
After Leoncia’s death and the partition, various transfers and registrations followed: TCT No. 11564 replaced the original title; when Victoria died in 1963 her share passed to the Navarro heirs; on December 28, 1984 Dionisia executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying her 1,701-sq.m. portion to four of Victoria’s children (the Navarro vendees), leading to issuance of TCT No. 63484; a Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995 further subdivided TCT No. 11564. Remegio died in 1995 and his share passed to his heirs.
On July 9, 2001, the heirs of Rodrigo (Josefina and daughter Zenaida) and one Melanio (who claimed filiation to Leoncia) filed a Complaint for Annulment of the Extrajudicial Partition and all transactions arising therefrom, praying also for partition of the properties and recovery. The Navarros (including the Navarro vendees) answered, alleging prescription, challenging Melanio’s claimed filiation, and counterclaiming for reduction of Remegio’s alleged inofficious share and for damages. Inocencia, a co-heir, was not served due to death; other defendants were defaulted.
The RTC (Branch 41, Dagupan City) in a Decision dated November 14, 2013 granted the complaint, annulling the extrajudicial partition, cancelling the related titles and transactions, reverting the lots to Leoncia’s estate, and ordering partition of the parcels into three equal shares to be distributed among (1) Rodrigo’s heirs (Josefina and Zenaida), (2) Remegio’s heirs (including Melanio), and (3) Victoria’s heirs (the Navarros); the RTC found Melanio to be Remegio’s son and held the partition and subsequent transactions void ab initio.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon (January 29, 2016), affirmed the RTC in material respects: it agreed the extrajudicial partition was void for excluding heirs, upheld the finding that Melanio inherits by representation as Remegio’s son, and declared Pacencia’s estate partition likewise void; it denied the Navarros’ counterclaim for damages. Petitioners sought relief in this Court via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari challenging principally the CA’s declaration that the sale by Dionisia to the Navarro vendees was void and contesting the denial of damages.
Issues:
- Whether the heirs of a deceased person must first obtain a judicial declaration of heirship in a special proceeding before prosecuting an ordinary civil action to annul an extrajudicial partition and recover property.
- Whether the extrajudicial partition of Leoncia’s estate that excluded Rodrigo’s heirs rendered void ab initio the subsequent sale by Dionisia of her allotted share to the Navarro vendees (i.e., whether nemo dat quod non habet applies to invalidate that sale).
- Whether petitioners are entitled to damages for the filing of the annulment action.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)