G.R. No. 5075 - Ramirez vs. Bautista

The subject matter involves two fish ponds owned by the late Moises Ramirez, which became the property in dispute after his death.
Moises Ramirez died intestate in February 1900 and was married twice, having children from both marriages.
By his first marriage to Apolinaria Guillermo, he had five children (Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia).
By his second marriage to Alejandra Capistrano, he had three children (Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio), with Isabel being the sole survivor of that marriage.

The two fish ponds were acquired by Moises Ramirez on March 7, 1895, during his first marriage, based on a title of composition with the Spanish Government.
The ponds formed part of the conjugal partnership between Moises Ramirez and Apolinaria Guillermo.
Upon the death of Apolinaria Guerrero, the ponds were divided: one-half remaining with Moises Ramirez and the other half passing to the children of the first marriage as heirs of their mother, according to the Civil Code (arts. 931, 1392, 1401, and 392).

The five children of the first marriage (Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia) subsequently sold the two fish ponds on November 28, 1901, to Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran for 1,100 pesos.
The sale was evidenced by two documents: one executed privately and the other notarized.
Isabel Ramirez, the sole surviving child of the second marriage, did not participate in or consent to the sale, raising questions on the validity of the sale for the share that belonged solely to her.

The plaintiff, Mauricio Ramirez, acting as the administrator of the estate, filed the action to have the sale declared void, recover possession, and secure indemnity for damages.
In the trial at the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff by declaring the entire sale void, restoring possession of the fish ponds to the administrator, and awarding damages of 200 pesos per annum to be recovered from the defendants.
Vendors (the children who sold the property) were also summoned, but they did not appear at trial.

The failure to declare that all children had become owners pro indiviso of the fish ponds upon Moises Ramirez’s death.
The assertion that without a formal partition, the rights transmitted by the children of the first marriage were invalid.
The exclusion of the sale’s validity of thirteen-sixteenths of the property, with only the sale of three-sixteenths being declared void.
The contention that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to bring the suit.

Whether the children, by virtue of intestate succession, became owners pro indiviso of the fish ponds.
Whether a community of property existed between Moises Ramirez and the children of the first marriage, and later among all heirs following his death.

Whether the sale of the thirteen-sixteenths share of the fish ponds by the five children of the first marriage was valid.
Whether the sale of the three-sixteenths share, which belonged exclusively to Isabel Ramirez (the surviving child of the second marriage), was null and void due to her absence from the transaction.

Whether the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate, had the legal capacity to institute the suit for voiding the sale and recovering possession.
Whether the appellees (defendants) were the legitimate owners and possessors of the property for purposes of the complaint.

Whether the doctrine of intestate succession could disturb the rights of a lawful holder in possession or the outcomes of a valid alienation of a share owned by coheirs.