Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17818)
Facts:
Tirso T. Reyes, as Guardian of the Minors Azucena, Flor-de-Lis and Tirso, Jr., all surnamed Reyes y Barretto v. Lucia Milagros Barretto‑Datu, G.R. No. L-17818, January 25, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Tirso T. Reyes, acting as guardian of the minor children and heirs of the late Salud Barretto, sued to recover one-half share of a fishpond (Lot No. 4, Plan Psu-4709; TCT No. T-13734) and sought accounting for its fruits; the property formed part of the estate of the late Bibiano Barretto which had been distributed under a project of partition approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1939. Defendant-appellee Lucia Milagros Barretto (Datu) counterclaimed to recover all properties that had been delivered under that partition on the ground that Salud was not a true child/heir of Bibiano and that the partition was void ab initio.
The underlying facts: Bibiano Barretto died February 18, 1936, leaving a will that purportedly instituted Salud Barretto and Milagros Barretto as heirs and reserved the usufruct of the fishpond for his widow Maria Gerardo, who was appointed administratrix and signed a project of partition (in her own right and as guardian of minor Milagros) approved November 22, 1939. Distribution followed and new titles were issued in favor of distributees. Later developments: Maria Gerardo died in 1948 and two contrary wills surfaced; subsequent litigation produced a ruling (Reyes v. Barretto, G.R. No. L-5831, Jan. 31, 1956) that Salud was not Maria Gerardo’s child.
Relying on that later determination of filiation, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 1084 held the 1939 project of partition null and void under Article 1081 of the Civil Code of 1889, ordered reconveyance of properties delivered to Salud (and her successors) to Milagros, and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint; the CFI denied appellee’s claim for damages. Plaintiffs appealed from the Bulacan judgment to the Supreme Court by direct appeal.
On appeal the principal contentions were (a) whether the 1939 partition and the consequent decree of distribution were void under Article 1081 (partition including a person erroneously believe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the project of partition and the decree of distribution of Bibiano Barretto’s estate void ab initio under Article 1081 or Article 1814 of the Civil Code of 1889?
- Is appellee Milagros Barretto’s action to contest the decree of distribution barred by the statute of limitations?
- Must plaintiff‑guardian and his wards account as possessors in bad faith for the fruits of the properties rec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)