G.R. No. 79958 - Bautista vs. Grino-Aquino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 79958)

Factual Background

The parties admitted in an agreed stipulation that the land in question was registered in the name of petitioner Manuel Bautista under T.C.T. No. 2210 and that he inherited the land from his father, Mariano Bautista. The agreed facts also recited that on December 22, 1966, a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was executed among the heirs of the late Juliana Nojadera, the first wife of Manuel Bautista, and that upon registration T.C.T. No. 2210 was cancelled and T.C.T.-T-14182 was issued. The agreed facts further showed subsequent deeds of sale among the private respondents and issuance of additional titles T-14186 and T-15665 through T-15671. The parties admitted that Manuel Bautista denied having participated in or signed the extrajudicial partition and that, pursuant to agreement, the questioned signature was submitted to the NBI which concluded that the questioned document was authentic. The parties also admitted that Manuel married his second wife, Emiliana Tamayo, and had one child, Evangeline Bautista, born April 29, 1949.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 4033-P in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking to declare null and void the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, related deeds of sale, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 14182, 14186 and 15665 and Tax Declaration No. 5147. The trial court dismissed the complaint with costs by decision dated January 14, 1983. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on August 3, 1987. Petitioners brought the present petition for review to the Supreme Court.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioners contended, as reflected in their petition for review, that the appellate court committed several errors: that its findings of fact were manifestly absurd and mistaken; that the court sanctioned an extrajudicial partition of a property constituting a future inheritance in violation of Article 1347, Civil Code; and that the court authorized the preterition of Evangeline Bautista, a compulsory heir, in violation of the law on succession. Respondents relied on the trial court’s and appellate court’s acceptance of the NBI finding that the signature of Manuel Bautista on the extrajudicial partition was genuine and on their conclusions as to prescription and validity of the subsequent transfers.

Findings of the Trial Court and Court of Appeals

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals accepted the NBI conclusion that the questioned signature of Manuel Bautista on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was authentic. The respondent courts thereby treated the partition and the subsequent transfers as valid instruments affecting title and ownership. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint and the trial court’s resolution on prescription, as reflected in its August 3, 1987 decision.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue was whether property belonging exclusively to the surviving husband could lawfully be the subject of an extrajudicial partition purporting to be among the heirs of his deceased wife, and whether the extrajudicial partition and subsequent transfers affecting a title registered in the surviving husband’s name were null and void.

Supreme Court's Legal Analysis and Reasoning

The Court accepted that the NBI expert had concluded that the signature on the extrajudicial partition was authentic and that such finding could not be controverted in the present proceeding. The Court nonetheless held that the extrajudicial partition was fatally defective on its face because the property did not form part of the estate of the decedent. The Court reasoned that Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court limits extrajudicial settlement to the estate left by a decedent who died intestate, free of creditors, and with heirs of age or legally represented minors, and that only property of the decedent transmitted by succession may lawfully be the subject of an extrajudicial partition. The Court found that the land had been the exclusive property of Manuel Bautista, inherited from his father, and therefore could not be partitioned as part of the estate of Juliana Nojadera. The Court held that including property not belonging to the decedent in an extrajudicial partition deprived the lawful owner of property without due process and rendered the instrument void ab initio. The Court further found that the partition purportedly waived Manuel’s rights and effectuated the preterition of his daughter Evangeline, a compulsory heir, and that the preterition was attended by bad faith. The pattern of conveyances among the private respondents and the intermediary transfers to and from Manolito Bautista indicated a scheme to place the property beyond the reach of those lawfully entitled to it. The Court invoked the prohibition against partition of future inheritance under Article 1347, Civil Code, and cited Articles 1080 and 1102, Civil Code, and controlling precedents (Cordova v. Cordova; De Guzman v. Court of Appeals; Tero v. Tero; Inting v. Bernaldez) to support its conclusions on rescission for bad faith and the nullity of the transactions.

Prescription and Discoverability

The Court rejected the invocation of prescription. It held that the right of co-owners to sue for partition is imprescriptible and that prescription therefore did not bar the action. The Court also stated that, even on the trial court’s assumption that the action might be prescribed, petitioners Emiliana Bautista and Evangeline Bautista averred that they discovered the instrument only shortly before filing suit; on that ground the Court concluded the action had not prescribed.

Disposition and Relief

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision of August 3, 1987, and its September 11, 1987 resolution. The Court declared the Deed of Extrajudicial P

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 79958)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Emiliana Bautista, as heir of the late Manuel Bautista, and Evangeline Bautista were the petitioners seeking annulment of instruments and restoration of title.
Hon. Justices Carolina C. Grino-Aquino, Manuel T. Reyes, and Jaime M. Lantin, in their capacity as justices of the Special First Division of the Court of Appeals, and Hon. Pedro JL. Bautista, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City, were named respondents in their official capacities.
The private respondents were Manolito Bautista, Benjamin De Guzman, Betty N. Bautista alias Beatriz Bautista, Nelia N. Bautista, Gloria N. Bautista, Clarita N. Bautista, and Rosalina Bautista.
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 4033-P in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to annul a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, subsequent deeds of sale, several Transfer Certificates of Title, and a tax declaration.
The parties submitted an Agreed Stipulation of Facts dated December 15, 1975, which the trial court received and incorporated into the record.
The trial court dismissed the complaint in a decision dated January 14, 1983.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in a decision dated August 3, 1987.
The petition for review to the Court bore G.R. No. 79958, and the Court rendered its decision on October 28, 1988.

Key Facts

The property in question was registered in the name of Manuel Bautista under T.C.T. No. 2210 and was inherited by him from his father, Mariano Bautista.
On December 22, 1966, a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was executed in which private respondents were signatories and which purportedly affected the property under T.C.T. No. 2210.
Manuel Bautista denied having signed the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, and the parties agreed to submit the questioned signature to the NBI, which concluded that the questioned document was authentic.
Upon registration of the extrajudicial partition, T.C.T. No. 2210 was cancelled and T.C.T.-T-14182 was issued.
The private respondents, except Manolito Bautista, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Manolito Bautista, which upon registration resulted in issuance of T.C.T. T-14186 in his name.
On August 7, 1969, Manolito Bautista executed a Deed of Sale in favor of the other private respondents, and upon registration T.C.T. Nos. T-15665 to T-15671 were issued to the private respondents.
Manuel Bautista married Emiliana Tamayo as his second wife, and they had one child, Evangeline Bautista, born April 29, 1949.

Issues Presented

Whether the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of December 22, 1966, could validly include property that belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista and not to the estate of the decedent.
Whether the extrajudicial partition amounted to authorization of partition of future inheritance in violation of Article 1347, Civil Code.
Whether the extrajudicial partition resulted in the unlawful preterition of Evangeline Bautista, a compulsory heir, in violation of the law on succession.

Contentions

Petitioners contended that the findings of fact by the respondent courts were manifestly absurd and mistaken.
Petitioners argued that the extrajudicial partition attempted to dispose of property not belonging to the decedent and therefore constituted a prohi