G.R. No. 100866 - Boyer-Roxas vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100866)

Petitioner (Plaintiff‑Appellee)

Gertrudes de los Santos — claimed rights under the extrajudicial partition and sought specific performance against the defendant to compel development of subdivided lots and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.

Respondent (Defendant‑Appellant)

Maximo de la Cruz — a nephew of Pelagia de la Cruz; party to the extrajudicial partition agreement and appointed administrator in charge of development of the subdivided estate; defended against specific performance and filed a counterclaim asserting entitlement to a reversion share from a purported sale by the plaintiff.

Key Dates

Death of Pelagia de la Cruz: October 16, 1962 (intestate, without issue).
Extrajudicial partition executed: August 24, 1963.
Complaint for specific performance filed: May 21, 1965.
Stipulation of facts submitted: July 6, 1966.
Trial court decision: November 3, 1966.
Supreme Court decision on appeal: February 22, 1971.

Applicable Law

Civil Code provisions: Articles 962, 972 (rules on representation and order of succession), Article 1105 (effect of partition that includes a person believed to be an heir but who is not), Article 2199 (proof required for actual damages).
Procedural rules: Section 1, Rule 18, Revised Rules of Court (judgment by default); Sections 128–129, Code of Civil Procedure (historical counterpart).
Governing constitution at time of decision: 1935 Philippine Constitution (decision grounded in Civil Code, procedural rules and prior jurisprudence rather than constitutional issues).
Relevant precedents cited by the Court: Linart y Pavia v. Ugarte y Iturralde; De Torres v. De Torres; Ramiro v. Grano; Capili v. Court of Appeals; Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio.

Factual Background

The parties executed an extrajudicial partition of property alleged to be Pelagia’s estate, adjudicating three lots to the defendant on the condition he would develop and subdivide the estate, with development expenses to be defrayed from sale proceeds of those lots. Subsequent to the partition the defendant sold the three lots but allegedly failed to develop proper roads and utilities. Plaintiff (Gertrudes) sued for specific performance of defendant’s development obligations and for attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant admitted execution of the partition but asserted plaintiff was not an heir of Pelagia and therefore the partition was void as to her; he counterclaimed for one‑fourth of proceeds based on an alleged sale by plaintiff of her share for P10,000. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts to the trial court; the trial court held defendant estopped from denying plaintiff’s heirship and ordered specific performance and damages. The defendant appealed.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Whether plaintiff was an heir of Pelagia de la Cruz, and if not, whether the extrajudicial partition is void with respect to her so as to deprive her of a cause of action under the partition.
Whether defendant was estopped from denying plaintiff’s heirship and thus bound to perform under the partition.
Whether the award of actual damages was proper and whether the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate defendant’s counterclaim for a reversionary share.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Heirship and Validity of Partition

The Court examined the stipulated family relationships and applied Articles 962 and 972 of the Civil Code concerning order of succession and representation. Plaintiff was a grandniece whose mother (Marciana) was a niece of Pelagia and predeceased Pelagia. Under the Civil Code the right of representation operates in the direct descending line and in the collateral line only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters; a grandniece is excluded when nearer collateral relatives (nieces/nephews) survive. Citing Linart y Pavia v. Ugarte y Iturralde, the Court concluded plaintiff was not a legal heir of Pelagia and therefore could not inherit by representation or in her own right. Because the partition expressly purported to divide Pelagia’s estate among her heirs and plaintiff participated only by alleged representation of her deceased mother, the Court held the partition was void with respect to plaintiff under Article 1105 of the Civil Code: a partition that includes a person believed to be an heir but who is not shall be void only with respect to such person. Consequently, the partition did not confer upon plaintiff a legal right to enforce its terms against defendant.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Estoppel

The trial court had ruled defendant estopped from contesting plaintiff’s heirship because he was a party to the partition. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. It reiterated the principle that estoppel cannot be predicated on a void contract or on acts arising from a mistaken belief as to legal rights. The Court relied on authorities (including Ramiro v. Grano and Capili v. Court of Appeals) to hold that silence or participation under an innocent mistake of legal status does not create estoppel where the actor lacked knowledge of the true facts and rights at the time. Thus, defendant was not estopped from asserting plaintiff was not an heir and from refusing to be bound by the partition insofar as plaintiff was concerned.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Damages

The Court held the award of actual damages could not be sustained. Article 2199 requires proof of compensatory damages; the case was decided on a stipulation of facts without proof of actual damages presented. Therefore the trial court’s grant of P2,000.00 as actual damages to plaintiff was unsupported.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Counterclaim, Default and Proof

Defendant’s counterclaim alleged plaintiff sold her share for P10,000.00 and sought one‑fourth (P2,500.00) by way of reversion. Plaintiff had been declared in default for failure to answer the counterclaim, but the Court explained that judgment by default does not dispense with the necessity of proof of facts to sustain relief. Citing Section 1, Rule 18 and Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio, the Court noted default relieves the defaulting party of the opportunity to be heard but does not amount to automatic admission of legal entitlement or substitute for evidence. The stipulation of facts did show plaintiff received Lot 9 (a defined portion) under the partition; hence, insofar as plaintiff retained possession of property received under a partition void as to her, the defendant had a legitimate claim for restitution of his share of that property. However, the defendant failed to present evidence in the trial court proving the alleged sale and the proceeds; the stipulation did not address the asserted sale. The

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100866)

Procedural Posture

Direct appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IX, in Civil Case No. Q-8792.
Complaint for specific performance filed by plaintiff-appellee on May 21, 1965.
Court of First Instance rendered decision on November 3, 1966, ordering defendant to perform obligations and awarding damages and attorney’s fees; no disposition made on defendant’s counterclaim.
Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial which was denied; defendant appealed to this Court.
The Supreme Court rendered its decision on February 22, 1971 (G.R. No. L-29192).

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff-Appellee: Gertrudes de los Santos, who brought the complaint for specific performance and sought enforcement of an extrajudicial partition agreement.
Defendant-Appellant: Maximo de la Cruz, a party to the extrajudicial partition agreement and adjudicated three lots thereunder; also filed a counterclaim against plaintiff-appellee.
Decedent / predecessor-in-interest: Pelagia de la Cruz, original owner of the estate which was the subject of the extrajudicial partition agreement.
Other identified relatives: Marciana de la Cruz (mother of plaintiff-appellee and niece of Pelagia), and several co-heirs named in the partition agreement.

Subject Matter and Reliefs Sought

Nature of suit: Complaint for specific performance to enforce obligations under an extrajudicial partition agreement.
Plaintiff prayed: That defendant be ordered to comply with his obligations under the extrajudicial partition agreement and to pay P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs.
Defendant’s answer: Admitted execution of the extrajudicial partition agreement; pleaded affirmative defenses alleging that the agreement was void with respect to plaintiff because she was not an heir of Pelagia and was included by mistake; asserted insufficiency of proceeds from sale of adjudicated lots to develop the subdivision.
Defendant’s counterclaim: Alleged plaintiff sold her share for P10,000.00; contended that, if partition is void as to plaintiff, defendant is entitled to one-fourth (1/4) of the proceeds by way of reversion; prayed dismissal of complaint, declaration of nullity of the agreement as to plaintiff, and an award of P2,500.00.

Stipulation of Facts Submitted to Trial Court (July 6, 1966)

Parties admitted existence and execution of the Extra-Judicial Partition Agreement dated August 24, 1963 (Exhibit A / 1).
Parties agreed the original purpose of the partition was distribution among heirs of Pelagia de la Cruz, but several lots had been sold by some co-heirs and houses and residents now exist in the subdivision.
Parties agreed defendant was appointed Administrator and in-charge of development and subdivision per the partition agreement.
Parties agreed Lots 1, 2 and 3 (as described in the partition agreement) have been sold by defendant; there are no properly constructed roads nor proper light and water facilities.
Parties agreed defendant is nephew of the deceased Pelagia de la Cruz.
Parties agreed plaintiff is grandniece of Pelagia de la Cruz.
Parties agreed Pelagia de la Cruz died intestate and without issue on October 16, 1962 (death certificate Exhibit 2 for defendant).
Parties agreed Marciana de la Cruz, mother of plaintiff and niece of Pelagia, died on September 22, 1935 (Exhibit 3 for defendant).
Additional stipulated fact referred to in the record: Plaintiff admitted having received Lot 9 (LRC Psd-29561, 1,691 sq. m.) in co-ownership with specified relatives under the partition agreement (noted later in the Supreme Court opinion as paragraph (9)).

Trial Court Decision (Court of First Instance, November 3, 1966)

Held defendant, being a party to the extrajudicial partition agreement, was estopped from challenging plaintiff’s right to inherit from Pelagia de la Cruz.
Ordered defendant to perform his obligations to develop Lots 1, 2 and 3 of (LRC) Psd-29561 as described in the partition agreement (interpreted as obligation to develop subdivision for sale proceeds).
Awarded plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages, P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs.
No disposition was made on defendant’s counterclaim.
Plaintiff had been declared in default on defendant’s counterclaim for failure to answer.

Issues on Appeal / Assigned Errors (Condensed by Supreme Court)

Whether the court a quo erred in not holding the extrajudicial partition agreement null and void with respect to plaintiff-appellee, thereby negating plaintiff’s cause of action.
Whether the court a quo erred in holding that defendant-appellant is estopped from questioning plaintiff-appellee’s right to have the agreement enforced.
Whether the court a quo erred in awarding actual damages to plaintiff-appellee and in failing to grant relief on defendant-appellant’s counterclaim.

Legal Questions Framed by the Court

Is plaintiff-appellee an heir of Pelagia de la Cruz such that she could be bound by and could enforce an extrajudicial partition made among heirs?
What is the legal effect of including in a partition a person believed to be an heir who in law is not an heir?
Can estoppel be invoked to uphold a partition or to preclude a party from asserting lack of heirship when the partition is void with respect to the non-heir?
What proof is required to sustain an award of actual damages when the case is decided on stipulation of facts?
What is the legal effect of default on a counterclaim and what must a plaintiff in default still face procedurally regarding the counterclaim?

Applicable Statutes, Rules and Doctrines Cited by the Court

Civil Code Article 972: "The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending. 'In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.'"
Civil Code Article 962: "In every inheritance, the relative nearest in de