G.R. No. 228854 - Navarro vs. Harris

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228854)

Factual Background

The Court recited that during her lifetime Leoncia Tamondong owned a parcel of 10,269 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2570 (0-43633) and a separate lot of 638 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 43631. Leoncia and her husband Buenaventura Cayabyab had five children: Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo, Dionisia, and Paciencia. Rodrigo predeceased Leoncia, having died in 1954. Leoncia predeceased Buenaventura and died intestate in 1944. In 1961, the surviving heirs—Buenaventura, Remegio, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia—executed an Extrajudicial Partition that excluded the heirs of the deceased child Rodrigo. By that partition the eastern portion of TCT No. 2570 amounting to 3,465 sq.m. and the entire OCT No. 43631 (638 sq.m.) were adjudicated to Remegio; the balance of TCT No. 2570 was apportioned into equal 1,701-sq.m. shares among Buenaventura, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia. The partition produced replacement titles including TCT No. 11564.

Subsequent Transactions and Title Changes

The Court described that upon Victoria’s death in 1963, her one 1,701-sq.m. share passed to her heirs collectively referred to as the Navarros. On December 28, 1984, Dionisia Cayabyab executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying her 1,701-sq.m. portion to four children of Victoria—Nieves, Cecilia, Leonida, and Mercedes Navarro (the Navarro Vendees). Registration of that sale resulted in the issuance of TCT No. 63484 in the names of the purchasers together with the other co-owners. Before his death, Remegio and several co-heirs executed a Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995 pertinent to TCT No. 11564.

Commencement of Litigation and Claims

On July 9, 2001, the heirs of Rodrigo (his wife Josefina and daughter Zenaida) and Melanio, who claimed to be a son of Leoncia, filed a Complaint for Annulment of the Extrajudicial Partition and for reconveyance and partition of the properties covered by TCT No. 2570 and OCT No. 43631. They alleged that they had been excluded from the 1961 partition despite their status as compulsory heirs and prayed that the partition and all transactions resulting therefrom be annulled and the properties reapportioned. The Navarros answered, raised defenses of prescription and failure to establish heirship in a special proceeding, disputed Melanio’s filiation, and asserted counterclaims including a claim for damages and a contention that Remegio’s shares were inofficious.

Trial Court Findings and Decree

The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on November 14, 2013. The RTC concluded that under Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court the extrajudicial partition was not binding on the heirs of Rodrigo because they neither participated in nor received any share under the partition. The RTC held that the exclusion of those heirs rendered the extrajudicial partition void ab initio and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 11564 and TCT No. 63484, the reversion of the lots to the estate of Leoncia, and the revival of TCT No. 2570 and OCT No. 43631. The RTC also declared the Deed of Absolute Sale of December 28, 1984 null and void insofar as it conveyed an undivided share that had been the product of the void partition. The RTC further found that Melanio’s birth certificate was simulated and that he was not a direct child of Leoncia but a grandchild who would inherit by representation from Remegio. The RTC ordered partition of the two lots into three equal shares among (a) the heirs of Rodrigo, (b) the heirs of Remegio, and (c) the heirs of Victoria.

Court of Appeals Disposition

In its Decision dated January 29, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. The CA agreed that an extrajudicial partition that excluded rightful heirs was void and that the properties should revert to the decedent’s estate. The CA upheld the RTC’s finding that Melanio was not a direct heir of Leoncia and that he and Zenaida were entitled to a portion by way of representation. The CA likewise sustained the RTC’s declaration that the partition of Paciencia’s estate was void. The CA denied the Navarros’ counterclaim for damages for lack of basis.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition to the Supreme Court challenged principally the lower courts’ rulings that the sale by Dionisia to the Navarro Vendees was null and void and the consequent cancellation of TCT No. 63484. The petitioners also sought damages and maintained that the complaint filed by Zenaida and Melanio was malicious and driven by greed to acquire a larger share of the estate.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court, acting through its Third Division, partially granted the petition and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court declared the Extrajudicial Partition dated September 16, 1961 null and void and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 11564, the Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995, TCT No. 63484, and certain tax declarations, and directed the Register of Deeds to revive TCT No. 2570 and OCT No. 43631 in the name of Leoncia Tamondong. Crucially, the Court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1984 in favor of Nieves Navarro, Cecilia Navarro, Leonida Navarro, and Mercedes Navarro with respect to Dionisia’s 1,701-square meter share as valid and effective, and declared those vendees lawful co-owners of that 1,701-square meter portion. The Court directed the heirs of Leoncia to partition the subject parcels in accordance with the law of intestate succession. The Court denied the claim for damages by petitioners for lack of proof.

Legal Reasoning on Heirship and Procedural Posture

The Court recognized that the heirs of a deceased person who died intestate inherit in equal shares under Article 980 of the Civil Code and that an extrajudicial settlement executed to exclude co-heirs of their rightful share is void or inexistent under Civil Code principles and established jurisprudence. The Court invoked Treyes v. Larlar to hold that compulsory heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to annul deeds or instruments and recover property without a prior special proceeding for determination of heirship, and that such judgment is binding among the parties to the ordinary action. The Court therefore deemed the plaintiffs’ filing proper and refused to require a prior special proceeding. The Court also applied Article 493, which recognizes a co-owner’s right to alienate his pro indiviso share and provides that the effect of such alienation vis-à-vis co-owners is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the alienating co-owner upon partition.

Distinction Between Nullity of Partition and Validity of Subsequent Sale

The Court analyzed precedent relied upon by respondents, particularly Bautista v. Bautista and Segura v. Segura, and clarified that while an extrajudicial partition is void as to excluded heirs, the nullity of the partition does not ipso facto render void a subsequent sale that is limited to the seller’s lawful pro indiviso share. The Court reasoned that Dionisia, as a surviving heir and co-owner of an undivided share, had the legal capacity to sell her undivided interest. The effect of that alienation for fellow co-owners was bounded by the selling co-owner’s share and rendered the vendees co-owners pro indiviso rather than absolute owners of the whole parcel. Consequently, the Court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale of December 28, 1984 valid and effective with respect to Dionisia’s proportionate 1,701-sq.m. share and recognized the four vendees as lawful co-owners of that portion.

Partition Relief, Procedural Rule and Remedies

The Court ordered partitioning of the subject lots under the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228854)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nieves Navarro and Irene Navarro filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court seeking relief from the Court of Appeals decision affirming an RTC judgment.
Zenaida Cayabyab Harris, Robert E. Harris, Melanio Cayabyab, and other heirs of the Cayabyab family answered as respondents and were the plaintiffs in the trial court action to annul an extrajudicial partition.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated January 29, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 102366 affirming the RTC Decision dated November 14, 2013 of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City.
The RTC had annulled the Extrajudicial Partition of the estate of Leoncia Tamondong and ordered reversion of the subject lots to the decedent's estate and partition among the intestate heirs.
The Supreme Court, Third Division, resolved the petition and entered a new judgment partially granting relief to the petitioners.

Key Factual Allegations

Leoncia Tamondong owned Lot No. 7551 covered by TCT No. 2570 (0-43633) with an area of 10,269 sq.m. and Lot No. 7578 covered by OCT No. 43631 with an area of 638 sq.m.
Leoncia married Buenaventura Cayabyab and had five children: Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo, Dionisia, and Paciencia.
Rodrigo died on August 15, 1954 leaving his wife Josefina and daughter Zenaida as his heirs.
On September 16, 1961 the surviving heirs executed an Extrajudicial Partition that excluded the heirs of Rodrigo and allotted 3,465 sq.m. plus the 638-sq.m. lot to Remegio and 1,701 sq.m. each to Buenaventura, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia, resulting in issuance of TCT No. 11564.
In December 28, 1984 Dionisia executed a Deed of Absolute Sale transferring her 1,701-sq.m. portion to four children of Victoria, producing TCT No. 63484 in their names.
A Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995 was executed affecting TCT No. 11564 prior to the death of Remegio on September 2, 1995 and the death of Dionisia on November 3, 1996.
On July 9, 2001 the heirs of Rodrigo and claimant Melanio Cayabyab filed an action for annulment of the extrajudicial partition and for partition of the subject lots alleging exclusion from the 1961 partition.

Procedural History

The trial court granted the complaint on November 14, 2013, annulled the extrajudicial partition and related titles, reverted the lots to Leoncia's estate, and ordered partition among the heirs of Leoncia in equal shares.
The trial court additionally declared the sale between Dionisia and the Navarro vendees void ab initio and denied counterclaims for damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in its January 29, 2016 Decision and denied the appeal.
Petitioners invoked Rule 45 and sought review before the Supreme Court which partially granted the petition and entered a new judgment.

Issues Presented

Whether the exclusion of Rodrigo's heirs rendered the 1961 Extrajudicial Partition null and void.
Whether the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale by Dionisia conveying her allotted share to the Navarro vendees became void as a consequence of the nullity of the extrajudicial partition.
Whether the heirs of Rodrigo and other claimants could proceed by ordinary civil action without a prior special proceeding to determine heirship.
Whether petitioners were entitled to damages for the filing of the annulment action.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of rightful heirs from the 1961 Extrajudicial Partition rendered the partition null and void.
The Supreme Court declared TCT No. 11564, the Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995, TCT No. 63484, and the identified tax declarations null and void and ordered the reinstatement of TCT No. 2570 (0-43633) and OCT No. 43631 in the name of Leoncia Tamondong.
The Supreme Court held that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1984 by Dionisia was valid and effective only with respect to her pro indiviso