Title
Pilapil vs. Heirs of Briones
Case
G.R. No. 150175
Decision Date
Mar 10, 2006
Heirs of Maximino Briones contested Donata Ortiz-Briones' sole inheritance claim after 33 years, alleging fraud. SC dismissed, citing lack of evidence, laches, and presumption of CFI order validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150175)

Procedural History

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision regarding the partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of properties from the intestate estate of Maximino Briones. The RTC originally ruled in favor of the heirs of Maximino Briones in a decision dated 8 April 1986. The Court of Appeals subsequently upheld this ruling in its decision promulgated on 31 August 2001.

Factual Background

Maximino Briones passed away leaving no children. His wife, Donata Ortiz Briones, petitioned for intestate proceedings to administer his estate. The Cebu City Court of First Instance issued an order naming Donata as the sole heir and appointed her as administratrix. Donata later registered several properties in her name which were originally owned by Maximino. Upon Donata's death in 1977, controversies arose regarding the ownership of these properties, primarily because Erlinda claimed exclusive ownership based on alleged donations made by Donata shortly before her death. This prompted the heirs of Maximino to file civil complaints seeking partition and recovery.

Claims of Fraud and Misrepresentation

The heirs of Maximino accused Donata of fraudulently excluding them from the intestate proceedings and claimed that she misrepresented her status as the sole heir. They argued that Donata had violated her fiduciary duty by not disclosing the existence of other heirs. In response, the heirs of Donata asserted that the properties were legally transferred to Donata and that any claim of fraud was barred by prescription due to the passage of time.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found in favor of the heirs of Maximino, declaring that Donata held the properties in an implied trust for the other heirs. It determined that since Donata became the sole heir through an order issued without proper notice to other heirs, she failed to disclose critical information during the intestate proceedings, resulting in her misrepresentation to the court.

Court of Appeals Judgment

The Court of Appeals also ruled against the heirs of Donata, reasoning that the proceedings regarding the issuance of letters of administration were flawed. They highlighted the lack of notice to other siblings of Maximino, which invalidated Donata's claim of being the exclusive heir. The appellate court emphasized that their cause of action was anchored in their right to inheritance and was not merely based on allegations of fraud, which are imprescriptible.

Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found merit in the petition filed by the heirs of Donata. The Court established that the heirs of Maximino failed to convincingly prove that Donata had committed fraud or error in the registration of properties belonging to her late husband's estate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.