Title
Supreme Court
Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao vs. Prudencio
Case
G.R. No. 187942
Decision Date
Sep 7, 2016
Heirs of Felipe’s first marriage contested a fraudulent extra-judicial partition excluding them, leading to reconveyance of their rightful shares in a 13-hectare property.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187942)

Facts and Background

Upon marrying his first wife, Elena Antonio, Felipe Prudencio acquired a parcel of land measuring approximately 13.0476 hectares, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1343. After Elena's death, Felipe and their children became co-owners of the land. Felipe later remarried Teodora Abad and passed away intestate. Following his death, a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was executed by Teodora and their children, which erroneously claimed that Teodora and her children were the sole heirs, thereby excluding the heirs from Felipe’s first marriage. This partition was published, leading to the transfer of the land entirely into Teodora’s name.

Legal Proceedings

Teodora sold the land to Spouses Cepeda, who subsequently sold it to the petitioner. Respondents-Appellees, who claimed to be rightful heirs to the land, filed a complaint for partition and reconveyance, asserting that they had been fraudulently excluded from their inheritance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the Extra-Judicial Partition null and void, and ordered the petitioner to reconvey the bulk of the property back to the respondents.

RTC and CA Ruling

The RTC concluded that Teodora and her children acted in bad faith in executing the partition, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA found that the petitioner had not proven itself to be a buyer in good faith, as the title’s defects and the existence of other heirs should have been investigated further. Thus, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modifications regarding the areas to be reconveyed and affirmed the nullity of the subsequent sales.

Principle of Ownership and Good Faith

The court highlighted a fundamental teaching from Segura v. Segura, stating that the determination of whether the purchaser was in good faith is not relevant if the property did not belong to the seller. The legal principle that no one can transfer more rights than they possess was crucial to the ruling, meaning that Teodora could not validly sell the shares belonging to the respondents.

Extra-Judicial Partition's Legal Standing

The court ruled that the Extra-Judicial Partition was invalid because it excluded rightful heirs, as stipulated by the Civil Code, which mandates that all legitimate children inherit in equal shares. This violation renders the partition void, which cannot be validated by time or subsequent actions.

Repercussions of the Ruling

Because the Extra-Judicial Partition was deemed void, the sales to Spouses Cepeda and subsequently to the petitioner did not lawfully transfer the proportions of the land corresponding to the excluded heirs’ shares. The court ruled that the petitioner retains only Teodora’s valid share of the land, while the larger portion corresponding to the respondents must be reconveyed.

Distribution of the Property

The court outlin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.