Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

GR 113725 June 29, 2000

Johnny Rabadilla v. CA and Maria y Bellezailla!arlo"


Aleja Belleza (testatrix/decedent) instituted Dr Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-
interest and father of Johnn, as de!isee o!er "ot #$%&, a parcel of land in
Bacolod' (t )as )ith condition that Jorge Rabadilla *ust deli!er #++ piculs of
sugar to ,aria -illacarlos (sister of testatrix) e!er ear during the latter.s
lifeti*e'
/he codicil pro!ides that the obligation is i*posed not onl on the instituted heir
but also to his successors-in-interest and that in case of failure to deli!er, ,aria
-illacarlos shall seize the propert and turn it o!er to the testatrix.s 0near
descendants'0
Dr' Rabadilla died and )as sur!i!ed b his )ife and children, one of )ho* is
Johnn'
1ri!ate respondent, alleging failure of the heirs to co*pl )ith their obligation,
2led a co*plaint )ith the R/3 praing for the recon!eance of the subject
propert to the sur!i!ing heirs of Aleja (decedent)'
During the pre-trial, a co*pro*ise agree*ent )as concluded bet)een the
parties )herein the lessee of the propert assu*ed the deli!er of #++ piculs of
sugar to pri!ate respondent4 ho)e!er, onl partial deli!er )as *ade'
/he trial court dis*issed the co*plaint for lac5 of cause of action stating that,
67hile there *a be the non-perfor*ance of the co**and as *andated,
exaction fro* the* (the petitioners), si*pl because the are the children of
Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/o)ner of the lot in 8uestion, does not )arrant the
2ling of the present co*plaint'9
/he 3A, re!ersed the decision and held that the institution of Dr' Rabadilla is in
the nature of a *odal institution and a cause of action in fa!or of pri!ate
respondent arose )hen petitioner failed to co*pl )ith their obligation under the
codicil, and in ordering the re!ersion of "ot #$%& to the estate of testatrix' /hus,
the present petition'
(::;<
7hether or not ,aria -illacarlos has a legall de*andable right against Johnn
Rabadilla, )ho is one of the co*pulsor heirs of Dr' Rabadilla'
=<"D
><:' (t is a general rule under the la) on succession that successional rights are
trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedent and co*pulsor heirs are
called to succeed b operation of la)' /he legiti*ate children and descendants,
in relation to their legiti*ate parents, and the )ido) or )ido)er, are co*pulsor
heirs' /hus, the petitioner, his *other and sisters, as co*pulsor heirs of the
instituted heir, Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter b operation of la),
)ithout need of further proceedings, and the successional rights )ere
trans*itted to the* fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedent, Dr' Jorge
Rabadilla'
;nder Article ??@ of the Ae) 3i!il 3ode, inheritance includes all the propert,
rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished b his death' 3onfor*abl,
)hate!er rights Dr' Jorge Rabadilla had b !irtue of subject 3odicil )ere
trans*itted to his forced heirs, at the ti*e of his death' And since obligations not
extinguished b death also for* part of the estate of the decedent4 corollaril,
the obligations i*posed b the 3odicil on the deceased Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, )ere
li5e)ise trans*itted to his co*pulsor heirs upon his death' (n the said 3odicil,
testatrix Aleja Belleza de!ised "ot Ao'#$%& to Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the
condition that the usufruct thereof )ould be deli!ered to the herein pri!ate
respondent e!er ear' ;pon the death of Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, his co*pulsor
heirs succeeded to his rights and title o!er said propert, and the also assu*ed
his obligation to deli!er the fruits of the lot in!ol!ed to ,aria -illacarlos' :uch
obligation of the instituted heir reciprocall corresponds to the right of pri!ate
respondent o!er the usufruct, the ful2ll*ent or perfor*ance of )hich is no)
being de*anded b the latter through the institution of the case at bar'
/herefore, ,aria -illacarlos has a cause of action against Johnn Rabadilla and
the trial court erred in dis*issing the co*plaint belo)'
#G.R. $o. 10%%&2. January 22, 199'(
)a*edo vs. CA and +,-.+/+ R0CAR1- M. )AR/1- A$1 )/R/+0)A
BAR/RA )AR/1-
BA3/:
Cn Cctober &+, #%@&, "azaro /aDedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale
in fa!or of his eldest brother, Ricardo /aDedo, and the latterEs )ife, /eresita
Barera )hereb he con!eed to the latter one hectare of )hate!er share ( shall
ha!e o!er "ot Ao' #%# of the cadastral sur!e of Ferona, 1ro!ince of /arlac the
said propert being his 6future inheritance9 fro* his parents' ;pon the death of
his father ,atias, "azaro executed an 6AGda!it of 3onfor*it9 dated Bebruar
&H, #%H+ to 6re-aGr*, respect, ac5no)ledge and !alidate the sale *ade in
#%@&'0 Cn Januar #$, #%H#, "azaro executed another notarized deed of sale in
fa!or of pri!ate respondents co!ering his 6undi!ided CA< /7<"-< (#/#&) of a
parcel of land 5no)n as "ot #%#' Cn June ?, #%H&, pri!ate respondents recorded
the Deed of :ale in their fa!or in the Registr of Deeds and the corresponding
entr )as *ade in the /3/.
(n Bebruar #%H#, Ricardo learned that "azaro sold the sa*e propert to his
("azaro.s) children, petitioners herein, through a deed of sale dated Dece*ber
&%, #%H+' Cn June ?, #%H&, pri!ate respondents recorded the Deed of :ale in
their fa!or in the Registr of Deeds'
1etitioners on Jul #@, #%H& 2led a co*plaint for rescission (plus da*ages) of the
deeds of sale executed b "azaro in fa!or of pri!ate respondents co!ering the
propert inherited b "azaro fro* his father'
/he trial court decided in fa!or of pri!ate respondents, holding that petitioners
failed 6to adduce a preponderance of e!idence to support (their) clai*'9 Cn
appeal, the 3ourt of Appeals aGr*ed the decision of the trial court'
(::;<:
#' (s the sale of future inheritance !alidI
&' 7as the subse8uent execution of a deed of sale to Ricardo /anedo on Jan #$,
#%H# and registration )ith the Registr of Deeds !alidI
$' ,a this 3ourt re!ie) 2ndings of the respondent 3ourt (trial court) inJ
a' holding that the buers acted in good faith in registering the said
subse8uent deed of sale4 and
b' failing to consider petitioner.s e!idenceI
=<"D
$' At the outset, let it be clear that the 6errors9 )hich are re!ie)able b this
3ourt in this petition for re!ie) on certiorari are onl those allegedl co**itted
b the respondent 3ourt of Appeals and not directl those of the trial court,
)hich is not a part here' )he 2a""i3n4en5 o6 error"7 in 5he 8e5i5ion
9uo5ed above are 5here6ore 5o5ally 4i"8la!ed, and 6or 5ha5 rea"on, 5he
8e5i5ion "hould be di"4i""ed. Bu5 in order 5o 3ive 5he 8ar5ie"
"ub"5an5ial :u"5i!e ;e have de!ided 5o delve in5o 5he i""ue" a" above
re<"5a5ed' /he errors attributed b petitioners to the latter (trial) court )ill be
discussed onl insofar as the are rele!ant to the appellate courtEs assailed
Decision and Resolution'
#' 1ursuant to Article #$K? of the 3i!il 3ode, 6(n)o contract *a be entered into
upon a future inheritance except in cases expressl authorized b la)'9
3onse8uentl, said contract *ade in #%@& is not !alid and cannot be the source
of an right nor the creator of an obligation bet)een the parties'
&' >es' (t is !alid' /he :upre*e 3ourt denied this petition4 aGr*ing the decisions
of the trial court and 3ourt of Appeals )hich are in fa!or of the defendants,
:pouses Ricardo and /eresita /anedo'
(n deter*ining )hich of these t)o deeds should be gi!en eLect is the
registration of the sale in fa!or of pri!ate respondents )ith the register of deeds
on June ?, #%H&'
Article #MKK of the 3i!il 3ode go!erns the preferential rights of !endees in cases
of *ultiple sales, as follo)sJ
6Art' #MKK' (f the sa*e thing should ha!e been sold to diLerent !endees, the
o)nership shall be transferred to the person )ho *a ha!e 2rst ta5en
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be *o!able propert'
+hould i5 be i44ovable 8ro8er5y, 5he o;ner"hi8 "hall belon3 5o 5he
8er"on a!9uirin3 i5 ;ho in 3ood 6ai5h =r"5 re!orded i5 in 5he Re3i"5ry o6
,ro8er5y'
:hould there be no inscription, the o)nership shall pertain to the person )ho in
good faith )as 2rst in the possession4 and, in the absence thereof, to the person
)ho presents the oldest title, pro!ided there is good faith'9
/he propert in 8uestion is land, an i**o!able, and follo)ing the abo!e-8uoted
la), o)nership shall belong to the buer )ho in good faith registers it 2rst in the
registr of propert' /hus, although the deed of sale in fa!or of pri!ate
respondents )as later than the one in fa!or of petitioners, o)nership )ould !est
in the for*er because of the undisputed fact of registration' Cn the other hand,
petitioners ha!e not registered the sale to the* at all'