SUCCESSION DIGEST PRELIM #4

G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996

ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A.
CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONZALES (for herself and on
behalf of Florida C. Tupper, as attorney-in-fact), CIELITO A.
CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE, and CATALINA BALAIS
MABANAG, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ, and
RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ, assisted by GLORIA F. NOEL as
attorney-in-fact, respondents.
P Coronels were the absolute owners upon their fathers death
- Thus, they can validly sell the inherited house and lot
There was a perfected contract of sale between Ps and Rs
[A.1305 Contract is a meeting of the minds xxx]

On February 18, 1985, P Coronels sold the property to Catalina for

P1, 580, 000 after Catalina paid P300, 000.
- Thus, Coronels cancelled and rescinded the contract with
Ramona by depositing the down payment paid by
Concepcion in the bank in trust for Ramona

February 22, 1985: Rs filed a complaint for specific performance

against the Ps and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens
at the back of TCT

April 2, 1985: Catalina caused the annotation of a Notice of

Adverse Claim covering the same property

FACTS:
P Romulo Coronel executed a document entitled Receipt of Down
Payment in favor R Ramona

April 25, 1985: Coronels executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in

favor of Catalina

The purchase price of the inherited house and lot is P1, 240, 000.
They agreed that upon the transfer in Ps names of the property
inherited from their father and upon their presentation to R of the
same, R would pay the down payment

June 5, 1985: A new title was issued in the name of Catalina

They also agreed they will immediately execute the Deed of

Absolute Sale and that R Ramona shall immediately pay the
balance of P1, 190, 000.

TC and CA: In favor of Rs, for they are the first buyers

On January 1985, Rs mother, Concepcion, paid the P50, 000

down payment
On February 6, 1985, the property was transferred in P Coronels
names

P Coronels argue that there could have been no perfected

contract on January 19, 1985 because they were then not yet the
absolute owners of the inherited property.

ISSUE: W/N the Coronels became the absolute owners of the

inherited property at the time they sold the same - YES

RULING:

Petitioners' claim that succession may not be declared unless the

creditors have been paid is rendered moot by the fact that they
were able to effect the transfer of the title to the property from the
decedent's name to their names on February 6, 1985.

Article 774 of the Civil Code defines Succession as a mode of

transferring ownership as follows:
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of
which the property, rights and obligations to be extent and
value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through
his death to another or others by his will or by operation of
law.
In the case at bar, petitioners-sellers being the sons and
daughters of the decedent Constancio P. Coronel are compulsory
heirs who were called to succession by operation of law.
Thus, at the point their father drew his last breath, petitioners
stepped into his shoes insofar as the subject property is concerned,
such that any rights or obligations became binding and enforceable
upon them.
It is expressly provided that rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent (Article 777,
Civil Code]

Petitioners are precluded from raising their supposed lack of

capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and they cannot
be allowed to take a posture contrary to that which they took when
they entered into the agreement with private respondent Ramona
P. Alcaraz, pursuant to:
Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation
is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and
cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon.

Having represented themselves as the true owners of the

subject property at the time of sale, petitioners cannot claim
now that they were not yet the absolute owners thereof at
that time.