Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

G.R. Nos.


September 30, 2004

Spouses ISMAEL and TERESITA MACASAET, petitioners,

Spouses VICENTE and ROSARIO MACASAET, respondents.
The present case involves a dispute between parents and children. The children were invited by the
parents to occupy the latters two lots, out of parental love and a desire to foster family solidarity.
Unfortunately, an unresolved conflict terminated this situation. Out of pique, the parents asked them
to vacate the premises. Thus, the children lost their right to remain on the property.
Petitioners contend that Lots T-78521 and T-103141, respectively, were allegedly allotted to them as
part of their inheritance and given in consideration for past debts.
Petitioners Ismael and Teresita5 Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet are firstdegree relatives. Ismael is the son of respondents, and Teresita is his wife. 6
On December 10, 1997, the parents filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City
an ejectment suit against the children.
that by way of a verbal lease agreement, Ismael and Teresita occupied these lots in March 1992
and used them as their residence and the situs of their construction business; and that despite
repeated demands, petitioners failed to pay the agreed rental of P500 per week.
Won contention that Lots were allegedly allotted to them as part of their inheritance and given in
consideration for past debts.
Ruling. No
The right of petitioners to inherit from their parents is merely inchoate and is vested only upon the
latters demise. Indisputably, rights of succession are transmitted only from the moment of death of
the decedent.50 Assuming that there was an "allotment" of inheritance, ownership nonetheless
remained with respondents. Moreover, an intention to confer title to certain persons in the future is
not inconsistent with the owners taking back possession in the meantime for any reason deemed
sufficient.51 Other than their self-serving testimonies and their affidavits, petitioners offered no
credible evidence to support their outlandish claim of inheritance "allocation."

G.R. No. 129008

January 13, 2004


BEDA UNGOS, petitioners,
On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will in Angeles City leaving several personal
and real properties & a widow, respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he married on July 11,
1960 and with whom he had seven children who are the herein respondents
Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent left in mourning his paramour and their
children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero, who became a part of his life when he entered into an
extra-marital relationship with her during the subsistence of his marriage to Esperanza sometime in
On November 14, 1995, respondents discovered that petitioner Teodora Rioferio and her children
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the
properties of the estate of the decedent and that accordingly, the Registry of Deeds in Dagupan
issued Certificates of Titles Nos. 63983, 63984 and 63985 in favor of petitioners Teodora Rioferio, et
l. Respondents also found out that petitioners were able to obtain a loan of P700,000.00 from the
Rural Bank of Mangaldan Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject of
the extra-judicial settlement.
On December 1, 1995, respondent Alfonso "Clyde" P. Orfinada III filed a Petition for Letters of
On December 4, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial
Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancellation
of Transfer Certificate of Titles with Nos. 63983, 63985 and 63984 and Other Related
Documents with Damages against petitioner
Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-interest but
rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of the administration
Issue: won that respondents are the real parties-in-interest
Ruling; ye
Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to
bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the
New Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and

obligations to the 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.25
Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit
if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of
advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 26 and Section
2, Rule 8727 of the Rules of Court.
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the
executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;30 and (2) when the administrator is
alleged to have participated in the act complained of31 and he is made a party defendant.32 Evidently,
the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling
when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed administrator
but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery of property of
the estate during the pendency of administration proceedings has three exceptions, the third being
when there is no appointed administrator such as in this case.
G.R. No. 137582

August 29, 2012

JOSE I. MEDINA, Petitioner,

by ANDRES CASTAARES, Respondents.

RTC ordered Arles Castaares (Arles), now deceased and represented by his heirs, to pay
damages for running over and causing injuries to four-year old Wenceslao Mahilum, Jr. The fouryear old victim was left in the custody of petitioner Jose I. Medina, who also represented the victims
father, Wenceslao Mahilum, Sr. in the aforesaid case.
When the heirs of Arles failed to settle their account with petitioner, Parcel-I under Tax Declaration
No. 11076 was sold at a public auction. Only petitioner participated in the bidding, thus the subject lot
was awarded to him and a Certificate of Sale was issued on 24 December 1987.
Andres Castaares (Andres), brother of Arles and representing the heirs of the late Abundio
Castaares (Abundio), filed an Opposition claiming that after the death of his father Abundio, the tax
declaration of the property was cancelled and in its place, a tax declaration was issued in his favor;
that during the lifetime of his father and up to his death, Andres had been in peaceful, open,
notorious, public and adverse possession of the lot; that sometime in 1988, petitioner, through
stealth and strategy, encroached and occupied practically the entirety of the property in question by
encircling it with barbed wires, destroying in the process scores of fruit-bearing coconut trees; and
that there is a pending case, Civil Case No. 4051, for recovery of ownership and possession of real

Issue auction sale valid?

The appellate court is correct in stating that there was no settlement of the estate of Abundio. There
is no showing that Lot 224 has already been partitioned despite the demise of Abundio. It has been
held that an heirs right of ownership over the properties of the decedent is merely inchoate as long
as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. This means that the impending heir has yet
no absolute dominion over any specific property in the decedents estate that could be specifically
levied upon and sold at public auction. Any encumbrance of attachment over the heirs interests in
the estate, therefore, remains a mere probability, and cannot summarily be satisfied without the final
distribution of the properties in the estate.27 Therefore, the public auction sale of the property covered
by Tax Declaration No. 1107 is void because the subject property is still covered by the Estate of
Abundio, which up to now, remains unpartitioned. Arles was not proven to be the owner of the lot
under Tax Declaration No. 1107. It may not be amiss to state that a tax declaration by itself is not
sufficient to prove ownership.28

G.R. No. 188417

September 24, 2012

SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAXAMANA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tarlac City,
Branch II,Respondents.
Faustina died
left a holographic will, assigning and distributing her property to her nephews and nieces. will,
however, was not probated.
One of the heirs was the father of Domingo Laxamana (Domingo), Benjamin Laxamana, who died in
1960. On March 5, 1975, Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land
disposing of his 9,000 square meter share of the land to Laureano Cabalu. 3
On August 1, 1994, to give effect to the holographic will, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina
executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition. The said deed imparted 9,000 square
meters of the land covered by TCT No. 16776 to Domingo.
On August 4, 1996, Domingo passed away.
On October 8, 1996, two months after his death, Domingo purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale of TCT No. 281353 in favor of respondent Renato Tabu (Tabu).
Both parties question the validity of the sale of the other.
Won sale valid?

No & no
Sale 1 to Cabalu:
the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that time, Domingo was not yet the owner of the
property. There is no dispute that the original and registered owner of the subject property covered
by TCT No. 16776, from which the subject 9,000 square meter lot came from, was Faustina, who
during her lifetime had executed a will, dated July 27, 1939. In the said will, the name of Benjamin,
father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs. Thus, and as correctly found by the RTC, even if
Benjamin died sometime in 1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the whole or
even a portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only
died sometime in 1980.
Besides, under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law."
In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustinas will was not yet probated; the object of
the contract, the 9,000 square meter property, still formed part of the inheritance of his father from
the estate of Faustina; and Domingo had a mere inchoate hereditary right therein.

Domingo became the owner of the said property only on August 1, 1994, the time of execution of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina, when the 9,000 square
meter lot was adjudicated to him.
Sale 2 to Tabu
Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property
executed in favor of Renato Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document itself, the Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that it was executed on August 4, 1996 more
than two months after the death of Domingo. Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time
of the consummation of the contract.