Bataan, Xhavier Brett King D.

Topic: Rights to the Succession Are Transmitted from the moment of Death

Case Number: 4. Danilo & Eufrocina Suarez, et al vs. Court of Appeals, (1992)

Doctrine: The legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of each child.
The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different
from and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the property
not because of their mother but through their own right as children of their deceased
father. Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting the action to
annul the auction sale to protect their own interest.
Quick Notes: RTC denied the claim of Suarezes.; CA decided in favor of the
respondents dismissing the annulment of auction.

Facts: Petitioners are brothers and sisters. One Marcelo Suarez died in 1955, leaving
several Pasig lots to his children, petitioners 5 Suarezes. In 1977, petitioner’s widowed
mother Teofista and Rizal Realty lost a civil case and was ordered to pay 70K in damages
and with the judgment having attained finality, the CFI of Rizal ordered the levying and
execution of 5 Pasig lots with herein private respondents being the highest bidder for
94.1K. Before the expiration of the 1-year redemption period, petitioners Suarezes filed
a reinvindicatory action or annulment of the auction sale against the Provincial Sheriff
of Rizal on the ground that they were strangers to their mother’s civil case but their
interest in their father’s lots were impaired. Despite this, the Provincial Sheriff issued a
final deed of sale over 3 properties. The Suarezes now joined by their mother questioned
the Order to issue a final deed of sale but the RTC of Pasig denied the same. By virtue
of an Ex-parte MD by the opposition, the annulment case was dismissed. Later, Teofista
and the Suarezes were ordered to vacate the lots subject of the judicial sale and give the
duplicate copy of the Torrens title over the lot.

The case was elevated to the CA by a petition for certiorari with the CA ordering the
issuance of alias summons against private respondents. However, respondents again
sought dismissal of the annulment case and the CA granted the same. Hence, this
appeal.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the annulment of the auction sale

Ruling of the Court: Yes, the CA erred in dismissing the annulment of the auction sale.
Under A888 of the CC, legitimate children and descendants of the deceased have a
legitime of ½ of the hereditary estate of the father and mother with A892 (2) providing
that when there are two or more legitimate children, the surviving spouse shall be
entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children. Thus, it is
apparent that the interest of petitioners as children of deceased Marcelo Suarez is
different from that of their mother’s. With rights to succession transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent, petitioners became co-owners of Marcelo’s estate in
1955 and the levy and execution on 5 Pasig lots was not proper as to the children’s
portion. CA Resolution REVERSED, Civil Case is reinstated to determine the portion of
the sale to be annulled.