MERCEDES CRISTOBAL CRUZ, ANSELMO A.

CRISTOBAL, and
ELISA CRISTOBAL SIKAT, petitioners,
- versus -
EUFROSINA CRISTOBAL, FLORENCIO CRISTOBAL, JOSE CRISTOBAL,
HEIRS OF NORBERTO CRISTOBAL and THE COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006]

FACTS:
Petitioners claim that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura
Cristobal from his first marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. On the other hand, private
respondents are also the children of Buenaventura Cristobal from his second
marriage to Donata Enriquez.
During the time of his marriage with Donata, Buenaventura Cristobal
purchased a parcel of land with an area of 535 square meters.
Sometime in the year 1930, Buenaventura Cristobal died intestate. More
than six decades later, petitioners learned that private respondents had executed
an extrajudicial partition of the subject property and transferred its title to their
names.
A Complaint for Annulment of Title and Damages was filed before the RTC
by petitioners against private respondents to recover their alleged pro-
indiviso shares in the subject property. To prove their filiation with the deceased
Buenaventura Cristobal, the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late
Socorro were presented. In the case of Mercedes who was born on January 31,
1909, she produced a certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
attesting to the fact that her birth record was among those that were destroyed due
to ordinary wear and tear.
The trial court rendered a judgment dismissing the case, ruling that
petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal
as the baptismal and birth certificates presented have scant evidentiary value and
that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time amounts to laches.
On appeal, the CA ruled that they were able to prove their filiation with the
deceased Buenaventura Cristobal thru “other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws,” but affirmed the ruling of the trial court barring their right
to recover their share of the subject property because of laches.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are bound by the Deed of Partition of
the subject property executed by the private respondents
RULNG:
No. Section 1, Rule 74 of the ROC provides that the fact of the
extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof.
In this case, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is
composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof by the private
respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura
Cristobal’s estate. The partition of the subject property by the private respondents
shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners were excluded from it.
Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of Partition executed by private
respondents among themselves in 1948. Petitioner Elisa became aware of the
transfer and registration of the subject property in the names of
private respondents only in 1994, when she was offered by private respondent
Eufrocina to choose between a portion of the subject property or money, as one of
the children of private respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the
subject property.
Considering that the Deed of Partition of the subject property does not
affect the right of petitioners to inherit from their deceased father, the Court shall
then proceed to divide the subject property between petitioners and private
respondents, as the rule on succession prescribes.
It appears that the 535 square meters subject property was
a conjugal property of Buenaventura Cristobal and Donata Enriquez, the second
wife, as the property was purchased in 1926, during the time of their marriage.
Upon the deaths of Buenaventura in 1930 and Donata in 1936, both deaths
occurring before the enactment of the New Civil Code in 1950, all the four children
of the first marriage and the four children of the second marriage shall share
equally in the subject property in accordance with the Old Civil Code. Absent any
allegation showing that Buenaventura Cristobal left any will and testament, the
subject property shall be divided into eight equal parts pursuant to Articles 921
and 931 of the Old Civil Code on intestate succession, each receiving 66.875 square
meters thereof.