Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

BENNY SAMPILO vs.

CA and FELISA SINOPERA


G.R. No. L-10474 FEBRUARY 28, 1958 Following the above-quoted decision of this Court in the case of
Ramirez vs. Gmur, supra, we are of the opinion and so hold that the
FACTS: provisions of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring distributees or heirs from
objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two
Teodoro Tolete died intestate in January 1945. He left four parcels years from such extrajudicial partition, is applicable only (1) to
of land of the cadastral survey of San Miguel Pangasinan. On July 5, persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the
1946, without any judicial proceedings, Leoncia de Leon executed an extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, (2) when the provisions of
affidavit stating that “the deceased Teodoro Tolete left no children Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all
or respondent neither ascendants or acknowledged natural children the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the
neither brother, sisters, nephews or nieces, but the, widow Leoncia extrajudicial settlement or are represented by themselves or
de Leon, the legitimate wife of the deceased, the one and only through guardians. The case at bar fails to comply with both
person to inherit the above properties”. requirements because not all the heirs interested have participated
in the extrajudicial settlement, the Court of Appeals having found
The affidavit was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan. that the decedent left aside from his widow, nephews and nieces
On the same day, she executed a deed of sale of all the above living at the time of his death.
parcels of land in favor of petitioner Benny Sampilo for the sum of
P10,000, who in turn, subsequently sold the said parcels of land to Even if Section 4 of Rule 74 is a statute of limitations, it is still
Honorato Salacup for P50,000 and this sale was also registered in unavailing to the defendants. The action is one based on fraud, as
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. the widow of the deceased owner of the lands had declared in her
affidavit of partition that the deceased left no nephews or niece, or
In March, 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted proceedings for the other heirs except herself. Plaintiff's right which is based on fraud
administration of the estate of Teodoro Tolete , and having secured and which has a period of four years, does not appear to have
her appointment as administratrix, brought the present action on lapsed the action was instituted. Judicial proceedings where
June 20, 1950. Notice of lis pendens was filed in the Office of the instituted in March, 1950 and these proceedings must have been
Register of Deeds and said notice was recorded on certificates of instituted soon after the discovery of fraud.
title covering the said properties on June 26, 1950. This notice,
however, was subsequent to the registration of the deed of sale. The
complaint alleges that the widow Leoncia de Leon, had no right to
execute the affidavit of adjudication and that neither Benny Sampilo,
nor Honorato Salacup had acquired rights to the lands.

The CFI rendered judgment and declared that the affidavit of


adjudication and the deeds of sale are all null and void. The CA
modified the CFI’s judgment and declared that the deeds of sale are
null and void only insofar as the properties thereby exceeded the
portion that respondents to Leoncia de Leon.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Felisa Sinopera’s right of action to recover her and


her co-heirs participation in the lands in question had prescribed.

RULING:

NO. The action was instituted almost 4 years after the affidavit of
adjudication was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Pangasinan. The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 of
extrajudicial settlement, or by affidavit, is an ex parte proceeding. It
cannot by any reason or logic be contended that such settlement or
distribution would affect third persons who had no knowledge either
of the death of the decedent or of the extrajudicial settlement or
affidavit, especially as no mention of such effect is made, either
directly or by implication. We have examined the two cases cited by
appellants and there is no similarity at all between the
circumstances on which the ruling therein had been predicated and
those of the case at bar.

Вам также может понравиться