The Roman Catholic Bishop of
Tuguegarao v. Florentina Prudencio | G.R. No. 187942 | September 07, 2016 |
Topic: Extrajudicial partition
FACTS:
Felipe married twice during his
lifetime. He had 5 children with his first wife, Elena and 2 children with his
second wife, Teodora. Felipe and the first wife acquired a parcel of land
during their marriage. When the first wife died, Felipe and their children
became co-owners of the land. Felipe died without a will during his second
marriage. The second wife together with their 2 children executed a deed of
extra-judicial partition of the estate with waiver of rights in favor of the
second wife. The extra-judicial partition acknowledged that the land was
acquired during the Felipe’s first marriage, but it stated they did not have
any children in the first marriage who could inherit the property; hence, the
second wife and her children with Felipe are the only living heirs by operation
of law. After being published thrice in the Daily Mirror newspaper,
the title to the land was transferred to the second wife’s name. The second
wife sold the land to Spouses Cepeda (spouses) and the spouses sold the land to
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao (petitioner).
The children and grandchildren
(respondent-appellees) of Felipe in his first marriage filed a complaint for
partition with reconveyance against the petitioner, spouses and the second
family of Felipe before the RTC. They asserted that
upon the death of the first wife, they became the owners of the first wife’s
conjugal share on the land while the other undivided half remained with Felipe
and that upon the death of Felipe, respondents-appellees then became owners as
well of Felipe's conjugal share in the property, together with the second
family. The first family claims that they were fraudulently deprived of their
rightful shares in the estate of Felipe and Elena when the extra-judicial
partition declared the second wife as the sole owner of the land. Thus, they prayed that they be declared the
owners pro indiviso of its undivided portion, and that this portion be
reconveyed to them. The petitioner claims that it was an innocent purchaser for
value, that the spouses were in possession of the land at the time they offered
it for sale and that it had no knowledge of the existence of any defect on the
title. Spouses also claim that they were also purchasers for value and in good
faith.
The RTC (1) declared the
extra-judicial partition null and void; (2) declared that the plaintiffs as
owners of the disputed land; (3) declared the sales from the second wife to the
spouses and then to the petitioners are null and void; and (4) ordered the
defendant to reconvey to plaintiffs said portion. Both parties appealed to the
CA which declared that petitioner shall retain ownership of only the area
equivalent to the second wife’s share. The Roman Catholic bishop petitioned
before the SC.
ISSUE: Whether the action for partition
with reconveyance filed by respondents-appellees against petitioner should
prosper
RULING
Articles 979, 980 and 981 of the
Civil Code state that all the children of the deceased shall inherit from him
and by implication should participate in the settlement of his/her estate. Thus
all children of Felipe in his 2 marriages should be included in the execution
of the extra-judicial partition. In this case, it is undisputed that
respondents-appellees were children of Felipe by his first marriage. The second
family did not deny respondents-appellees' relation with Felipe. Despite this
they declared in the extra-judicial partition that they are the only living
heirs of Felipe. They claimed that Felipe had no child with his first wife, in
effect depriving respondents-appellees of their rightful shares in the estate
of their parents. They arrogated upon themselves not only the share of Felipe
in the land but also the shares belonging to the children in the second
marriage.
The extra-judicial partition is
void under Article 1409 (1) or those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. As a consequence,
it has no force and effect from the beginning, as if it had never been entered
into and it cannot be validated either by time or ratification. The SC has also
described extra-judicial partitions which excluded rightful heirs in the cases
of Neri v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Segura v. Segura as a total nullity and
invalid, respectively.
HOWEVER, the nullity of the
extra-judicial partition does not automatically result in the nullity of the
sale between (1) The second wife and Spouses Cepeda, and that of (2) Spouses
Cepeda and petitioner. The second wife may sell her
undivided interest in the land, and such disposition shall affect only her pro
indiviso share; hence, the sale of the land to Spouses Cepeda, then to petitioner
is valid insofar as the share of Teodora is concerned. The titles covering the
entire land were issued in the name of the second wife, Spouses Cepeda and then
petitioner, by virtue of the subsequent sales. The issuance of a title could
not vest upon them ownership of the entire property; neither could it validate
their purchase of the same which is null and void to the extent of the shares
of the respondents-appellees. Registration does not vest title, for it is
merely the evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the
holder any better title than what he actually has.
Under Article 175 of the Civil
Code, the conjugal partnership is dissolved upon the death of either spouse. It
shall then be subject to inventory and liquidation, the net remainder of which
shall be divided equally between the husband and the wife. Therefore, the
second wife is not entitled to the whole land but only a part of it.
Consequently, petitioner, whose title over the Cagayan lot is ultimately
derived from the second wife, is therefore entitled only to 55,918.29 sqm.
Thus, petitioner should return to respondents-appellees the 74,557.72 sq. m. In
the interest of fairness, justice and equity, the SC directed Spouses Cepeda to
return to petitioner the corresponding value paid for the area of 74,557.72 sq.
m.
DISPOSITION: PETITION DENIED.
Comments
Post a Comment