13.

CANIZA v CA 268 SCRA 640, February 24, 2007

FACTS: 94 years old Carmen Caniza, a spinter, a retired pharmacist and former professor was declared incompetent by judgment of the RTC- Quezon City in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo Evangelista, who was the appointed legal guardian. The former was adjudged as such by the court because of her advanced age and physical infirmities, which included cataracts in both eyes and senile dementia. Evangelista, acting as the legal guardian, filed a complaint with the MTC to eject the defendants Estrada in the house and lot owned by Caneza. Based on the amended complaint, it was alleged that Caniza, out of kindness, allowed the defendants to temporarily reside, rent-free in the subject house and lot. But because of the urgent need to meet her expenses for support, maintenance and medical treatment due to her advanced age, Caniza requested the defendants to vacate the subject property but no to avail. In their answer, the defendants declared that they have been living in Canizas house since 1960s and the latter executed a holographic will, wherein she bequeathed to the defendants the house and lot in question. The MTC rendered a judgment in favor of Caniza, However, on appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and held that action by which the issue of defendants possession should be resolved not in accion interdictal but rather in accion publiciana , which is cognizable in the first instance by the RTC. CA affirmed the RTCs judgment in toto. During the pendency of the case with the SC, Caniza died and her heirs, Amparo Evagelista (niece) and Ramon Nevado (nephew) substituted for her. ISSUES: (1) Whether the defendants established the right of possession of the subject property without the holographic will having been probated. (2) Assuming the ejectment suit is proper, whether or not Evangelista, as Canizas legal guardian had authority to bring said action. HELD: (1) NO. A will is essentially ambulatory which means that at any time prior to the testator's death, it may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder. Art. 838 of the NCC explicitly provides that "No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. An owner's intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not inconsistent with the former's taking back possession in the meantime for any reason deemed sufficient. And that in this case there was sufficient cause for the owner's resumption of possession is apparent, which is she needed to generate income from the house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme age. (2) YES. Evangelista was appointed by a competent court the general guardian of both the person and the estate of her aunt, Carmen Caiza. Her Letters of Guardianship clearly installed her as the "guardian over the person and properties of the incompetent Caniza with full authority to take possession of the property of said incompetent in any province or provinces in which it may be situated and to perform all other acts necessary

for the management of her properties. By that appointment, it became Evangelista's duty to care for her aunt's person, to attend to her physical and spiritual needs, to assure her well-being, with right to custody of her person in preference to relatives and friends. It also became her right and duty to get possession of, and exercise control over, Caniza's property, both real and personal, it being recognized principle that the ward has no right to possession or control of his property during her incompetency. That right to manage the ward's estate carries with it the right to take possession thereof and recover it from anyone who retains it, and bring and defend such actions as may be needful for this purpose.

14. CUA v VARGAS 506 SCRA 374, October 31, 2006

FACTS: The late Paulina Vargas left behind a parcel of residential land with an area of 99 square meters in Virac, Catanduanes. A Notarized Extra-judicial Settlement Among Heirs was executed by Paulinas nine (9) heirs, namely: Ester Vargas, Visitacion Vargas, Juan Vargas, Zenaida Matienzo, Rosario Forteza, Andres Vargas, Gloria Vargas, Antonina Vargas and Florentino Vargas, portioning and adjudication among themselves the lot in question in equal shares. Florentino, Andres, Antonina and Gloria, however, did not sign the document. Only Ester, Visitacion, Juan, Zenaida and Rosario signed it. The Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was published in the Catanduanes Tribune. An Extra-judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was again executed by the same heirs over the same property and also with the same equal sharings. Once more, only Ester, Visitacion, Juan, Zenaida and Rosario signed the document and their respective shares totaling 55 square meters were sold to Joseph Cua, petitioner herein. According to Gloria Vargas, one of respondents herein, she came to know of the Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Saleonly when the original house built on the lot was being demolished sometime and she likewise claimed she was unaware that an earlier Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs involving the same property had been published in the Catanduanes Tribune. After knowing of the sale of the 55 sq. meters to the petitioner, Gloria Vargas tried to redeem the property but to no avail. Thus, she filed a case for the annulment of Extra-judicial Sale and Legal Redemption of the lot. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners but the CA reversed the decision of the lower courts and declared that the Extra-judicial Settlement Among Heirs and Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale were void and without legal effect. ISSUE: Whether heirs are deemed constructively notified and bound, regardless of their failure to participate therein, by an extrajudicial settlement and partition of estate when the extrajudicial settlement and partition has been duly published. HELD: NO. The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. It contemplates a notice that has been

sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition), and not after such an agreement has already been executed as what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among heirs. This is not to say, though, that respondents' co-heirs cannot validly sell their hereditary rights to third persons even before the partition of the estate. The heirs who actually participated in the execution of the extrajudicial settlements, which included the sale to petitioner of their pro indiviso shares in the subject property, are bound by the same.

15. RODRIGUEZ v RODRIGUEZ 532 SCRA 642, September 11, 2007 FACTS: Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment. On October 27, 1983, he executed a Huling Habilin at Testamento giving petitioner Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, his live-in partner, apartments D and E and his children Benjamin Rodriguez (the decease husband of respondent Evangeline Rodriguez), apartment A, respondent Buenaventura Rodriguez, apartment B, and respondent Belen Rodriguez, apartment C. However, on June 14, 1984, Juanito executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of petitioner. Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the respondents, alleging that she was the lawful and registered owner of the property and she only allowed the respondents Evangelin, Buenaventura and Belen, out of kindness and tolerance, to occupy units A, B and D, respectively. However, without her knowledge and consent, respondents separately leased the units to lessees, who despite repeated demands, failed and refused to vacate the premises and to pay rentals. Respondents, on the other hand, claimed ownership over the subject property by succession and alleged that the petitioner is not the lawful owner because the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and void. Also, they maintained that petitioner exerted undue influence over their father, who at that time was seriously ill, to agree to the sale of the property for only P20,000.00 after knowing that only two apartments were given to her in the Huling Habilin at Testamento. Morover, they alleged that petitioner has no cause of action against them for being a party to thePartition Agreement wherein they recognized each other as co-owners and partitioned the property in accordance with the provision of the last will and testament. MTC rendered a judgment on favor of the respondents and held that the Deed of Sale was simulated. The RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and held that petitioners certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the subject property. Also, it was held by the RTC that MTC erred when it relied heavily on the Huling Habilin at Testamento, which was not probated hence has no effect and no right can be claimed therein. The Partition Agreement which was allegedly entered into pursuant to the Huling Habilin at Testamento should not also be considered. CA reversed the decision of the RTC further held that he Huling Habilin at Testamento transmitted ownership of the specific apartments not only to the respondents but also to the petitioner; and pursuant

thereto, the parties executed the Partition Agreement in accordance with the wishes of the testator. ISSUE: Whether the respondents have right of possession over the subject property in the absence of probate of the will. HELD: NO. Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public policy. Article 838 of the Civil Code mandates that [n]o will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. As the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant thereto can not be given effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession.