SUCCESSION DIGEST PRELIM #8 [Constitutional Provision]

G.R. No. L-48372

July 24, 1942

GENEROSA
TEVES
DE
JAKOSALEM, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
NICOLASA RAFOLS, ET ALS., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:

1921: Pedro brought an action to recover half of the land from DF

Nicolasa and the other half from the other DFs.
1925: While the case was pending, Pedro donated the whole land
to PF Generosa

Trial Court: to Nicolasa; to PF Generosa

ISSUE: W/N Susana could sell the land to Pedro while in

custodia legis [under judicial administration - YES

Juan Melgar owned a land.

Juan died, so a judicial administration of his estate was
commenced in 1915 and came to a close only on December 2,
1924.
July 5, 1917: During the pendency of the administration, Susana,
Juans daughter, sold the land with a right to repurchase to Pedro,
with a stipulation that Susana would continue in possession of the
land as lessee of the purchaser during the repurchase period.

1920: The partition of the estate was made and the land was
adjudicated to Susana.
1921: Susana conveyed of the land in favor of DF Nicolasa, in
payment of professional fees.
DF Nicolasa entered upon the portion and has been in possession
up to the present.

RULING:
While the land is in custodia legis, it does not mean that one of
the heirs may not sell the right, interest or participation, which he
has or might have in the lands under administration.
Article 440 CC:
The possession of hereditary property is deemed to be
transmitted to the heir without interruption from the instant
of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is
accepted
Manresa:
Upon the death of a person, each of his heirs "becomes the
undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the
part or portion which might be adjudicated to him, a
community of ownership being thus formed among the coowners of the estate while it remains undivided."

 Article 399 of the Civil Code:

Every part owner may assign or mortgage his part in the
common property, and the effect of such assignment or
mortgage shall be limited to the portion which may be
alloted him in the partition upon the dissolution of the
community.

The conveyance to DF Nicolasa [1921] could no longer be done.

Even in the case of double sale, where neither of the purchasers
has registered the sale, the first in possession, who is Pedro should
be referred.

Susanas possession of the land as lessee should be considered

as that of Pedro.

Ramirez vs, Bautista, 14 Phil. 528:

Where some of the heirs, without the concurrence of
the others, sold a property left by their deceased
father, the sale was valid, but that effect thereof was
limited to the share which may be allotted to the
vendors upon the partition of the estate.

DF Nicolasa may not allege prescription of action, for Pedro filed

the first complaint in 1921 [or year following the confirmation of
the sale in his favor]
DF Nicolasa should pay Pedro an indemnity for depriving him of
the possession and enjoyment of of the land since 1921 to the
present [6% of P1, 500 [price of of the land]]

The sale made by Susana in favor of Pedro was valid, but it would
be effective only as to the portion to be adjudicated to Susana
[vendor] upon the partition of the property left by her deceased
father Juan.
December 12, 1920: Since upon the partition, the land was
adjudicated to Susana, the sale of the whole land to Pedro was
entirely confirmed.

Conveyance to DF Nicolasa

DF Nicolasa is sentenced:
1. To deliver to PF Generosa of the land conveyed to him
by Susana
2. To pay by way of damages the sum of P90 a year from
the filing of the complaint [July 23, 1921 until the delivery of
the land]