Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
WILLS
1
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
not bind the estate and is null and void. Thus, the subsequent
sale by the wife and Jose to a third part, (FLAG) is void as it
was also a result of an invalid memorandum of agreement.
LOLITA D. ENRICO
VERSUS
HEIRS OF EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI
G.R. NO. 173614. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
PONENTE: JUSTICE CHICO-NAZARIO
FACTS: Petitioner, Lolita D. Enrico, is the second wife of
Eulogio Medinacili. They were married on August 24, 2004.
This marriage was celebrated 4 months after Eulogios first
wife died on May 2004. On February, 2005, or six months
after his second marriage, Eulogio died.
The respondents are Eulogios heirs and seek a declaration of
nullity of the marriage of Petitioner Lolita and Eulogio on the
ground that the marriage was celebrated without a valid
marriage license. And that 5-year cohabitation exception could
not apply since Eulogio was a bachelor for only 4 months.
Petitioner answered the complaint and alleged that they have
been living as husband and wife for 21 years as in fact they
had 2 children. Further, petitioner contended that it is only
the contracting parties while living can file an action for
declaration of nullity of their marriage.
RTC dismissed the complaint but on reconsideration
reinstated the case. Petitioner Enrico directly filed for Rule 65
in the SC.
ISSUE: Do the heirs have standing to file the action for the
declaration of nullity?
RULING: No. SC grants the petition and dismisses the petition
for declaration of nullity filed by the heirs.
First, Void marriages solemnized under the Family Code are
governed by the A.M. 02-11-10 of the SC, that is, marriages
entered into on and after August 3, 1988. The A.M. of the SC
provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
It is clear. Thus, the heirs have no standing. Case is
dismissed.
WILLS
4
AND
SUCCESSION
WILLS
5
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
WILLS
8
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
WILLS
14
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
who had married Isabel Bautista, died on March 23, 1972. His
wife died nine years later. Their properties were left in the
possession of Delia, Edmundo, and Doribel, all surnamed
Sayson, who claim to be their children.
Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, and Remedios, together with
Juana C. Bautista, Isabel's mother, filed a complaint for
partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and
Isabel Sayson. Delia, Edmundo and Doribel filed their own
complaint, this time for the accounting and partition of the
intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, against the
couple's four surviving children.
Both cases filed on the Lower Court were decided in favor
Delia, et al. on the basis of practically the same evidence. The
Lower Court declared that Delia and Edmundo were the legally
adopted children of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson by virtue of the
decree of adoption. Doribel was their legitimate daughter as
evidenced by her birth certificate. Consequently, the three
children were entitled to inherit from Eleno and Rafaela by
right of representation.
Both cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals, where
they were consolidated. The appellate court affirmed that
Delia, et al. are entitled to the intestate estate of spouses
Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. However, Delia and Edmundo are
disqualified from inheriting from the estate of the deceased
spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson.
ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct in holding that Delia
and Edmundo are disqualified to inherit from the estate of
the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson?
RULING: A different conclusion must be reached in the case of
Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents were total
strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be
deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the
latter, these rights do not include the right of representation.
The relationship created by the adoption is between only the
adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend to
the blood relatives of either party.
In sum, we agree with the lower courts that Delia and
Edmundo as the adopted children and Doribel as the
legitimate daughter of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are
their exclusive heirs and are under no obligation to share the
estate of their parents with the petitioners. The Court of
Appeals was correct, however, in holding that only Doribel has
the right of representation in the inheritance of her
WILLS
16
AND
SUCCESSION
AND
SUCCESSION
WILLS
18
AND
SUCCESSION