RUIZ, MICHELLE ANN A.

1. Maria Uson vs. Maria Del Rosario

SUCCESSION

7:00 9:00 PM MON/TUE

92 PHIL 530 [G.R. No. L-4963. January 29, 1953]

FACTS:
The plaintiff in this case, Maria Uson, was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda who died leaving the 5 parcels of land
involved in this litigation. Faustino Nebreda, the deceased, left no other heir except his lawful wife. Maria Uson claims that
after her husband died, his common-law wife, Maria Del Rosario, took illegal possession of the said lands, thus depriving
her of their possession and enjoyment.
Maria Del Rosarios defense as a defendant in this case, centered on the fact that on February 21, 1931, Maria Uson and
her husband executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration
thereof, Maria Uson was given a parcel of land and in return renounced her right to inherit any other property that may be
left by her husband upon his death.
The defendant further contends that the four minor defendants, under the new Civil Code which became in force & effect in
June, 1950, are to be given the status and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights which the
law accords to the latter.
The lower court found for the legal wife and ordered the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the ownership and possession
of the lands in dispute. Defendant common-law wife appealed.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Uson has a right over the lands from the moment of death of her husband.
2. Whether or not the four illegitimate children of the deceased and his common-law wife have successional rights.
RULING OF THE COURT:
1. YES. Maria Uson has the right over the lands from the moment of the decedents death.
2. NO. The four illegitimate children of the deceased and his common-law wife have no successional rights over the lands
in dispute.
DISCUSSION:
Maria Uson, despite the executed public document between her and the deceased to separate as husband and wife, is no
doubt, still the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, former owner of the five parcels of land litigated in the present case. It is
evident that Maria Uson, as the only heir, acquired the vested right over the property at the moment of death of the
decedent (Art777 NCC). Her express renunciation of her right to inherit any future properties that her husband may leave
upon his death cannot be entertained for the reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be
renounced. (Osorio vs. Osorio, 41 Phil., 531).
It is correct that the New Civil Code provisions shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to
them may have occurred under the prior legislation. However, the rule will not apply if there are vested rights to be
impaired. Hence, since the right of ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon the
death of her late husband, the new right recognized by the New Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate children of the
deceased cannot, therefore be asserted to the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.

1 | Page

RUIZ, MICHELLE ANN A.

SUCCESSION

2. Bienvenido A. Ibarle vs. Esperanza M. Po

7:00 9:00 PM MON/TUE

92 PHIL., 530 [G.R. No. L-5064. February 27, 1953]

FACTS:
Leonard J. Winstanley died on June 6, 1946 leaving as his heir his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro and his some minor
children. He left a conjugal parcel of land which was sold entirely by Catalina Navarro to the spouses Maria and Roberto
Canoy who sold the same land to the plaintiff Bienvenido Ibarle.
The two deeds of sale were not registered and have never been registered to date.
January 17, 1948, after Catalina Navarros appointment as guardian of her children, she again sold one-half of the land in
question to which portion now belonged to the children as heirs, to herein defendant Esperanza Po.
ISSUE:
Which sale was valid, and who has the rightful claim to the property?
RULING OF THE COURT:
The sale of parcel of land to defendant Po is valid.
DISCUSSION:
Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides: "The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his
death." And in a slightly different language, this article is incorporated in the new Civil Code as Article 777. This provision
made it clear that when Catalina Navarro sold the entire parcel to the Canoy spouses, one-half of it already belonged to
the seller's children rendering said sale null and void.
The moment of death of the decedent is the determining factor as to when the children acquire a definite right to the
inheritance. Theres no judicial declaration needed to confirm such right, it follows then that the first sale was null and void
in so far as it included the children's share.
On the other side, the sale to the defendant having been made by authority of the competent court was undeniably legal
and effective. The fact that it has not been recorded is of no consequence. If registration were necessary, still the nonregistration would not avail the plaintiff because it was due to no other cause than his own opposition.

2 | Page

RUIZ, MICHELLE ANN A.

SUCCESSION

3. Mauricia Alejandrino vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals

7:00 9:00 PM MON/TUE

[G.R. No.114151. September 17, 1998]

FACTS:
The late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos left their six children named Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco,
Mauricia, Laurencia and Abundio a 219-square-meter lot in Mambaling, Cebu City. Each heir is entitled to a share of 36.50
square meters of the said lot.
The petitioner, Mauricia Alejandrino, purchased Gregorios & Abundios each 12.17 square meters shares and Ciriacos
36.50 square meters share, thereby giving her a total area of 97.43 square meters, including her own 36.50 square meters
share on the subject lot.
The private respondent, Licerio Nique, thru Laurencia, also purchased a total area of 121.67 square meters of the
Alejandrino property from Gregorio, Marcelino & Laurencia at 36.50 square meter shares each and Abundios share of
12.17 square meters.
Laurencia, later questioned the sale in an action for quieting of title and damages against private respondent, Nique. On its
Nov. 27, 1990 decision, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of Nique declaring the latter as the owner. Laurencia,
thereafter, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals but later withdrew the same.
Subsequently, Nique filed a Motion for the segregation of the 146 square meter portion of the property that the trial court
awarded to him which was then granted.
Mauricia questioned the order.
ISSUE:
Whether or not as an heir of the Alejandrino property, Laurencia may validly sell specific portions thereof to a third party.
RULING:
Yes. Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of a specific portion or the entire property by one coowner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are
transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
DISCUSSION:
Under Article 1078 of the New Civil Code, where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before
partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. Under a co-ownership, the
ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Each co-owner of property which is held pro indiviso
exercises his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not
injure the interests of his co-owners.
The underlying rationale is that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be determined and every coowner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and
enjoyment of the same.Although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has
not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right.
Alienation of a pro indiviso portion of properties shared in common by virtue of inheritance is specifically governed by
Article 1088 of the New Civil Code. Laurencia, in this case, was within her hereditary rights in selling her pro indiviso share.
3 | Page

RUIZ, MICHELLE ANN A.

SUCCESSION

7:00 9:00 PM MON/TUE

However, because the property had not yet been partitioned in accordance with the Rules of Court, no particular portion of
the property could be identified as yet and delineated as the object of the sale, thus, interpreting Article 493 of the Civil
Code providing that an alienation of a co-owned property shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to the seller
in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
When Nique filed a motion for the segregation of the portions of the property that were adjudged in his favor, private
respondent was in effect calling for the partition of the property. However, under the law, partition of the estate of a
decedent may only be effected by:
1.
2.
3.
4.

the heirs themselves extrajudicially;

by the court in an ordinary action for partition, or in the course of administration proceedings;
by the testator himself; and
by the third person designated by the testator

The partition of the estate cannot be effected in an action for quieting of title. The trial court therefore, may not order for the
partition of an estate for there are no pending administrative proceedings.
However, as provided in the New Civil Code, ART. 1082. Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among coheirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction.
Clearly, it appears that when a co-owner sells his inchoate right in the co-ownership, he expresses his intention to put an
end to indivision among his co-heirs.
Partition among co-owners may thus be evidenced by the overt act of a co-owner of renouncing his right over the property
regardless of the form it takes. In effect, Laurencia expressed her intention to terminate the co-ownership by selling her
share to private respondent.
In like manner, the execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate reflected the intention of both Laurencia
and petitioner Mauricia to physically divide the property. Both of them had acquired the shares of their brothers and
therefore it was only the two of them that needed to settle the estate. The fact that the document was not notarized is no
hindrance to its effectivity as regards the two of them. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public
document.

4 | Page