Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Alvarez v.


Facts: Aniceto Yanes was the owner of Lot 773 and 823 situated in Murcia, Negros
Occidental. Lot 773, subject of the controversy, was a 156,549 square meter lot registered
under the heirs of Anciento Yanes who was survived by his children Rufino, Felipe and
Teodora. Rufino, in turn, was survived by his children Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus.
Furthermore, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived
by her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib.

Rufino Felipe Teodora

Estelita Antonio Jovita Alib

Iluminado Rosario


Teodora cultivated a portion of Lot 823 from the Second World War until peace time. In
contrast, Felipe settled in other provinces during the Japanese occupation until his return
to get his share in the harvest of sugar and was informed by Estelia that the land was sold
to Fortunato Santiago, then to Fuentebella (Puentevella). When Fuentebella died, the
heirs thereof sold Lot 773 to Rosendo Alvarez after obtaining the permission of the Court.
Hence, respondents instituted an action for the return of the ownership and possession
of Lot 773 and 823. During the pendency of the case, the lot was sold to Dr. Siason where
a TCT was issued in his same. The CFI ruled in favor of respodents but the sheriff could
not execute the judgment as the new owner was not made a party to the case.

Because of this, the respondents filed another complaint for recovery of real property
with damages. The IAC ordered the retention of the property in favor Dr Siason but
ordered plaintiffs, children of Rosendo Alvarez, to indemnify respondents.

Plaintiffs appealed the order to indemnify respondents alleging that their father’s
liability, as an incident of the sale, should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez
or of his estate, after his death.

Issue: Whether the order commanding plaintiff children to indemnify respondent is


The order of the lower courts are valid

Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal
consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for
damages. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment
because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their
father's hereditary estate. The hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the
payment of the debts of the estate.