21. REBUSQUILLO V. SPS.

GALVEZ (June 4, 2014)

FACTS:
 Avelina Rebusquillo and Salvador Orosco filed a Complaint for Annulment and Revocation of
an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and a Deed of Absolute Sale with the RTC.
o It was alleged that Avelina was the child of Eulalio and Victoria Villareal (both
deceased). They had 6 legitimate children and 1 illegitimate child.
o On his death, Eulalio left an untitled parcel of land in Legazpi City.
 Avelina was allegedly tricked by her daughter Emelinda and son-in-law Domingo (Sps. Galvez)
into signing the Affidavit and the Deed on the pretext that they were documents needed to
facilitate the titling of the lot.
 The RTC annulled the documents, stating that Avelina was not the only heir of her parents and
was not solely entitled to the estate, and that she did not really intend to sell her property.
 Respondents appealed to the CA.
o The CA reversed the RTC, stating that the RTC erred in annulling the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication simply on petitioners’ allegation of the existence of the heirs of Eulalio,
considering that issues on heirship must be made in administration or intestate
proceedings, not in an ordinary civil action.

ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in annulling the documents.

HELD: NO.
 A declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, not in an independent civil
action.
o However, this Court had likewise held that recourse to administration proceedings to
determine who heirs are is sanctioned only if there is a good and compelling reason for
such recourse. Hence, the Court had allowed exceptions to the rule requiring
administration proceedings as when the parties in the civil case already presented their
evidence regarding the issue of heirship.
 There appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as the
inheritance from Eulalio. It would be more practical to dispense with a separate special
proceeding for the determination of the status of petitioner Avelina as sole heir of Eulalio,
especially in light of the fact that respondents spouses Gualvez admitted in court that they
knew for a fact that petitioner Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio and that petitioner
Salvador was one of the other living heirs with rights over the subject land. As confirmed by the
RTC in its Decision, respondents have stipulated and have thereby admitted the veracity of the
following facts during the pre-trial.
 Avelina perjured herself when she declared in the Affidavit that she was Eulalio’s sole heir. The
falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the inheritance left by her father
invalid. The RTC did not, therefore, err in granting Avelina’s prayer to declare the affidavit null
and void and so correct the wrong she has committed.
 In like manner, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Avelina in favor of respondents was
correctly nullified and voided by the RTC. Avelina was not in the right position to sell and
transfer the absolute ownership of the subject property to respondents (absolute simulation).

22. NERI V. HEIRS OF SPS. YUSOP (October 10, 2012)

FACTS:
 Anunciacion Neri had 7 children. In her second marriage with Enrique Neri, she acquired
several homestead properties in Davao Del Norte.
  Anunciacion then died intestate. Enrique executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate
with Absolute Deed of Sale, adjudicating among himself and his children the properties, and
thereafter conveying them to the Sps. Yusop fo P80K.
 Enrique’s children then filed a complaint for annulment of sale, assailing the validity of the sale
for having been sold within the prohibited period.
o Eutropia and Victoria were additional plaintiffs, contending that they were deprived of
their legitimes as Anunciacion’s children from her first marriage.
 The RTC annulled the Extra-Judicial Settlement and the Deed.
o It ruled that while the sale occurred beyond the 5-year prohibitory period, the sale is still
void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that
Enrique had no judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and
Douglas.
 The CA reversed the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the Extra-Judicial Settlement is valid.

HELD: NO.
 Legitimate children are entitled to inherit equal shares.
 Hence, in the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of
Sale, all the heirs of Anunciacion should have participated. Considering that Eutropia and
Victoria were admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas were not properly
represented therein, the settlement was not valid and binding upon them and consequently, a
total nullity.
o RULE 74: The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding
section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof.
 However, while the settlement of the estate is null and void, the subsequent sale of the subject
properties made by Enrique and his children, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda, in favor of the
respondents isvalid but only with respect to their proportionate shares therein. It cannot be
denied that these heirs have acquired their respective shares in the properties of Anunciacion
from the moment of her death11 and that, as owners thereof, they can very well sell their
undivided share in the estate.
 With respect to the minors Rosa and Douglas, Enrique validly represented them as their legal
guardian. However, Enrique was merely clothed with powers of administration and bereft of
any authority to dispose of their 2/16 shares in the estate of their mother.

23. CUA V. VARGAS (October 31, 2006)

FACTS:
 Paulina Vargas left behind a parcel of residential land in Catanduanes.
 A notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was executed by Paulina’s heirs. Who
partitioned the lot amongst themselves. However, 4 children did not sign the document. The
EJS was published in the Catanduanes Tribune.
 An Extra-Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was executed, with the 4 children again
not signing. 55 square meters were sold to Joseph Cua.
 Gloria Vargas, one of the respondents and Paulina’s child, claimed that she was unaware of
the EJS. When she tried to redeem the property, she was refused.
 Gloria filed a case for annulment of the EJS with the MTC.
  MTC dismissed the complaint and declared the EJS valid and binding because the transaction
purportedly occurred after the partition of the property among the co-owner heirs. The MTC
opined that the other heirs could validly dispose of their respective shares.
 RTC affirmed the MTC.
 The CA reversed the ruling. It held that pursuant to Rule 74, the extrajudicial settlement made
by the other co-heirs is not binding upon respondents considering the latter never participated
in it nor did they ever signify their consent to the same.

ISSUE: WON the Extra-Judicial Settlement is binding to the respondents.

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, 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.
 The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had
no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution.
The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended
to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate.
 Nevertheless, respondents are given the right to redeem these shares pursuant to Article 1088
of the Civil Code. The right to redeem was never lost because respondents were never notified
in writing of the actual sale by their co-heirs. The law gives the co-heir thirty days from the time
written notice of the actual sale within which to make up his or her mind and decide to
repurchase or effect the redemption.

24. PORTUGAL V. PORTUGAL-BELTRAN (August 16, 2005)

FACTS:
 Jose Portugal and Paz Lazo married and had a son, Jose Jr.
 Jose then married Isabela dela Puerta and had a daughter, Aleli.
 Jose and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over
the estate of their father, Mariano. Jose’s siblings waived their rights to his favor.
 A TCT was issued in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo.”
 Paz died. Jose then died intestate.
 Aleli executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person
adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. The TCT was cancelled and a new TCT
was issued in Aleli’s name.
 Petitioners then filed a complaint before the RTC for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication
and the TCT.
o Petitioners alleged that respondent is not related whatsoever to the deceased Portugal,
hence, not entitled to inherit the Caloocan parcel of land and that she perjured herself
when she made false representations in her Affidavit of Adjudication.
 The RTC dismissed the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction over the case since the heirs had
not been determined through a special proceeding.
 The CA affirmed.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs
before they can pursue the case for annulment of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the
TCT issued in her name.
HELD: NO.
 A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a
deceased.
 It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of
Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case,
to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status
of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and
expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that the
parties to the civil case – subject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented
evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it
defined during pre-trial.
 Under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject
Portugal’s estate to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners’ status as
heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners, the trial court should proceed to
evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a decision thereon
upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.

25. INTESTATE ESTATE OF SEBIAL V. SEBIAL (June 27, 1975)

FACTS:
 Gelacio Sebial died intestate. He had 3 children with his first wife, and 6 with his second wife.
 His daughter from his second marriage, Benjamina, filed a verified petition for the settlement of
Gelacio’s estate. She prayed to be appointed administratrix.
 Roberta, from his first marriage, opposed on the ground that the estate had already been
partitioned among his children, and that she should be the one appointed since she resided at
the location of the estate.
 The lower court appointed Benjamina as administratrix, and found the partition invalid.
 Subsequently, the oppositors filed motion to terminate the administration proceeding on the
grounds that the decedent’s estate was valued at less than six thousand pesos and that it had
already been partitioned and, therefore, there was no necessity for the administration
proceeding.
 Benjamina Sebial filed the first inventory and appraisal of the decedent’s estate with a total
value of nine thousand pesos.
o The administratrix filed a motion to require Lorenzo Rematado, Demetrio Camillo and
the spouses Roberta Sebial and Lazaro Recuelo to deliver to her some parcels of land.
 The lower court inexplicably required the administratrix to submit another inventory and the
administratrix obliged. The oppositor interposed an opposition to the said inventory.
 The lower court in its order of December 11, 1961 approved the second inventory and granted
the motion of the administratrix for the delivery to her of certain parcels of land mentioned
earlier.
 The oppositors contend that nasmuch as the value of the decedent's estate is less than five
thousand pesos and he had no debts, the estate could be settled summarily under Rule 74,
and that an administration proceeding was not necessary.

ISSUE: WON an administration proceeding is the proper remedy.

HELD: NO.
 The proper remedy is an ordinary civil action for recovery of property.
 The lower court’s order of approving the amended inventory is not a conclusive determination
of what assets constituted the decedent’s estate and of the valuations thereof. Such a
 determination is only provisional in character and is without prejudice to a judgment in a
separate action on the issue of title or ownership.
 It was held that the said order is erroneous and should be set aside because the probate court
failed to receive evidence as to the ownership of the said parcels of land. The general rule is
that questions of title to property cannot be passed upon in a testate or intestate proceeding.
However, when the parties are all heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to
the probate court the question of title to property and, when so submitted, the probate court
may definitely pass judgment thereon.
 Lorenzo Rematado and Lazaro Recuelo are not heirs of the decedent. They are third persons.
The rule is that matters affecting property under administration may be taken cognizance of by
the probate court in the course of the intestate proceeding provided that the interests of third
persons are not prejudiced.
 However, third persons to whom the decedent’s assets had been fraudulently conveyed may
be cited to appear in court and be examined under oath as to how they came into the
possession of the decedent’s assets.