[CASE DIGEST] GAUDENCIO BICOMONG, et al. v. GERONIMO ALMANZA, et al. (G.R. No. L-37365)

November 29, 1977 

Ponente: Guerrero, J.

FACTS:

·         Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas on June 8, 1859 (Exh. "D") Of this marriage there were born three children namely: Perpetua Bagsic (Exhibit G), Igmedia Bagsic (Exhibit F), and Ignacio Bagsic (Exhibit H). Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic.

·         On June 3, 1885, Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra Glorioso (Exhibit "E"). Of this second marriage were born two children, Felipa Bagsic (Exhibit J) and Maura Bagsic (Exhibit I). Simeon Bagsic died sometime in 1901. Silvestra Glorioso also died.

·         Ignacio Bagsic died on April 18, 1939 (Exhibit C) leaving the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died on August 19, 1944 (Exhibit B) survived by the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, Maria Tolentino and Petra Tolentino.

·         Perpetua Bagsic died on July 1, 1945 (Exhibit A). Surviving her are her heirs, the plaintiffs Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong.

·         Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died also on April 14, 1952 leaving no heir as her husband died ahead of her. Felipa Bagsic, the other daughter of the second Geronimo Almanza and her daughter Cristeta Almanza. But five (5) months before the present suit was filed or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza died leaving behind her husband, Engracio Manese and her father, Geronimo Almanza.

·         The subject matter of the complaint concerned the one-half undivided share of Maura Bagsic in five parcels of land which she inherited from her deceased mother, Silvestra.

·         After the death of Maura Bagsic, her properties passed on to Cristela Almanza who took charge of the administration of the same. Thereupon, Maura's other nephews and nieces approached her and requested for the partition of their aunt's properties. However, they were prevailed upon by Cristeta Almanza not to divide the properties yet as the expenses for the last illness and burial of Maura Bagsic had not yet been paid. 

·         Having agreed to defer the partition of the same, the plaintiffs brought out the subject again sometime in 1959 only. This time Cristeta Almanza acceded to the request as the debts, accordingly, had already been paid. Unfortunately, she died without the division of the properties having been effected, thereby leaving the possession and administration of the same to the Almazans.

·         Three sets of plaintiffs filed the complaint on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmedia Bagsic; and (c) Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City against the defendants Geronimo Almanza and Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by Maura Bagsic.

·         TRIAL COURT: The three sets of nephews and nieces are declared to be entitled to ten twenty-fourth (10/24) share on the five parcels of land in dispute.

·         Hence, the instant appeal.

RULING:  

Petition denied. Trial court ruling affirmed.

Whether the nephews and nieces of the deceased from her half-blood siblings are able to inherit. – YES.

·         They inherit in their own right and not by representation.

·         In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue, and her husband and all her ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving collateral relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By virtue of said provision, the nephews and nieces from the deceased's half-blood siblings are entitled to inherit in their own right.

·         Art. 975 makes no qualification as to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and without preference as to whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews and n of half blood. The only difference in their right of succession is provided in Art. 1008 in relation to Article 1006 which provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood.

Whether Maura predeceased her full blood sister Felipa. – NO.

·         The Almanzas were contending that when Maura died intestate in 1952, her surviving full blood sister Felipa should have inherited all of Maura's properties. This argument was anchored on the premise that Felipa died in 1955, which meant that only her father Geronimo and daughter Cristeta should have inherited the subject properties, to the exclusion of everyone else. 

·         However, Felipa dying in 1955 is an erroneous factual assumption. In fact, records show that Felipa predeceased Maura by seven years: The true date of Felipa's death was in 1945 and not 1955. There is therefore no basis for the Almanzas to claim the entirety of Maura's estate.