Ponente: Gancayco, J.
·
Manuel
Bautista inherited a parcel of land from his father Mariano. Subsequently,
Manuel contracted marriage with Juliana Nojadero, with whom he had children
(herein private respondents).
·
Manuel
contracted a second marriage after his first wife Julian Nojadero passed away.
Manuel and his second wife, Emiliana Tamayo-Bautista, had an only child,
Evangeline Baustista.
·
In the
meantime, a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was executed between Nojadero's
heirs and (allegedly) Manuel involving the land which the latter had inherited
from his father. Manuel denied ever participating in the extrajudicial
partition.
·
Upon
registration of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, Manuel's title was
cancelled and in lieu thereof, a new one was issued.
·
Later on,
all those who took part in the partition of the property (except Manolito)
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Manolito. The latter then re-sold
the property back to his other co-respondents, resulting in the issuance of
multiple titles.
·
Manuel
disputed the partition of his property, and so a case was filed to render such
partition null and void.
·
The case
was dismissed by the trial court upon the NBI's findings that Manuel's
signature in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was authentic. The dismissal
was affirmed by the CA.
·
Hence, the
instant petition.
·
Manuel's
arguments: (a) He did not sign the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition; (b) said
Deed was void ab initio because it was executed in violation of the prohibition
on the extrajudicial partition of future inheritance; and (c) the trial court
and CA erred in affirming the validity of the subject Deed because they
essentially authorized the preterition of Manuel's daughter from his second
marriage, Emiliana, who was excluded from the partition.
RULING:
Whether the property of Manuel, the surviving spouse from his first
marriage, be the subject of an extrajudicial partition of the estate of his
deceased wife? – NO.
·
Regardless of whether
Manuel's signature in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition is authentic, an
examination of the document based on admitted and proven facts renders the
document fatally defective.
Not the dead wife's property
·
The extrajudicial
partition was supposed to be a partition without court intervention of the
estate of the late Juliana Nojadera, first wife of Manuel Bautista,
constituting the subject property. In the same document Manuel Bautista appears
to have waived his right or share in the property in favor of private
respondents.
·
However, the property
subject matter of said extrajudicial partition does not belong to the estate of
Juliana Nojadera. It is the exclusive property of Manuel Bautista who inherited
the same from his father Mariano Bautista.
·
Under Section 1, Rule 74
of the Rules of Court an extrajudicial settlement of the Estate applies only to
the estate left by the decedent who died without a will, and with no creditors,
and the heirs are all of age or the minors are represented by their judicial or
legal representatives. If the property does not belong to the estate of the
decedent certainly it cannot be the subject matter of an extrajudicial
partition.
·
In the present case, the subject property does not belong to the
estate of Juliana Nojadera. Therefore, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition is
void ab initio being contrary to law.
·
To include in an
extrajudicial partition property which does not pertain to the estate of the
deceased would be to deprive the lawful owner thereof of his property without
due process of law. Only property of the estate of the decedent which is
transmitted by succession can be the lawful subject matter of an extrajudicial
partition. In this case, the said partition obviously prejudices the right of
Manuel Bautista as exclusive owner of the property.
Preterition of daughter from second marriage
·
If the Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition were to be deemed valid, then it would result in the
preterition of the right of Evangeline Bautista as a compulsory heir of Manuel
Bautista, daughter of the latter by his second marriage.
·
It is difficult to
believe that Manuel Bautista would wittingly overlook and ignore the right of
her daughter Evangeline to share in the said property. It is not surprising
that he denied signing the said document.
·
Moreover, private respondents
knew Evangeline Bautista who is their half-sister to be a compulsory heir. The
court finds that her preterition was attended with bad faith, hence the said
partition must be rescinded.
Clever scheme hatched by children from first marriage
·
After the execution of
said extrajudicial partition and issuance of the title in their names, private
respondents except Manolito Bautista in turn executed a deed of absolute sale
of the property in favor of the latter in whose name the title was also issued.
·
Soon thereafter another
deed of sale was executed this time by Manolito Bautista selling back the same
property to private respondents in whose names the respective titles were thus
subsequently issued.
·
This series of
transactions between and among private respondents is an indication of a clever
scheme to place the property beyond the reach of those lawfully entitled
thereto.
Prohibition on partition of future inheritance
·
The subject extrajudicial
partition cannot constitute a partition of the property during the lifetime of
its owner, Manuel Bautista. Partition of future inheritance is prohibited by
law.
Imprescriptibility of cause of action
·
The petitioners' right to
sue their co-owners for partition of the property is imprescriptible.
·
But even assuming that
the present action were prescriptible, petitioners Emiliana Bautista and
Evangeline Bautista, who are not parties to the said instrument, discovered the
same only soon before they filed the complaint in court. So certainly, the
action had not prescribed yet.