LOLITA BAS CAPABLANCA vs. HEIRS OF PEDRO BAS, represented by JOSEFINA BAS ESPINOSA and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU G.R. No. 224144 June 28, 2017

 Andres and Pedro acquired Lot 2535 and Patent No. 1724 was issued in their names. Pedro sold to Faustina, married to Juan Balorio, his portion of Lot 2535.

 After the death of Faustina and her husband, their heirs executed a notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale. Lot 2535 was conveyed to one (1) of their heirs, Alejandra Balorio. Alejandra sold the land through a Deed of Absolute Sale to Edith N. Deen. And Edith sold said land to Atty. Eddy A. Deen.

Upon Atty. Deen's death, his heirs executed an Additional Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale and sold Lot 2535 to Norberto B. Bas, who took possession of and built a house on it.  Norberto died without a will and was succeeded by his niece and only heir, Lolita Bas Capablanca. Subsequently, Lolita learned that a TCT No. T-96676 was issued in the names of Andres and Pedro on the basis of a reconstituted Deed of Conveyance No. 96-00004.

Josefina Bas Espinosa (Josefina) represented the Heirs of Pedro Bas to file a complaint for Clarification of Ownership of Lot 2535 against Lolita before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay. The conflict between the parties was not resolved and resulted to the issuance of a Certification to file Action.

A notarized Partition Agreement of Real Property, Quitclaim and Waiver of Rights was executed between the heirs of Andres and Lolita, representing Norberto, whereby they partitioned Lot 2535 among themselves.  Lolita sought to register her portion in Lot 2535 but was denied by the Register of Deeds, citing the need for a court order. Lolita then learned that TCT No. T-96676 had been partially cancelled and TCT Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183, and T-100185 had been issued in the name of the Heirs of Pedro Bas, represented by Josefina.

Lolita filed a complaint before the RTC for the cancellation of the titles with prayer for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

In their Answer, the Heirs of Pedro Bas claimed that "the sale between Pedro Bas and Faustina Manreal was fake, spurious and invalid because Pedro who was an illiterate never learned how to write his name so that the signature appearing thereon could not have been made by Pedro Bas." They further claimed that the cancellation of TCT No. T-96676 was made pursuant to a final judgment in Civil Case No. 840 for Partition, Damages, and Attorney's Fees.

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Lolita as it held that there was substantial evidence to prove that Lolita had been in long possession of the lot under a claim of ownership as the heir of Norberto and that it was not necessary for her to be first declared as his heir before filing the complaint. When motion was denied by RTC, the Heirs of Pedro Bas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA reversed the RTC Decision and dismissed the complaint. According to the CA, Lolita must first be declared as the sole heir to the estate of Norberto in a proper special proceeding.

Q: Does the decision Court of Appeals correct? Explain.

A: No, the Court of Appeals is not correct in reversing the RTC Decision.          

In Marabilles vs. Quito, the Court has stated that no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the deceased. 

The main issue here is the annulment of title to property, which ultimately hinges on the validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner does not claim any filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against the respondents. Rather, petitioner seeks to enforce her right over the property which has been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of respondents.

 

Respondents never raised their objection to petitioner's capacity to sue either as an affirmative defense or in a motion to dismiss. Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, "defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived." Thus, it was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no prior judicial declaration of petitioner's heirship to Norberto. To dismiss the case and require petitioner to institute a special proceeding to determine her status as heir of the late Norberto would hamper, instead of serve, justice.