MARIA MENDOZA, in her own capacity and as Attorney-in-fact vs. JULIA POLl CARPIO DELOS SANTOS G.R. No. 176422 March 20, 2013

 

Lot 1681-B and Lot 1684 are presently in the name of respondent Julia Delos Santos; while Lot No. 1646-B on the other hand, is also in the name of respondent but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.

 

Petitioners are grandchildren of Placido and Dominga Mendoza, who had four children: Antonio, Exequiel, Apolonio and Valentin. Petitioners Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia, Adoracion, Marcela and Ricardo are the children of Antonio. Petitioners Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and Fortunato, on the other hand, are Valentin’s children. Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and Dominga’s properties that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. After Exequiel’s death, it passed on to his spouse Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s death, her share went to Gregoria. Later, Gregoria died intestate and without issue. They claimed that after Gregoria’s death, respondent Julia, who is Leonor’s sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria. Hence, petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in their behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal.

 

Respondent, however, denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not originate from petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by Placido and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos. It appears, however, that it was only Exequiel who was in possession of the properties.  The RTC found merit in petitioners’ claim and granted their action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal, Cancellation of TCT and Reconveyance.

 

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioners.

 

Q: Is the Court of Appeals correct in reversing and setting aside the RTC                   decision?

 

A: Yes, the Court of Appeals is correct in reversing and setting aside the RTC                   decision.

 

The principle of reserva troncal is provided in Article 891 of the Civil Code which            states:

Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line from which said property came.

 

Based on the circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is not applicable. While it may appear that the properties are reservable in character, petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal. First, because Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because petitioners are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree. Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or reservatarios.

Hence, the CA’s disposition that the complaint filed with the RTC should be dismissed, is correct.

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.