ALVAREZ vs.

IAC May 7, 1990

FACTS: Aniceto Yanes owned 2 parcels of land Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B.
Aniceto Yanes was survived ! "is c"ildren# $ufino# Felipe and Teodora. %erein private respondents#
&stelita# 'lu(inado and )esus# are t"e c"ildren of $ufino w"o died in *+,2 w"ile t"e ot"er private
respondents# Antonio and $osario Yanes# are c"ildren of Felipe. Teodora was survived ! "er c"ild# )ovita
-)ovito. Ali.
't is estalis"ed t"at $ufino and "is c"ildren left t"e province to settle in ot"er places as a result of t"e
outrea/ of 0orld 0ar ''. Accordin1 to &stelita# fro( t"e 2)apanese ti(e up to peace ti(e3# t"e! did not visit
t"e parcels of land in 4uestion ut 2after lieration3# w"en "er rot"er went t"ere to 1et t"eir s"are of t"e
su1ar produced t"erein# "e was infor(ed t"at Fortunato Santia1o# Fuenteella -5uentevella. and Alvare6
were in possession of Lot 773.
After Fuenteella7s deat"# Arsenia 8da. de Fuenteella sold said lots for 5,#999.99 to $osendo Alvare6. :n
;a! 2,# *+,9# Teodora Yanes and t"e c"ildren of "er rot"er $ufino filed a co(plaint a1ainst Fortunato
Santia1o# Arsenia 8da. de Fuenteella# Alvare6 and t"e $e1ister of <eeds of =e1ros :ccidental for t"e
2return3 of t"e owners"ip and possession of Lots 773 and >23.
<urin1 t"e pendenc! of said case# Alvare6 sold t"e Lots for 52?#999.99 to <r. $odolfo Siason. CF'
rendered @ud1(ent orderin1 defendant $osendo Alvare6 to reconve! to plaintiffs t"e lots.
'SSA&: 0B= t"e liailit! of $osendo Alvare6 arisin1 fro( t"e sale of Lots =os. 773-A and 773-B could e
le1all! passed or trans(itted ! operation of law to t"e petitioners wit"out violation of law and due process.
$AL'=C: T"e doctrine otainin1 in t"is @urisdiction is on t"e 1eneral trans(issiilit! of t"e ri1"ts and
oli1ations of t"e deceased to "is le1iti(ate c"ildren and "eirs.
T"e indin1 effect of contracts upon t"e "eirs of t"e deceased part! is not altered ! t"e provision of our
$ules of Court t"at (one! dets of a deceased (ust e li4uidated and paid fro( "is estate efore t"e
residue is distriuted a(on1 said "eirs -$ule >+.. T"e reason is t"at w"atever pa!(ent is t"us (ade fro(
t"e estate is ulti(atel! a pa!(ent ! t"e "eirs or distriutees# since t"e a(ount of t"e paid clai( in fact
di(inis"es or reduces t"e s"ares t"at t"e "eirs would "ave een entitled to receive.
2Ander our law# t"erefore# t"e 1eneral rule is t"at a part!7s contractual ri1"ts and oli1ations are
trans(issile to t"e successors. T"e rule is a conse4uence of t"e pro1ressive Ddepersonali6ation7 of
patri(onial ri1"ts and duties.
$o(an concept of a relation fro( person to person# t"e oli1ation "as evolved into a relation fro(
patri(on! to patri(on!# wit" t"e persons occup!in1 onl! a representative position# arrin1 t"ose rare cases
w"ere t"e oli1ation is strictl! personal# in consideration of its perfor(ance ! a specific person and ! no
ot"er. . . .3
5etitioners ein1 t"e "eirs of t"e late $osendo Alvare6# t"e! cannot escape t"e le1al conse4uences of t"eir
fat"er7s transaction# w"ic" 1ave rise to t"e present clai( for da(a1es.
ESTATE OF K. H. HEMADY, deeased, vs. L!ZO" S!RETY CO., I"C., #a$%a&'(A))e##a&'.
*+R L(,-.7. "/v. 0,, 1912.3 4. REYES e& 5a&
FACTS: Lu6on Suret! Co. filed a clai( a1ainst t"e &state ased on 29 different inde(nit! a1ree(ents# or
counter onds# eac" suscried ! a distinct principal and ! t"e deceased E. %. %e(ad!# a suret!
solidar! 1uarantor.
Lu6on Suret! Co.# pra!ed for allowance# as a contin1ent clai(# of t"e value of t"e 29 onds it eFecuted in
consideration of t"e counteronds# and as/ed for @ud1(ent for t"e unpaid pre(iu(s and docu(entar!
sta(ps affiFed to t"e onds# wit" *2 G interest t"ereon. CF' dis(issed t"e clai(s of Lu6on Suret! Co.# on
failure to state t"e cause of action.
'SSA&: 0"at oli1ations are trans(issile upon t"e deat" of t"e decedentH Are contin1ent clai(s
c"ar1eale a1ainst t"e estateH
$AL'=C: Ander t"e present Civil Code -Art. *3**.# 2Contracts ta/e effect onl! as etween t"e parties# t"eir
assi1ns and "eirs# eFcept in t"e case w"ere t"e ri1"ts and oli1ations arisin1 fro( t"e contract are not
trans(issile ! t"eir nature# or ! stipulation or ! provision of law.3
0"ile in our successional s!ste( t"e responsiilit! of t"e "eirs for t"e dets of t"eir decedent cannot
eFceed t"e value of t"e in"eritance t"e! receive fro( "i(# t"e principle re(ains intact t"at t"ese "eirs
succeed not onl! to t"e ri1"ts of t"e deceased ut also to "is oli1ations. Articles 77I J 77,#=CC#
provides# t"ere! confir(in1 Art. *3**.
2ART. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obigations to
the e!tent of the vaue of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others
either by his wi or by operation of aw."
2ART. 77#. The inheritance incudes a the property, rights and obigations of a person which are not
e!tinguished by his death."
T"e indin1 effect of contracts upon t"e "eirs of t"e deceased part! is not altered ! t"e provision in our
$ules of Court t"at (one! dets of a deceased (ust e li4uidated and paid fro( "is estate efore t"e
residue is distriuted a(on1 said "eirs -$ule >+.. T"e reason is t"at w"atever pa!(ent is (ade fro( t"e
estate is ulti(atel! a pa!(ent ! t"e "eirs and distriutees# since t"e a(ount of t"e paid clai( in fact
di(inis"es or reduces t"e s"ares t"at t"e "eirs would "ave een entitled to receive.
T"e 1eneral rule is t"at a part!7s contractual ri1"ts and oli1ations are trans(issile to t"e successors. T"e
rule is a conse4uence of t"e pro1ressive 2depersonali6ation3 of patri(onial ri1"ts and duties. :f t"e 3
eFceptions fiFed ! Art *3**# t"e nature of oli1ation of t"e suret! or 1uarantor does not warrant t"e
conclusion t"at "is peculiar individual 4ualities are conte(plated as a principal induce(ent for t"e contract.
Creditor Lu6on Suret! Co. eFpects fro( %e(ad! w"en it accepted t"e latter as suret! in t"e counteronds
was t"e rei(urse(ent of t"e (one!s t"at t"e Lu6on Suret! Co. (i1"t "ave to disurse on account of t"e
oli1ations of t"e principal detors. T"is rei(urse(ent is a pa!(ent of a su( of (one!# resultin1 fro( an
oli1ation to 1iveK and to t"e Lu6on Suret! Co.# it was indifferent t"at t"e rei(urse(ent s"ould e (ade
! %e(ad! "i(self or ! so(e one else in "is e"alf# so lon1 as t"e (one! was paid to it.
T"e 2nd eFception of Art. *3**# is intrans(issiilit! ! stipulation of t"e parties. Bein1 eFceptional and
contrar! to t"e 1eneral rule# t"is intrans(issiilit! s"ould not e easil! i(plied# ut (ust e eFpressl!
estalis"ed# or at t"e ver! least# clearl! inferale fro( t"e provisions of t"e contract itself# and t"e teFt of
t"e a1ree(ents sued upon now"ere indicate t"at t"e! are non-transferale. rd
T"e 3rd eFception to t"e trans(issiilit! of oli1ations under Art. *3** eFists w"en t"e! are 2not
trans(issile ! operation of law3. T"e provision (a/es reference to t"ose cases w"ere t"e law eFpresses
t"at t"e ri1"ts or oli1ations are eFtin1uis"ed ! deat": le1al support# parental aut"orit!# usufruct# contracts
for a piece of wor/# partners"ip J a1enc!. B! contract# t"e articles of t"e Civil Code t"at re1ulate 1uarant!
or suret!s"ip -Art 29I7 to 29>I. contain no provision t"at t"e 1uarant! is eFtin1uis"ed upon t"e deat" of
t"e 1uarantor or t"e suret!.
T"e contracts of suret!s"ip entered into ! %e(ad! in favor of Lu6on Suret! Co. not ein1 rendered
intrans(issile due to t"e nature of t"e underta/in1# nor ! t"e stipulations of t"e contracts t"e(selves# nor
! provision of law# "is eventual liailit! t"ereunder necessaril! passed upon "is deat" to "is "eirs. T"e
contracts 1ive rise to contin1ent clai(s provale a1ainst "is estate under sec. ?# $ule >7. 2T"e (ost
co((on eFa(ple of t"e conti1ent clai( is t"at w"ic" arises w"en a person is ound as suret! or 1uarantor
for a principal w"o is insolvent or dead. Ander t"e ordinar! contract of suret!s"ip t"e suret! "as no clai(
w"atever a1ainst "is principal until "e "i(self pa!s so(et"in1 ! wa! of satisfaction upon t"e oli1ation
w"ic" is secured. 0"en "e does t"is# t"ere instantl! arises in favor of t"e suret! t"e ri1"t to co(pel t"e
principal to eFonerate t"e suret!. But until t"e suret! "as contriuted so(et"in1 to t"e pa!(ent of t"e det#
or "as perfor(ed t"e secured oli1ation in w"ole or in part# "e "as no ri1"t of action a1ainst an!od! L no
clai( t"at could e reduced to @ud1(ent.
:ur conclusion is t"at t"e solidar! 1uarantor7s liailit! is not eFtin1uis"ed ! "is deat"# and t"at in suc"
event# t"e Lu6on Suret! Co.# "ad t"e ri1"t to file a1ainst t"e estate a contin1ent clai( for rei(urse(ent.
0"erefore# t"e order appealed fro( is reversed# and t"e records are ordered re(anded to t"e court of
ori1in. Costs a1ainst t"e Ad(inistratriF- Appellee.
!&$/& 6a&7 v. Sa&'$5a&e8, -10 SCRA 00, 9 A5:
FACTS: :n ;a! 3*# *+>9# t"e First Countr!side Credit Corporation -FCCC. and &frai( SantiaMe6 entered
into a loan a1ree(ent in t"e a(ount of 5*2>#999.99.
T"e a(ount was intended for t"e pa!(ent of one -*. unit Ford ,,99 A1ricultural Tractor. 'n view t"ereof#
&frai( and "is son# &d(und# eFecuted a pro(issor! note in favor of t"e FCCC# t"e principal su( pa!ale
in five e4ual annual a(orti6ations.
:n <ec. *+>9# FCCC and &frai( entered into anot"er loan a1ree(ent for t"e pa!(ent of anot"er unit of
Ford ,,99 and one unit of a $ota(otor. A1ain# &frai( and &d(und eFecuted a pro(issor! note and a
Continuin1 Cuarant! A1ree(ent for t"e later loan. 'n *+>*# &frai( died# leavin1 a "olo1rap"ic will. Testate
proceedin1s co((enced efore t"e $TC of 'loilo Cit!. &d(und was appointed as t"e special ad(inistrator
of t"e estate. <urin1 t"e pendenc! of t"e testate proceedin1s# t"e survivin1 "eirs# &d(und and "is sister
Florence# eFecuted a )oint A1ree(ent# w"erein t"e! a1reed to divide etween t"e(selves and ta/e
possession of t"e t"ree -3. tractors: -2. tractors for &d(und and -*. for Florence. &ac" of t"e( was to
assu(e t"e indetedness of t"eir late fat"er to FCCC# correspondin1 to t"e tractor respectivel! ta/en !
t"e(. 'n t"e (eanti(e# a <eed of Assi1n(ent wit" Assu(ption of Liailities was eFecuted ! and etween
FCCC and Anion Ban/# w"erein t"e FCCC assi1ned all its assets and liailities to Anion Ban/.
<e(and letters were sent ! Anion Ban/ to &d(und# ut t"e latter refused to pa!. T"us# on Feruar! ?#
*+>># Anion Ban/ filed a Co(plaint for su( of (one! a1ainst t"e "eirs of &frai( SantiaMe6# &d(und and
Florence# efore t"e $TC of ;a/ati Cit!. Su((onses were issued a1ainst ot"# ut t"e one intended for
&d(und was not served since "e was in t"e Anited States and t"ere was no infor(ation on "is address or
t"e date of "is return to t"e 5"ilippines. Florence filed "er Answer and alle1ed t"at t"e loan docu(ents did
not ind "er since s"e was not a part! t"ereto. Considerin1 t"at t"e @oint a1ree(ent si1ned ! "er and "er
rot"er &d(und was not approved ! t"e proate court# it was null and voidK "ence# s"e was not liale to
Anion Ban/ under t"e @oint a1ree(ent.
Anion Ban/ asserts t"at t"e oli1ation of t"e deceased "ad passed to "is le1iti(ate "eirs -&d(und and
Florence. as provided in Article 77I of t"e Civil CodeK and t"at t"e unconditional si1nin1 of t"e @oint
a1ree(ent estopped Florence# and t"at s"e cannot den! "er liailit! under t"e said docu(ent.
'n "er co((ent to t"e petition# Florence (aintains t"at Anion Ban/ is tr!in1 to recover a su( of (one!
fro( t"e deceased &frai( SantiaMe6K t"us t"e clai( s"ould "ave een filed wit" t"e proate court. S"e
points out t"at at t"e ti(e of t"e eFecution of t"e @oint a1ree(ent t"ere was alread! an eFistin1 proate
proceedin1s. S"e asserts t"at even if t"e a1ree(ent was voluntaril! eFecuted ! "er and "er rot"er
&d(und# it s"ould still "ave een su@ected to t"e approval of t"e court as it (a! pre@udice t"e estate# t"e
"eirs or t"ird parties.
'SSA&: 0B= t"e clai( of Anion Ban/ s"ould "ave een filed wit" t"e proate court efore w"ic" t"e testate
estate of t"e late &frai( SantiaMe6 was pendin1. 0B= t"e a1ree(ent etween &d(und and Florence
-w"ic" was in effect# a partition of "te estate. was void considerin1 t"at it "ad not een approved ! t"e
proate court. 0B= t"ere can e a valid partition a(on1 t"e "eirs efore t"e will is proated.
%&L<: 0ell-settled is t"e rule t"at a proate court "as t"e @urisdiction to deter(ine all t"e properties of t"e
deceased# to deter(ine w"et"er t"e! s"ould or s"ould not e included in t"e inventor! or list of properties
to e ad(inistered. T"e said court is pri(aril! concerned wit" t"e ad(inistration# li4uidation and distriution
of t"e estate.
'n our @urisdiction# t"e rule is t"at t"ere can e no valid partition a(on1 t"e "eirs until after t"e will "as een
proated. 'n t"e present case# &frai( left a "olo1rap"ic will w"ic" contained t"e provision w"ic" reads as
follows:
$e% A other properties, rea or persona, which & own and may be discovered ater after my demise, sha
be distributed in the proportion indicated in the immediatey preceding paragraph in favor of 'dmund and
(orence, my chidren.
T"e aove-4uoted is an all-enco(passin1 provision e(racin1 all t"e properties left ! t"e decedent w"ic"
(i1"t "ave escaped "is (ind at t"at ti(e "e was (a/in1 "is will# and ot"er properties "e (a! ac4uire
t"ereafter. 'ncluded t"erein are t"e t"ree -3. su@ect tractors. T"is ein1 so# an! partition involvin1 t"e said
tractors a(on1 t"e "eirs is not valid. T"e @oint a1ree(ent eFecuted ! &d(und and Florence# partitionin1
t"e tractors a(on1 t"e(selves# is invalid# speciall! so since at t"e ti(e of its eFecution# t"ere was alread!
a pendin1 proceedin1 for t"e proate of t"eir late fat"er7s "olo1rap"ic will coverin1 t"e said tractors.
T"e Court notes t"at t"e loan was contracted ! t"e decedent. T"e an/# purportedl! a creditor of t"e late
&frai( SantiaMe6# s"ould "ave t"us filed its (one! clai( wit" t"e proate court in accordance wit"
Section ?# $ule >, of t"e $evised $ules of Court.
T"e filin1 of a (one! clai( a1ainst t"e decedent7s estate in t"e proate court is (andator!. T"is
re4uire(ent is for t"e purpose of protectin1 t"e estate of t"e deceased ! infor(in1 t"e eFecutor or
ad(inistrator of t"e clai(s a1ainst it# t"us enalin1 "i( to eFa(ine eac" clai( and to deter(ine w"et"er it
is a proper one w"ic" s"ould e allowed. T"e plain and ovious desi1n of t"e rule is t"e speed! settle(ent
of t"e affairs of t"e deceased and t"e earl! deliver! of t"e propert! to t"e distriutees# le1atees# or "eirs.
5erusin1 t"e records of t"e case# not"in1 t"erein could "old Florence accountale for an! liailit! incurred
! "er late fat"er. T"e docu(entar! evidence presented# particularl! t"e pro(issor! notes and t"e
continuin1 1uarant! a1ree(ent# were eFecuted and si1ned onl! ! t"e late &frai( SantiaMe6 and "is son
&d(und. As t"e petitioner failed to file its (one! clai( wit" t"e proate court# at (ost# it (a! onl! 1o after
&d(und as co-(a/er of t"e decedent under t"e said pro(issor! notes and continuin1 1uarant!.
!s/& v. De# R/sa;$/, 90<1.09 A&d;es
FACTS: T"is is an action for recover! of t"e owners"ip and possession of five -?. parcels of land in
5an1asinan# filed ! ;aria Ason a1ainst ;aria del $osario and "er four ille1it c"ildren.
;aria Ason was t"e lawful wife of Faustino =ereda w"o upon "is deat" in *+I? left t"e lands involved in
t"is liti1ation. Faustino =ereda left no ot"er "eir eFcept "is widow ;aria Ason. %owever# plaintiff clai(s
t"at w"en Faustino =ereda died in *+I?# "is co((on-law wife ;aria del $osario too/ possession ille1all!
of said lands t"us deprivin1 "er of t"eir possession and en@o!(ent.
<efendants in t"eir answer set up as special defense t"at Ason and "er "usand# eFecuted a pulic
docu(ent w"ere! t"e! a1reed to separate as "usand and wife and# in consideration of w"ic" Ason was
1iven a parcel of land and in return s"e renounced "er ri1"t to in"erit an! ot"er propert! t"at (a! e left !
"er "usand upon "is deat". CF' found for Ason. <efendants appealed.
'SSA&:
*. 0B= Ason "as a ri1"t over t"e lands fro( t"e (o(ent of deat" of "er "usand.
2. 0B= t"e ille1it c"ildren of deceased and "is co((on-law wife "ave successional ri1"ts.
%&L<:
*. Yes. T"ere is no dispute t"at ;aria Ason# is t"e lawful wife of Faustino =ereda# for(er owner of t"e five
parcels of lands liti1ated in t"e present case.
T"ere is li/ewise no dispute t"at ;aria del $osario# was (erel! a co((on-law wife wit" w"o( s"e "ad
four ille1iti(ate c"ildren wit" t"e deceased. 't li/ewise appears t"at Faustino =ereda died in *+I? (uc"
prior to t"e effectivit! of t"e new Civil Code. 0it" t"is ac/1round# it is evident t"at w"en Faustino =ereda
died in *+I? t"e five parcels of land "e was sei6ed of at t"e ti(e passed fro( t"e (o(ent of "is deat" to
"is onl! "eir# "is widow ;aria Ason -Art 777 =CC..
As t"is Court aptl! said# 2The property beongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as
competey as if the ancestor had e!ecuted and deivered to them a deed for the same before his death".
Fro( t"at (o(ent# t"erefore# t"e ri1"ts of in"eritance of ;aria Ason over t"e lands in 4uestion eca(e
vested.
T"e clai( of t"e defendants t"at ;aria Ason "ad relin4uis"ed "er ri1"t over t"e lands in 4uestion ecause
s"e eFpressl! renounced to in"erit an! future propert! t"at "er "usand (a! ac4uire and leave upon "is
deat" in t"e deed of separation# cannot e entertained for t"e si(ple reason t"at future in"eritance cannot
e t"e su@ect of a contract nor can it e renounced.
2. =o. T"e provisions of t"e =CC s"all e 1iven retroactive effect even t"ou1" t"e event w"ic" 1ave rise to
t"e( (a! "ave occurred under t"e prior le1islation onl! if no vested ri1"ts are i(paired.
%ence# since t"e ri1"t of owners"ip of ;aria Ason over t"e lands in 4uestion eca(e vested in *+I? upon
t"e deat" of "er late "usand# t"e new ri1"t reco1ni6ed ! t"e new Civil Code in favor of t"e ille1iti(ate
c"ildren of t"e deceased cannot# t"erefore# e asserted to t"e i(pair(ent of t"e vested ri1"t of ;aria Ason
over t"e lands in dispute.
6/;=a v. 6/;=a, -2 SCRA 177 9 A&>
FACTS: Francisco de Bor@a filed a petition for proate of t"e will of "is wife w"o died# )osefa Tan1co# wit"
t"e CF' of $i6al.
%e was appointed eFecutor and ad(inistrator# until "e diedK "is son )ose eca(e t"e sole ad(inistrator.
Francisco "ad ta/en a 2nd wife Tasiana efore "e diedK s"e instituted testate proceedin1s wit" t"e CF' of
=ueva &ci@a upon "is deat" and was appointed special ad(inistatriF.
)ose and Tasiana entered upon a co(pro(ise a1ree(ent# ut Tasiana opposed t"e approval of t"e
co(pro(ise a1ree(ent.
S"e ar1ues t"at it was no valid# ecause t"e "eirs cannot enter into suc" /ind of a1ree(ent wit"out first
proatin1 t"e will of Francisco# and at t"e ti(e t"e a1ree(ent was (ade# t"e will was still ein1 proated
wit" t"e CF' of =ueva &ci@a.
'SSA&: 0B= t"e co(pro(ise a1ree(ent is valid# even if t"e will of Francisco "as not !et een proated.
%&L<: Y&S# t"e co(pro(ise a1ree(ent is valid.
T"e a1ree(ent stipulated t"at Tasiana will receive 5>99#999 as full pa!(ent for "er "ereditar! s"are in t"e
estate of Francisco and )osefa.
T"ere was "ere no atte(pt to settle or distriute t"e estate of Francisco de Bor@a a(on1 t"e "eirs t"ereto
efore t"e proate of "is will. T"e clear o@ect of t"e contract was (erel! t"e conve!ance ! Tasiana
:n1sin1co of an! and all "er individual s"are and interest# actual or eventual# in t"e estate of Francisco de
Bor@a and )osefa Tan1co. T"ere is no stipulation as to an! ot"er clai(ant# creditor or le1atee.
And as a "ereditar! s"are in a decedent7s estate is trans(itted or vested i((ediatel! fro( t"e (o(ent of
t"e deat" of suc" causante or predecessor in interest -Civil Code of t"e 5"ilippines# Art. 777.t"ere is no
le1al ar to a successor -wit" re4uisite contractin1 capacit!. disposin1 of "er or "is "ereditar! s"are
i((ediatel! after suc" deat"# even if t"e actual eFtent of suc" s"are is not deter(ined until t"e suse4uent
li4uidation of t"e estate.
6/&$##a v. 6a;e&a, 71 SCRA -91 9 A&>#$/&>'/
FACTS: :n ;arc" 3*# *+7? Fortunata Barcena# (ot"er of (inors $osalio Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla
and wife of 5onciano Bonilla# instituted a civil action in t"e CF' of Ara# to 4uiet title over certain parcels of
land located in Ara.
T"e defendants filed a (otion to dis(iss t"e co(plaint on t"e 1round t"at Fortunata Barcena is dead and#
t"erefore# "as no le1al capacit! to sue. 'n t"e "earin1 for t"e (otion to dis(iss# counsel for t"e plaintiff
confir(ed t"e deat" of Fortunata Barcena# and as/ed for sustitution ! "er (inor c"ildren and "er
"usandK ut t"e court after t"e "earin1 i((ediatel! dis(issed t"e case on t"e 1round t"at a dead person
cannot e a real part! in interest and "as no le1al personalit! to sue.
'SSA&: 0B= t"e CF' erred in dis(issin1 t"e co(plaint.
%&L<: 0"ile it is true t"at a person w"o is dead cannot sue in court# !et "e can e sustituted ! "is "eirs
in pursuin1 t"e case up to its co(pletion.
T"e records of t"is case s"ow t"at t"e deat" of Fortunata Barcena too/ place on )ul! +# *+7? w"ile t"e
co(plaint was filed on ;arc" 3*# *+7?. T"is (eans t"at w"en t"e co(plaint was filed on ;arc" 3*# *+7?#
Fortunata Barcena was still alive# and t"erefore# t"e court "ad ac4uired @urisdiction over "er person.
Ander Section *,# $ule 3 of t"e $ules of Court 2whenever a party to a pending case dies ) it sha be the
duty of his attorney to inform the court prompty of such death ) and to give the name and residence of his
e!ecutor, administrator, guardian or other ega representatives." T"is dut! was co(plied wit" ! t"e
counsel for t"e deceased plaintiff w"en "e (anifested efore t"e respondent Court t"at Fortunata Barcena
died on )ul! +# *+7? and as/ed for t"e proper sustitution of parties in t"e case.
T"e respondent Court# "owever# instead of allowin1 t"e sustitution# dis(issed t"e co(plaint on t"e
1round t"at a dead person "as no le1al personalit! to sue.
T"is is a 1rave error. Article 777 of t"e Civil Code provides 2t"at t"e ri1"ts to t"e succession are trans(itted
fro( t"e (o(ent of t"e deat" of t"e decedent.3
Fro( t"e (o(ent of t"e deat" of t"e decedent# t"e "eirs eco(e t"e asolute owners of "is propert!#
su@ect to t"e ri1"ts and oli1ations of t"e decedent# and t"e! cannot e deprived of t"eir ri1"ts t"ereto
eFcept ! t"e (et"ods provided for ! law. T"e (o(ent of deat" is t"e deter(inin1 factor w"en t"e "eirs
ac4uire a definite ri1"t to t"e in"eritance w"et"er suc" ri1"t e pure or contin1ent. T"e ri1"t of t"e "eirs to
t"e propert! of t"e deceased vests in t"e( even efore @udicial declaration of t"eir ein1 "eirs in t"e
testate or intestate proceedin1s.
0"en Fortunata Barcena# t"erefore# died# "er clai( or ri1"t to t"e parcels of land in liti1ation in Civil Case
=o. >?,# was not eFtin1uis"ed ! "er deat" ut was trans(itted to "er "eirs upon "er deat". %er "eirs
"ave t"us ac4uired interest in t"e properties in liti1ation and eca(e parties in interest in t"e case. T"ere
is# t"erefore# no reason for t"e respondent Court not to allow t"eir sustitution as parties in interest for t"e
deceased plaintiff.
T"e clai( of t"e deceased plaintiff w"ic" is an action to 4uiet title over t"e parcels of land in liti1ation
affects pri(aril! and principall! propert! and propert! ri1"ts and t"erefore is one t"at survives even after
"er deat".
't is# t"erefore# t"e dut! of t"e respondent Court to order t"e le1al representative of t"e deceased plaintiff to
appear and to e sustituted for "er. But w"at t"e respondent Court did# upon ein1 infor(ed ! t"e
counsel for t"e deceased plaintiff t"at t"e latter was dead# was to dis(iss t"e co(plaint.
T"is s"ould not "ave een done for under Section *7# $ule 3 of t"e $ules of Court# it is even t"e dut! of
t"e court# if t"e le1al representative fails to appear# to order t"e opposin1 part! to procure t"e appoint(ent
of a le1al representative of t"e deceased.
An4uestional!# t"e respondent Court "as 1ravel! aused its discretion in not co(pl!in1 wit" t"e clear
provision of t"e $ules of Court in dis(issin1 t"e co(plaint of t"e plaintiff in Civil Case =o. >?, and refusin1
t"e sustitution of parties in t"e case.
HEIRS OF I+"ACIO CO"TI A"D ROSARIO C!ARIO V. CO!RT OF A??EALS, ET AL.
+R "O. 11,-2-, Dee%5e; 01, 199,
FACTS: '1nacio Conti# (arried to $osario Cuario# and Lourdes Sa(pa!o were co-owners of t"e ?3+-
s4uare (eter lot wit" i(prove(ents# covered ! TCT =o. T*?37I. :n ;arc" *+>,# Sa(pa!o died
intestate. :n April *+>7# t"e private respondents# all clai(in1 to e collateral relatives of t"e deceased
Sa(pa!o# filed an action for partition and da(a1es efore t"e $e1ional Trial Court of Lucena. Sps.
Conti refused partition ecause of failure ! t"e respondents to produce docu(ents t"at will prove t"at t"e!
were t"e ri1"tful "eirs of t"e deceased. :n Au1ust 39# *+>7# Conti died and was sustituted ! "is c"ildren
as part! defendant.
At t"e trial# private respondents presented evidence to prove t"at t"e! were t"e collateral "eirs of t"e
deceased Lourdes Sa(pa!o and t"erefore entitled to "er ri1"ts as co-owner of t"e su@ect lot. :n t"e ot"er
"and# petitioner $osario alle1ed t"at t"e su@ect propert! was co-owned in e4ual s"ares ! "er "usand
'1nacio Conti and Lourdes Sa(pa!o and t"at "er fa(il! "ad een sta!in1 in t"e propert! in 4uestion since
*+37. S"e also testified t"at "er late "usand paid for t"e real estate taFes and spent for t"e necessar!
repairs and i(prove(ents t"ereon ecause t"ere "ad een an a1ree(ent t"at Lourdes would leave "er
s"are of propert! to t"e(.
Since no will# eit"er testa(entar! or "olo1rap"ic# was presented ! t"e petitioners# t"e trial court declared
t"at private respondents were t"e ri1"tful "eirs of Lourdes Sa(pa!o and ordered ot" parties to su(it a
pro@ect partition of t"e residential "ouse and lot for confir(ation ! t"e court. 5etitioners elevated t"e case
to t"e Court of Appeals contendin1 t"at t"e trial court erred in findin1 t"e private respondents were t"e
"eirs of Sa(pa!o and t"at t"e! were entitled to t"e partition of t"e lot and i(prove(ents in 4uestion.
T"e Court of Appeals affir(ed t"e decision of t"e $TC. 5etitioners filed a (otion for reconsideration ut it
was denied.
'SSA&S:
*. 0"et"er or not t"e co(plaint for partition to clai( a supposed s"are of t"e deceased co-owner s"ould
not prosper wit"out prior settle(ent of t"e latterNs estate and co(pliance wit" all le1al re4uire(ents#
especiall! pulicationK and
2. 0"et"er or not private respondents were ale to prove ! co(petent evidence t"eir relations"ip wit" t"e
deceased.
$AL'=C:
*. T"e Supre(e Court ruled t"at a prior settle(ent of t"e estate is not essential efore t"e "eirs can
co((ence an! action pertainin1 to t"e deceased. As it was ruled in Ouison v. Salud:
! ! ! As we by the *ivi *ode as by the *ode of *ivi +rocedure, the tite to the property owned by a
person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is, under the present aw, sub,ect
to the caims of administration and the property may be ta-en from the heirs for the purpose of paying
debts and e!penses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the tite, upon the death of the
intestate, from himsef to his heirs. .ithout some showing that a ,udicia administrator had been appointed
in proceedings to sette the estate of *aro /uison, the right of the paintiffs to maintain this action is
estabished.
't was furt"er elucidated:
Confor(al! wit" t"e fore1oin1 and ta/en in con@unction wit" Art. 777 and I+I of t"e Civil Code# fro( t"e
deat" of Lourdes Sa(pa!o# "er ri1"ts as a co-owner# incidental to w"ic" is t"e ri1"t to as/ for partition at
an! ti(e or to ter(inate t"e co-owners"ip# were trans(itted to "er ri1"tful "eirs. 'n so de(andin1 partition#
private respondents (erel! eFercised t"e ri1"t ori1inall! pertainin1 to t"e decedent# t"eir predecessor-in-
interest. 5etitioners7 t"eor! as to t"e re4uire(ent of pulication would "ave een correct "ad t"e action
een for t"e partition of t"e estate of Lourdes Sa(pa!o# or if we were dealin1 wit" eFtra@udicial settle(ent
! a1ree(ent etween "eirs and t"e su((ar! settle(ent of estates of s(all value. But w"at private
respondents are pursuin1 is t"e (ere se1re1ation of Lourdes7 one-"alf s"are w"ic" t"e! in"erited fro( "er
t"rou1" intestate succession. T"is is a si(ple case of ordinar! partition etween co-owners. T"e applicale
law in point is Sec. * of $ule ,+ of t"e $ules of Court.
Sec. 0. *ompaint in an action for partition of rea estate. 1 A person having the right to compe the partition
of rea estate may do so as in this rue prescribed, setting forth in his compaint the nature and e!tent of his
tite and an adequate description of the rea estate of which partition is demanded and ,oining as
defendants a the other persons interested in the property.
A cursor! readin1 of t"e aforecited rule s"ows t"at pulication is not re4uired as erroneousl! (aintained !
petitioners.
2. T"e Supre(e Court ruled in affir(ative. 't was "eld t"at:
Alto1et"er# t"e docu(entar! and testi(onial evidence su(itted are co(petent and ade4uate proofs t"at
private respondents are collateral "eirs of Lourdes Sa(pa!o. 5rivate respondents assert t"at t"e! are co-
owners of one-"alf -*B2. pro-indiviso s"are of t"e su@ect propert! ! wa! of le1al or intestate succession.
Succession is a (ode of ac4uisition ! virtue of w"ic" t"e propert!# ri1"ts and oli1ations to t"e eFtent of
t"e value of t"e in"eritance of a person are trans(itted t"rou1" "is deat" to anot"er or ot"ers eit"er ! "is
will or ! operation of law. Le1al or intestate succession ta/es place if a person dies wit"out a will# or wit" a
void will# or one w"ic" "as suse4uentl! lost its validit!. 'f t"ere are no descendants# ascendants#
ille1iti(ate c"ildren# or a survivin1 spouse# t"e collateral relatives s"all succeed to t"e entire estate of t"e
decedent. 't was estalis"ed durin1 t"e trial t"at Lourdes died intestate and wit"out issue. 5rivate
respondents as sister# nep"ews and nieces now clai( to e t"e collateral relatives of Lourdes.
Ander Art. *72 of t"e Fa(il! Code# t"e filiation of le1iti(ate c"ildren s"all e proved ! an! ot"er (eans
allowed ! t"e $ules of Court and special laws# in t"e asence of a record of irt" or a parents ad(ission
of suc" le1iti(ate filiation in a pulic or private docu(ent dul! si1ned ! t"e parent. Suc" ot"er proof of
ones filiation (a! e a aptis(al certificate# a @udicial ad(ission# a fa(il! Bile in w"ic" "is na(e "as een
entered# co((on reputation respectin1 "is pedi1ree# ad(ission ! silence# t"e testi(onies of witnesses
and ot"er /inds of proof ad(issile under $ule *39 of t"e $ules of Court. B! analo1!# t"is (et"od of
provin1 filiation (a! also e utili6ed in t"e instant case.
5ulic docu(ents are t"e written official acts# or records of t"e official acts of t"e soverei1n aut"orit!#
official odies and triunals# and pulic officers# w"et"er of t"e 5"ilippines# or of a forei1n countr!. T"e
aptis(al certificates presented in evidence ! private respondents are pulic docu(ents. 5aris" priests
continue to e t"e le1al custodians of t"e paris" records and are aut"ori6ed to issue true copies# in t"e
for( of certificates# of t"e entries contained t"erein.
5etitioners7 o@ection to t"e p"otocop! of t"e certificate of irt" of ;anuel Sa(pa!o was properl! discarded
! t"e court a 4uo and respondent Court of Appeals. Accordin1 to Sec. 3# par. -*.# $ule *39# of t"e $ules of
Court# w"en t"e su@ect of in4uir! is t"e contents of a docu(ent# no evidence s"all e ad(issile ot"er
t"an t"e ori1inal docu(ent itself eFcept w"en t"e ori1inal "as een lost or destro!ed or cannot e
produced in court# wit"out ad fait" on t"e part of t"e offeror. T"e loss or destruction of t"e ori1inal
certificate of irt" of ;anuel ). Sa(pa!o was dul! estalis"ed ! t"e certification issued ! t"e :ffice of
t"e Local Civil $e1istrar of Lucena Cit! to t"e effect t"at its office was co(pletel! destro!ed ! fire on 27
=ove(er *+7I and 39 Au1ust *+>3# respectivel!# and as a conse4uence t"ereof# all civil re1istration
records were totall! urned.
P
$a!(undo v. 8da. <e Suare6# ?72 SC$A 3>I
P
%eirs of =icolas v. ;etropolitan Ban/# ?32 SC$A ?>
P
V$':> v. CA, 1,. SCRA 711 9 4E" S!CCESSIO" REVIE@ER
FACTS: $o(arico 8itu1 and =enita Alonte were co-ad(inistrators of <olores 8itu17s -deceased. estate.
$owena Corona was t"e eFecutriF. $o(arico# t"e deceased7s "usand# filed a (otion wit" t"e proate
court as/in1 for aut"orit! to sell certain s"ares of stoc/ and real properties elon1in1 to t"e estate to cover
alle1ed advances to t"e estate# w"ic" "e clai(ed as personal funds. T"e advances were used to pa!
estate taFes.
Corona opposed t"e (otion on 1round t"at t"e advances ca(e fro( a savin1s account w"ic" for(ed part
of t"e con@u1al partners"ip properties and is part of t"e estate. T"us# t"ere was no 1round for
rei(urse(ent. $o(arico clai(s t"at t"e funds are "is eFclusive propert!# "avin1 een ac4uired t"rou1" a
survivors"ip a1ree(ent eFecuted wit" "is late wife and t"e an/.
T"e a1ree(ent stated t"at after t"e deat" of eit"er one of t"e spouses# t"e savin1s account s"all elon1 to
and e t"e sole propert! of t"e survivor# and s"all e pa!ale to and collectile or wit"drawale ! suc"
survivor.
T"e lower court up"eld t"e validit! of t"e a1ree(ent and 1ranted t"e (otion to sell. CA reversed statin1
t"at t"e survivors"ip a1ree(ent constitutes a conve!ance (ortis causa w"ic" did not co(pl! wit" t"e
for(alities of a valid will. Assu(in1 t"at it was a donation inter vivos# it is a pro"iited donation -donation
etween spouses..
'SSA&: 0B= t"e survivors"ip a1ree(ent was valid.
%&L<: Y&S. T"e conve!ance is not (ortis causa# w"ic" s"ould e e(odied in a will. A will is a personal#
sole(n# revocale and free act ! w"ic" a capacitated person disposes of "is propert! and ri1"ts and
declares or co(plies wit" duties to ta/e effect after "is deat". T"e e4uest or devise (ust pertain to t"e
testator.
'n t"is case# t"e savin1s account involved was in t"e nature of con@u1al funds. Since it was not s"own t"at
t"e funds elon1ed eFclusivel! to one part!# it is presu(ed to e con@u1al.
't is also not a donation inter vivos ecause it was to ta/e effect after t"e deat" of one part!. 't is also not a
donation etween spouses ecause it involved no conve!ance of a spouse7s own properties to t"e ot"er.
't was an error to include t"e savin1s account in t"e inventor! of t"e deceased7s assets ecause it is t"e
separate propert! of $o(arico.
T"us# $o(arico "ad t"e ri1"t to clai( rei(urse(ent.
A will is a personal# sole(n# revocale and free act ! w"ic" a capacitated person disposes of "is propert!
and ri1"ts and declares or co(plies wit" duties to ta/e effect after "is deat".
Survivors"ip a1ree(ents are per(itted ! t"e =CC. %owever# its operation or effect (ust not e violative
of t"e law -i.e. used as a cloa/ to "ide an inofficious donation or to transfer propert! in fraud of creditors or
to defeat t"e le1iti(e of a forced "eir..