Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
154391-92
obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to
another or others by his will or by operation of law.25
Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit
if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of
advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 26 and Section
2, Rule 8727 of the Rules of Court.
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the
executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;30 and (2) when the administrator is
alleged to have participated in the act complained of31 and he is made a party defendant.32 Evidently,
the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling
when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed administrator
but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery of property of
the estate during the pendency of administration proceedings has three exceptions, the third being
when there is no appointed administrator such as in this case.
G.R. No. 137582
RTC ordered Arles Castaares (Arles), now deceased and represented by his heirs, to pay
damages for running over and causing injuries to four-year old Wenceslao Mahilum, Jr. The fouryear old victim was left in the custody of petitioner Jose I. Medina, who also represented the victims
father, Wenceslao Mahilum, Sr. in the aforesaid case.
When the heirs of Arles failed to settle their account with petitioner, Parcel-I under Tax Declaration
No. 11076 was sold at a public auction. Only petitioner participated in the bidding, thus the subject lot
was awarded to him and a Certificate of Sale was issued on 24 December 1987.
Andres Castaares (Andres), brother of Arles and representing the heirs of the late Abundio
Castaares (Abundio), filed an Opposition claiming that after the death of his father Abundio, the tax
declaration of the property was cancelled and in its place, a tax declaration was issued in his favor;
that during the lifetime of his father and up to his death, Andres had been in peaceful, open,
notorious, public and adverse possession of the lot; that sometime in 1988, petitioner, through
stealth and strategy, encroached and occupied practically the entirety of the property in question by
encircling it with barbed wires, destroying in the process scores of fruit-bearing coconut trees; and
that there is a pending case, Civil Case No. 4051, for recovery of ownership and possession of real
estate.11
MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS. ANGELA CABALU and
RODOLFO TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS, Petitioners,
vs.
SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAXAMANA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tarlac City,
Branch II,Respondents.
Faustina died
left a holographic will, assigning and distributing her property to her nephews and nieces. will,
however, was not probated.
One of the heirs was the father of Domingo Laxamana (Domingo), Benjamin Laxamana, who died in
1960. On March 5, 1975, Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land
disposing of his 9,000 square meter share of the land to Laureano Cabalu. 3
On August 1, 1994, to give effect to the holographic will, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina
executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition. The said deed imparted 9,000 square
meters of the land covered by TCT No. 16776 to Domingo.
On August 4, 1996, Domingo passed away.
On October 8, 1996, two months after his death, Domingo purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale of TCT No. 281353 in favor of respondent Renato Tabu (Tabu).
Both parties question the validity of the sale of the other.
Won sale valid?
Ruling
No & no
Sale 1 to Cabalu:
the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that time, Domingo was not yet the owner of the
property. There is no dispute that the original and registered owner of the subject property covered
by TCT No. 16776, from which the subject 9,000 square meter lot came from, was Faustina, who
during her lifetime had executed a will, dated July 27, 1939. In the said will, the name of Benjamin,
father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs. Thus, and as correctly found by the RTC, even if
Benjamin died sometime in 1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the whole or
even a portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only
died sometime in 1980.
Besides, under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law."
In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustinas will was not yet probated; the object of
the contract, the 9,000 square meter property, still formed part of the inheritance of his father from
the estate of Faustina; and Domingo had a mere inchoate hereditary right therein.
1wphi1
Domingo became the owner of the said property only on August 1, 1994, the time of execution of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina, when the 9,000 square
meter lot was adjudicated to him.
Sale 2 to Tabu
Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property
executed in favor of Renato Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document itself, the Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that it was executed on August 4, 1996 more
than two months after the death of Domingo. Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time
of the consummation of the contract.