Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Art.

886 CALALANG vs CALALANG It is only upon the death of Pedro Calalang on December 27, 1989 that
his heirs acquired their respective inheritances, entitling them to their
Facts: pro indiviso shares to his whole estate. At the time of the sale of the
Complaint for annulment of sale and reconveyance of property. disputed property, the rights to the succession were not yet
Respondents assertion: bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang.
o Ownership over a certain parcel of land against petitioners. o And absent clear and convincing evidence that the sale was
o The disputed lot allegedly belonged to respondents mother, fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in
and they acquired via succession. effect an inofficious donation inter vivos), the respondents have
Respondents father Pedro Calalang contracted 2 marriages during his no right to question the sale of the disputed property on the
lifetime. ground that their father deprived them of their respective
o 1st marriage with respondents mother. Land allegedly acquired shares. Well to remember, fraud must be established by clear
during their marriage. Despite enjoying continuous possession, and convincing evidence.
their parents failed to register the same. And then the mother o Mere preponderance of evidence is not even adequate to
died. prove fraud.
o 2nd marriage with petitioners mother. Alleged that the land only o The Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance
registered at this time. Pedro committed fraud by claiming sole of Property must therefore be dismissed.
and exclusive ownership (concealing the fact that he had 3
children in his first marriage.) Art. 887 BARTOLOME vs SSS
Result: Respondents deprived of pro-indiviso share. Facts:
Issue: W/N Pedro Calalang was the exclusive owner of the disputed property John Colcol dies on board a vessel. At the time of his death, he was
prior to its transfer to his daughter Nora B. Calalang Parulan. childless and unmarried.
Held: YES. Presumption that the sale is genuine, the burden is on the Petitioners biological mother, and allegedly sole beneficiary, filed a
opponents of the sale to prove that it was relatively simulated and that claim with SSS.
it was really a donation. SSS denied the claim on the ground that she can no longer be
No concrete proof that property belonged to maternal grandmother. considered Johns primary beneficiary because John was adopted by
Patent and title solely issued in Pedros name. their great grandfather.
Thus, having possessed the subject land in the manner and for the Issue: Are the biological parents of the covered, but legally adopted,
period required by law after the dissolution of the first marriage and employee considered secondary beneficiaries and, thus, entitled, in
before the second marriage, the subject property ipso jure became appropriate cases, to receive the benefits under ECP?
private property and formed part of Pedro Calalangs exclusive Held: YES.
property. It was therefore excluded from the conjugal partnership of The biological parents retain their rights of succession to the estate of
gains of the second marriage. their child who was the subject of adoption. While the benefits arising
o As the sole and exclusive owner, Pedro Calalang had the from the death of an SSS covered employee do not form part of the
right to convey his property in favor of Nora B. Calalang- estate of the adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or
Parulan by executing a Deed of Sale on February 17, 1984. intestate succession at least reveals the policy on the rights of the
The CA therefore erred in ruling that Pedro Calalang deprived biological parents and those by adoption vis-a-vis the right to
his heirs of their respective shares over the disputed property receive benefits from the adopted.
when he alienated the same. In the same way that certain rights still attach by virtue of the blood
relation, so too should certain obligations, which, We rule, include
the exercise of parental authority, in the event of the untimely Issue: W/N petitioner can claim ownership over the land.
passing of their minor offsprings adoptive parent. Held: NO. The CA correctly found that the petitioners claim of ownership
We cannot leave undetermined the fate of a minor child whose second could not be legally and factually sustained.
chance at a better life under the care of the adoptive parents was The petitioners adduced no competent evidence to establish that
snatched from him by deaths cruel grasp. Otherwise, the adopted Victor Miralles, the transferor of the land to Cresenciana Inog (the
childs quality of life might have been better off not being adopted at all if petitioners immediate predecessor in interest) had any legal right
he would only find himself orphaned in the end. Thus, We hold that in the first place to transfer ownership. He was not himself an heir of
Cornelios death at the time of Johns minority resulted in the Alejandra, being only her son-in-law (as the husband of Ciriaca, one of
restoration of petitioners parental authority over the adopted Alejandras two daughters). Thus, the statement in the deed of absolute
child. sale entered into between Victor Miralles and Cresenciana Inog, to the
effect that the parcel of land was inherited from the deceased Alejandra
Art. 887 TUMBOKAN vs LEGASPI Sespene by Victor Miralles being the sole heir of the said Alejandra
Facts: Sespene, having no other brothers or sisters, was outrightly false.
Under contention herein are the ownership and possession of that A decedents compulsory heir in whose favor the law reserves a
parcel of land in Aklan. part of the decedents estate are exclusively to the persons
The land was originally owned by the late Alejandra Sespene enumerated in Art. 887. Only two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon
(Alejandra), who had had two marriages. her death, namely: respondent Apolonia, her daughter, and Crisanto
o The first marriage was to Gaudencio Franco, by whom she Miralles, her grandson. The latter succeeded Alejandra by right of
bore Ciriaca Franco, whose husband was Victor Miralles. representation because his mother, Ciriaca, had predeceased
o The second marriage was to Jose Garcia, by whom she bore Alejandra. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of
respondent Apolonia Garcia (Apolonia), who married Primo which the representative is raised to the place and thedegree of the
Legaspi. person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have
Alejandra died without a will in 1935, and was survived by Apolonia and if she were living or if she could have inherited. Herein, the
representative (Crisanto Miralles) was called to the succession by
Crisanto Miralles, the son of Ciriaca (who had predeceased Alejandra in
law and not by the person represented (Ciriaca); he thus
1924) and Victor Miralles; hence, Crisanto Miralles was Alejandras
succeeded Alejandra, not Ciriaca.
grandson.
The ownership and possession of the parcel of land became
controversial after Spouses Nicanor Tumbokon and Rosario Sespene
(petitioners) asserted their right in it by virtue edly acquired it by
purchase from Victor Miralles.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi