ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 92462 June 2, 1997 - SANTIAGO GOKING v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97896 June 2, 1997 - TEKNIKA SKILLS & TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116748 June 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARJORIE CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 121434 June 2, 1997 - ELENA F. UICHICO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76969 June 9, 1997 - INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89369 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BERGONIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107259 June 9, 1997 - RAYMUNDO M. DAPITON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108475 June 9, 1997 - GAMALIEL DINIO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115944 June 9, 1997 - ELVIRA C. GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118536 June 9, 1997 - LAWIN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO O. RABOSA

  • G.R. No. 123905 June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124280 June 9, 1997 - FLORA S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 730 June 10, 1997 - NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE SUPERVISED

  • G.R. No. 96999 June 10, 1997 - CARLOS O. YSMAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106812 June 10, 1997 - TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107302, 107306 & 108559-60 June 10, 1997 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120074 June 10, 1997 - LEAH P. ADORIO v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 120594 June 10, 1997 - ALFONSO TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123639 June 10, 1997 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113713 June 11, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116940 June 11, 1997 - PHIL-AM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117561 June 11, 1997 - JULIO MARCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118041 June 11, 1997 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118921-22 June 11, 1997 - ERNESTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120956 June 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MORENO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1248 June 13, 1997 - MARIEL ECUBE-BADEL v. DAVID DE LA PEÑA BADEL

  • G.R. Nos. 100513 & 111559 June 13, 1997 - SEVERINO ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102467 June 13, 1997 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110817-22 June 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN

  • G.R. No. 111088 June 13, 1997 - C & M TIMBER CORP. v. ANGEL C. ALCALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113103 & 116000 June 13, 1997 - NAPOCOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114764 June 13, 1997 - WILFREDO T. PADILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4244 June 17, 1997 - BUHANGIN RESIDENTS & EMPLOYEES ASSN., ETC. v. CORAZON NUÑEZ-MALANYAON

  • G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLI SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109311 June 17, 1997 - ZENAIDA ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110974-81 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 111357 June 17, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113799 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BAYDO

  • G.R. No. 119337 June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120030 June 17, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120553 June 17, 1997 - PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120802 June 17, 1997 - JOSE T. CAPILI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121787 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO GREFALDIA

  • G.R. No. 121964 June 17, 1997 - ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122932 June 17, 1997 - JOY BROTHERS, INC. v. NWPC

  • Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997 - PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1221 June 19, 1997 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. PABLO C. GERNALE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1240 June 19, 1997 - WILFREDO C. BANOGON v. FELIPE T. ARIAS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1242 June 19, 1997 - ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. ARISTON G. TAYAG

  • G.R. Nos. 93100 & 97855 June 19, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. v. SECRETARY OF DAR

  • G.R. No. 102612 June 19, 1997 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102723-24 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CABALLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 - PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106583 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 108107 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSAN PANTALEON

  • G.R. No. 108616 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO PATAWARAN

  • G.R. No. 109224 June 19, 1997 - MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110226 June 19, 1997 - ALBERTO S. SILVA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112687 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER B. EUBRA

  • G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114812 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL Z. SAHAGUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115968 June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116394 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BONOLA

  • G.R. No. 116918 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONFILO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 117005 June 19, 1997 - CARLITO D. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997 - RODOLFO MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118335-36 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELLER ALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119071 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ANTIPONA

  • G.R. No. 121429 June 19, 1997 - MARCIA TUMBIGA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122368 June 19, 1997 - BERNARDO NAZAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122389 June 19, 1997 - MIGUEL SINGSON v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122806 June 19, 1997 - TIMES BROADCASTING NETWORK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122866 June 19, 1997 - MELVA NATH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123073 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB

  • G.R. No. 123673 June 19, 1997 - PEDRO C. CALUCAG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123708 June 19, 1997 - CSC, ET AL. v. RAFAEL M. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 ccc zz

    MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125008 June 19, 1997 - COMMODITIES STORAGE & ICE PLANT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125221 June 19, 1997 - REYNALDO M. LOZANO v. ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125347 June 19, 1997 - EMILIANO RILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125798 June 19, 1997 - HADJI HAMID LUMNA PATORAY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125955 June 19, 1997 - WILMER GREGO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126361 June 19, 1997 - VICTOR R. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127311 June 19, 1997 - CONRADO LINDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127623 June 19, 1997 - DOMINADOR VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116216 June 20, 1997 - NATALIA S. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116695 June 20, 1997 - VICTORIA G. GACHON, ET AL. v. NORBERTO C. DEVERA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118435 June 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO SERZO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 119178 June 20, 1997 - LINA LIM LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119745 June 20, 1997 - POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122079 June 27, 1997 - ANTONIO CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100935 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ZABALLERO

  • G.R. No. 102316 June 30, 1997 - VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112260 June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115689 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO ARTIAGA

  • G.R. No. 121793 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADONIS BALAD

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 112260   June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 112260. June 30, 1997.]

    JOVITA YAP ANCOG and GREGORIO YAP, JR., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARIO DIEZ and CARIDAD YAP, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-19650, affirming the dismissal by the Regional Trial Court 2 of Bohol of an action for partition of a parcel of land which petitioners had filed.

    The land, with improvements thereon, was formerly the conjugal property of the spouses Gregorio Yap and Rosario Diez. In 1946, Gregorio Yap died, leaving his wife, private respondent Rosario Diez, and children, petitioners Jovita Yap Ancog and Gregorio Yap, Jr., and private respondent Caridad Yap as his heirs.

    In 1954 and again 1958, Rosario Diez obtained loans from the Bank of Calape, secured by a mortgage on the disputed land, which was annotated on its Original Certificate of Title No. 622. When Rosario Diez applied again for a loan to the bank, offering the land in question as security, the bank’s lawyer, Atty. Narciso de la Serna, suggested that she submit an extrajudicial settlement covering the disputed land as a means of facilitating the approval of her application. The suggestion was accepted and on April 4, 1961, Atty. de la Serna prepared an extrajudicial settlement, which the heirs, with the exception of petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr., then only 15 years old, signed. The document was notarized by Atty. de la Serna on April 12, 1961. As a result, OCT No. 622 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3447 (T-2411) was issued on April 13, 1961. On April 14, 1961, upon the execution of a real estate mortgage on the land, the loan was approved by the bank.

    Rosario Diez exercised rights of ownership over the land. In 1985, she brought an ejectment suit against petitioner Jovita Yap Ancog’s husband and son to evict them from the ground floor of the house built on the land for failure to pay rent. Shortly thereafter, petitioner Jovita Ancog learned that private respondent Rosario Diez had offered the land for sale.

    Petitioner Ancog immediately informed her younger brother, petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr., who was living in Davao, of their mother’s plan to sell the land. On June 6, 1985, they filed this action for partition in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 3094. As private respondent Caridad Yap was unwilling to join in the action against their mother, Caridad was impleaded as a defendant.

    Petitioners alleged that the extrajudicial instrument was simulated and therefore void. They claimed that in signing the instrument they did not really intend to convey their interests in the property to their mother, but only to enable her to obtain a loan on the security of the land to cover expenses for Caridad’s school fees and for household repairs.

    At the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. That the parcel of land in question originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of spouses Gregorio Yap and Rosario Diez Yap;

    2. That Gregorio Yap, Jr. is the legitimate child of spouses Gregorio Yap and Rosario Diez Yap;

    3. That Gregorio Yap is not a party in the execution of the Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate dated April 4, 1961;

    4. That all the encumbrances found in TCT No. (3447) T-2411 which is now marked as Exh. C for the plaintiffs and Exh. 2 for the defendants as Entry No. 6719, 6720, 11561 and 11562 are admitted by the plaintiffs subject to the condition that the Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate dated April 4, 1961, was made by the parties that the same was only for the purpose of securing a loan with the Philippine National Bank. 3

    The trial court rendered judgment dismissing petitioners’ action. It dismissed petitioners’ claim that the extrajudicial settlement was simulated and held it was voluntarily signed by the parties. Observing that even without the need of having title in her name Rosario Diez was able to obtain a loan using the land in question as collateral, the court held that the extrajudicial settlement could not have been simulated for the purpose of enabling her to obtain another loan. Petitioners failed to overcome the presumptive validity of the extrajudicial settlement as a public instrument.

    The court instead found that petitioner Ancog had waived her right to the land, as shown by the fact that on February 28, 1975, 4 petitioner’s husband, Ildefonso Ancog, leased the property from private respondent Diez. Furthermore, when the spouses Ancog applied for a loan to the Development Bank of the Philippines using the land in question as collateral, they accepted an appointment from Rosario Diez as the latter’s attorney-in-fact. 5

    The court also found that the action for partition had already prescribed. The registration of the land under private respondent Rosario Diez’s name amounted to a repudiation of the co-ownership. Therefore, petitioners had ten (10) years from April 13, 1961 within which to bring an action to recover their share in the property. While it is true that petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr. was a minor at the time the extrajudicial settlement was executed, his claim, according to the court, was barred by laches.

    On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the extrajudicial settlement and sustained the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The appellate court emphasized that the extrajudicial settlement could not have been simulated in order to obtain a loan, as the new loan was merely "in addition to" a previous one which private respondent Diez had been able to obtain even without an extrajudicial settlement. Neither did petitioners adduce evidence to prove that an extrajudicial settlement was indeed required in order to obtain the additional loan. The appellate court held that considering petitioner Jovita Yap Ancog’s educational attainment (Master of Arts and Bachelor of Laws), it was improbable that she would sign the settlement if she did not mean it to be such. Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I. IN SUSTAINING THE TRIAL COURT RULING THAT THE CONTESTED EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT (EXHIBIT "B") IS NOT A SIMULATED ONE;

    II. IN BLOATING THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF PETITIONER JOVITA YAP ANCOG AND USING THE SAME AS ARGUMENT AGAINST HER CLAIM THAT SAID EXHIBIT "B" WAS INDEED A SIMULATED DOCUMENT;

    III. IN SUSTAINING THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING THAT PETITIONERS’ ACTION FOR PARTITION HAS PRESCRIBED;

    IV. IN RULING THAT PETITIONER GREGORIO YAP, JR., ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THE LITIGATED PROPERTY, HAD LOST HIS RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY THROUGH PRESCRIPTION OR LACHES.

    We hold that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly acted in upholding the extrajudicial settlement but erred in ruling that petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr. was barred by laches from recovering his share in the property in question.

    To begin with, it is settled that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the parties and are not reviewable by this Court when they are an affirmation of the findings of the trial court. 6 In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found no evidence to show that the extrajudicial settlement was required to enable private respondent Rosario Diez to obtain a loan from the Bank of Calape. Petitioners merely claimed that the extrajudicial settlement was demanded by the bank.

    To the contrary, that the heirs (Jovita Yap Ancog and Caridad Yap) meant the extrajudicial settlement to be fully effective is shown by the fact that Rosario Diez performed acts of dominion over the entire land, beginning with its registration, without any objection from them. Instead, petitioner Jovita Ancog agreed to lease the land from her mother, private respondent Rosario Diez, and accepted from her a special power of attorney to use the land in question as collateral for a loan she was applying from the DBP. Indeed, it was private respondent Diez who paid the loan of the Ancogs in order to secure the release of the property from mortgage.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Petitioner Jovita Yap Ancog contends that she could not have waived her share in the land because she is landless. For that matter, private respondent Caridad Yap is also landless, but she signed the agreement. 7 She testified that she did so out of filial devotion to her mother.

    Thus, what the record of this case reveals is the intention of Jovita Ancog and Caridad Yap to cede their interest in the land to their mother Rosario Diez. It is immaterial that they had been initially motivated by a desire to acquire a loan. Under Art. 1082 of the Civil Code, 8 every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, or any other transaction.

    We hold, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the claim of petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr. was barred by laches. In accordance with Rule 74, 1 9 of the Rules of Court, as he did not take part in the partition, he is not bound by the settlement. 10 It is uncontroverted that, at the time the extrajudicial settlement was executed, Gregorio Yap, Jr. was a minor. For this reason, he was not included or even informed of the partition.

    Instead, the registration of the land in Rosario Diez’s name created an implied trust in his favor by analogy to Art. 1451 of the Civil Code, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner

    In the case of O’Laco v. Co Cho Chit, 11 Art. 1451 was held as creating a resulting trust, which is founded on the presumed intention of the parties. As a general rule, it arises where such may be reasonably presumed to be the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the transaction out of which it is sought to be established. 12 In this case, the records disclose that the intention of the parties to the extrajudicial settlement was to establish a trust in favor of petitioner Yap, Jr. to the extent of his share. Rosario Diez testified that she did not claim the entire property, 13 while Atty. de la Serna added that the partition only involved the shares of the three participants. 14

    A cestui que trust may make a claim under a resulting trust within 10 years from the time the trust is repudiated. 15 Although the registration of the land in private respondent Diez’s name operated as a constructive notice of her claim of ownership, it cannot be taken as an act of repudiation adverse to petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr.’s claim, whose share in the property was precisely not included by the parties in the partition. Indeed, it has not been shown whether he had been informed of her exclusive claim over the entire property before 1985 when he was notified by petitioner Jovita Yap Ancog of their mother’s plan to sell the property. 16

    This Court has ruled that for prescription to run in favor of the trustee, the trust must be repudiated by unequivocal acts made known to the cestui que trust and proved by clear and conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the rule that the prescriptive period should be counted from the date of issuance of the Torrens certificate of title applies only to the remedy of reconveyance under the Property Registration Decree. 17 Since the action brought by petitioner Yap to claim his share was brought shortly after he was informed by Jovita Ancog of their mother’s effort to sell the property, Gregorio Yap, Jr.’s claim cannot be considered barred either by prescription or by laches.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that this case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for the determination of the claim of petitioner Gregorio Yap, Jr.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado and Romero, JJ., concur.

    Puno and Torres, Jr., JJ., took no part, see footnote 1.

    Endnotes:



    1. Per Justice Pacita Cañizares-Nye and concurred in by Justices Justo P. Torres and Reynato S. Puno (chairman).

    2. Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.

    3. Rollo, p. 28.

    4. Id., p. 30.

    5. Ibid.

    6. Meneses v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162 (1995); Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 330 (1993).

    7. Leaño v. Leaño, 25 Phil. 180 (1913).

    8. Art. 1082. "Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction."cralaw virtua1aw library

    9. Rule 74, 1. "Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof ." (emphasis added).

    10. Villaluz v. Neme, 117 SCRA 25 (1963).

    11. 220 SCRA 656 (1993).

    12. Huang v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 420, 428 (1994).

    13. Rollo, p. 12.

    14. Id., p. 22.

    15. Vda. de Esconde v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 66 (1996).

    16. Pangan v. Court of Appeals, 166 SCRA 375, 382 (1988).

    17. Huang v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 430-431.

    G.R. No. 112260   June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED