Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > January 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14662 January 30, 1962 - GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL. v. CORAZON AYSON, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14662. January 30, 1962.]

GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CORAZON AYSON and FABIAN JIMENEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

Gramata & Cruz for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Brigido G. Estrada, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION; ANNULMENT; WHEN SECTION 4, RULE 74, RULES OF COURT, IS APPLICABLE. — The provision of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition is applicable only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, (2) when the provisions of Section 1 of the Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part by themselves or through guardians. (Sampilo Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 55 Off. Gaz., 5772, 5775-5777, citing McMicking v. Sy Con Bieng, 21 Phil. 213)

2. ID.; ID.; THIRD PERSON NOT BARRED FROM CONTESTING PARTITION. — There is nothing in Section 596 of Act No. 190, which is the origin of Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court, or in its sources, which shows clearly a statute of limitations and a bar of action against third persons. It is only a bar against the parties who had taken part in the extrajudicial proceedings, but not against third persons not parties thereto. Furthermore, the statute of limitations is contained in a different chapter of Act No. 190, Chapter XL, and if Section 596 of the Act had been meant to be a statute of limitations, it would be naturally have been included in the chapter which defined the statute. (Sampilo, Et Al., v. Court of Appeals Et. Al., supra)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; COUNTING OF FOUR-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD. — The prescriptive period of four years for the annulment of an extrajudicial partition should be counted from the date the party annulling became aware of the partition.


D E C I S I O N


DE LEON, J.:


This action was commenced on May 16, 1955 principally to set aside a deed of extrajudicial partition registered with the proper Registry of Deeds, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74, of the Rules of Court (extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs), and the Torrens title issued by virtue thereof. In their answer, the defendant spouses interposed the main defense of bar by the statute of limitations. On the day of trial, the parties stipulated on the facts, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That there is no question about the Original Certificate of Title No. 51521 in the name of Macario Beltran;

"2. That a deed of partition was made in the year 1943 by Corazon Ayson and Jose de la Cruz;

"3. That pursuant to the deed of extrajudicial partition, the defendants obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23235;

"4. That the plaintiffs are the nephews and nieces of Macario Beltran, being the children of his brothers and sisters; Leonarda Beltran, sister of Macario Beltran, survived by Bartolome, Mariano, Felipe, Juan, Felix, Marcela, Pilar, all surnamed Jimenez; Marcela died in 1950, survived by her children, Juanita and Gregorio, both surnamed Austria; Genoveva Beltran died survived by Damian, Petra, Dionisio, and Donato, all surnamed De la Cruz, as children;

"5. That the defendant is the widow of Macario Beltran;

"6. That the plaintiffs were not aware of the deed of extrajudicial partition until shortly before the filing of the complaint;

"7. That the plaintiffs admit that the defendants are in possession from 1943 up to the present;

"8. That the parties reserve the right to present certified copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 51521, and the deed of extrajudicial partition made by the defendants with Jose de la Cruz which was used in securing Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23235;

"9. That Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23235 is presented by the defendants as Exhibit 1 and the Tax receipts as Exhibits 2, 2-a up to 2-i, as well as Tax Declaration No. 23396 as Exhibit 3;

"10. That the certified copy of the deed of extrajudicial partition by Jose de la Cruz and the defendant executed in 1943 before Notary Public Onofre Sison Abalos under Document No. 180, Page 83, Book No. X, Series of 1943 is hereby marked Exhibit X by common agreement, and the certified true copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 51521 to be marked as Exhibit Y by common agreement."cralaw virtua1aw library

On September 19, 1958 the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan handed down a decision, declaring the plaintiffs the co-owners of the land in litigation, subject to the usufruct of defendant Corazon Ayson over one-half of the share of each co-owner, in accordance with Articles 946 and 953 in relation to Article 837 of the former Civil Code, the provisions of law controlling at the time of death of Macario Beltran, and ordering said defendant to execute at the expense of plaintiffs a deed of reconveyance for registration with the Registry of Deeds and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of said plaintiffs.

The case having been decided upon a stipulation of facts, the defendants appealed directly to this Court.

Appellants invoke Section 4 of Rule 74, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 4. Liability of distributees and estate. — If it shall appear at any time within two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of the real estate that may have been made."cralaw virtua1aw library

and contend that the instant action has prescribed for failure of appellees to pursue the remedy pointed out by the Rules within two years after the registration of the deed of extrajudicial partition for the purpose of securing their lawful shares in the property, citing in support of such argument the case of McMicking v. Sy Con Bieng, 21 Phil. 213. This Court has previously ruled out such contention in the similar case of Sampilo, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 103 Phil., 70; 55 Off. Gaz., 5772., wherein the case of McMicking v. Sy Con Bieng, supra, was also cited by the appellants therein:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the provisions of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition is applicable only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, (2) when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by themselves or through guardians.

"The next contention of appellants is that plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations. The origin of the provision (Section 4, Rule 74), upon which this contention is predicated, which is Section 596 of Act No. 190, fails to support the contention. In the first place, there is nothing therein, or in its sources, which shows clearly a statute of limitations and a bar of action against third persons. It is only a bar against the parties who had taken part in the extrajudicial proceedings, but not against third persons not parties thereto. In the second place, the statute of limitations is contained in a different chapter of Act No. 190, Chapter XL, and if Section 596 of the Act had been meant to be a statute of limitations, it would naturally have been included in the chapter which defines the statute."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the instant case, both requirements were not complied with, because not all the interested heirs have participated in the extrajudicial settlement, it being admitted that the deceased left, aside from his widow, appellant Corazon Ayson, and his half-brother, Jose de la Cruz, nephews, nieces and a sister living at the time of his death, and that the latter heirs were not aware of the deed of extrajudicial partition until shortly before the filing of their complaint (pars. 4 and 6, Stipulation of Facts).

Neither is Section 43, par. 3, of Act 190 (now Article 1146, New Civil Code), also invoked by appellants, applicable to the facts of the case. Assuming that there was fraud as the widow and half-brother of the deceased had declared in the deed of extrajudicial partition that they are the sole surviving and exclusive heirs of the late Macario Beltran, it does not appear that the four-year period have elapsed when the action was instituted. It is interesting to note that the court a quo rejected the contention of appellees that appellant Corazon Ayson executed the deed of extrajudicial partition fraudulently and in bad faith, while the parties stipulated that the appellees were not aware of the deed of extrajudicial partition until shortly before the filing of their complaint.

Appellant also invokes Article 1076 of the Old Civil Code (now Article 1100 of the New Civil Code), which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1076. The action for rescission on account of lesion shall prescribe after four years from the time the partition was made."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above article is not applicable, for the reason that this is not an action for rescission because the appellees herein were not parties to the extrajudicial partition sought to be annulled. It is true that the prescriptive period for rescission or annulment is the same. But, as has been stipulated by the parties, the appellees became aware of the extrajudicial partition only shortly before the filing of their complaint for annulment, and consequently, the prescriptive period of four years should be counted from the date that they became aware of the extrajudicial partition.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with costs against defendants-appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962 - DOMINADOR R. AYTONA v. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17076 January 29, 1962 - AUGUSTO G. GAMBOA v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17078 January 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FRANCISCO BUENASEDA

  • G.R. No. L-17079 January 29, 1962 - BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11037 January 30, 1962 - EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL. v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17248 January 29, 1962 - BEATRIZ GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12141 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL LASALA

  • G.R. No. L-12487 January 30, 1962 - CASTOR CUSTODIO v. PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14662 January 30, 1962 - GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL. v. CORAZON AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14715 January 30, 1962 - MARCELA JULIAN, ET AL. v. MARTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14913 January 30, 1962 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. ZOILO HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15047 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DIONISIO PALARAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15539 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ADOLFO MAGDANGAL

  • G.R. No. L-15964 January 30, 1962 - EZEQUIEL S. CONSULTA v. NICASlO YATCO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15974 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL SILVA

  • G.R. No. L-16020 January 30, 1962 - VICENTE FRAGANTE v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-16667 January 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16693-4-5 January 30, 1962 - GODOFREDO I. MOSUELA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16796 January 30, 1962 - ALEJANDRO ABAO, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16836 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO SANVICTORES

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16970 January 30, 1962 - ELOY B. BELLO v. VALENTIN A. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-17384 January 30, 1962 - NESTORA RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17398 January 30, 1962 - ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL. v. SANTOS VILLAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17689 January 30, 1962 - JOSE BELEY v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17936 January 30, 1962 - CITY OF LEGASPI v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12396 January 31, 1962 - KER & COMPANY, LTD. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12960 January 31, 1962 - CIRILO VENTURA, ET AL. v. ANASTACIA BAYSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12996 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-13374 January 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO BAUTISTA v. GERARDO MURILLO

  • G.R. No. L-13439 January 31, 1962 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13656 January 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALBERTO D. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. L-13924 January 31, 1962 - JACOBO DIVINO v. RAMONA FABIE DE MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14106 January 31, 1962 - EMILIANA EMPAMANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-14834 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14891 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS

  • G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. Nos. L-15447-48 January 31, 1962 - ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15976 January 31, 1962 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. BENJAMIN V. LIMBAGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-16386 January 31, 1962 - RAMON VELEZ v. GABINO SAAVEDRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16460 January 31, 1962 - ADELA SILPAO v. LOPE PAGLOMOTAN

  • G.R. No. L-16474 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16480 January 31, 1962 - ARTEMIO KATIGBAK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16513 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ ARGUELLES VDA. DE LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16550 January 31, 1962 - ALLEN McCONN v. PAUL HARAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16558 January 31, 1962 - CASIANO MAGISTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962 - SOUTHERN LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16661 January 31, 1962 - CLARA DILUANGCO PALANCA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16662 January 31, 1962 - VET BROS. & CO., INC. v. JOSE S. MOVIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16668 and L-16669 January 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ETC. v. BIENVENIDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-16683 January 31, 1962 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CEBU v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702 January 31, 1962 - LUCIANO ESCOSURA, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16714 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXENCIO MORADO

  • G.R. No. L-16741 January 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA Q. DE ABRAHAM, ET AL. v. PRISCILLA RECTO- KASTEN

  • G.R. No. L-16809 January 31, 1962 - UNION GARMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16872 January 31, 1962 - THEODORE LEWIN v. DEPORTATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16897 January 31, 1962 - GREGORIO M. MATAS v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16926 January 31, 1962 - FELIPE TANCHOCO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17240 January 31, 1962 - CLEMENCIA B. VDA. DE VILLONGCO, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17250 January 31, 1962 - JOSE DE LUNA GONZALES, ET AL. v. GENEROSA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17335 January 31, 1962 - RAUL H. TANPINCO v. ANTONIO T. LOZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17436 January 31, 1962 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17451 January 31, 1962 - DOMINADOR S. ASIS v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17533 January 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEER’S SYNDICATE, INC. v. FLORA S. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17564 January 31, 1962 - ARTURO DE SANTOS, ET AL. v. PETRONILO ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17746 and L-17807 January 31, 1962 - ALEJANDRO FACUNDO v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19260 January 31, 1962 - DELFIN ALBANO v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.