ALVAREZ v IAC (YANES)
185 SCRA 8FERNAN; May 7, 1990
Petition for review on
- Two parcels of land were registered in the names of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes,under an Original Certificate of Title.- Fortunato D. Santiago was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. Santiago then soldthe lots to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. The lots were sold thereafter Rosendo Alvarez.- The Yaneses filed a complaint against Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarezand the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of the ownership andpossession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of the produce of the land from1944 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the share or money equivalent due theheirs be delivered to them, and damages.- During the pendency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Rodolfo Siason.
The CFI ordered Alvarez to reconvey and deliver the possession of the lots to the Yaneses. However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to oneof the lots, as it had been subdivided into two and that that they were "in the name"of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that the lot could not bedelivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was "not a party per writ of execution."- The Yaneses filed a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for adeclaration of nullity of the TCTs issued to Rosendo Alvarez.
he court requiredRodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering the lots, which order waslater nullified by the court in view of a manifestation filed by Siason.- the lower court found Siason as a buyer in good faith, and ordered the heirs of Alvarez to pay the Yaneses the actual value of the lots, plus damages. The IACaffirmed except as to damages.- Petitioners contend, among others, that the liability arising from the sale of the lotsmade by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the lateRosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.
WON the liability arising from the sale of the lots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr.Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate,after his death.
- It overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the general transmissibilityof the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs.Under our law, the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations aretransmissible to the successors.- The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state:
Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rightsand obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person aretransmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a personwhich are not extinguished by his death.
. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirsexcept in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are nottransmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is notliable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent.
- Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc.:
The binding effect of contracts upon theheirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court thatmoney debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before theresidue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whateverpayment is thus made from the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs ordistributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces theshares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.- The general rule (above) is a consequence of the progressive "depersonalization" of patrimonial rights and duties that, as observed by Victorio Polacco, “has characterizedthe history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation from person toperson, the obligation has evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony withthe persons occupying only a representative position, barring those rare cases wherethe obligation is strictly personal,
., is contracted
, in considerationof its performance by a specific person and by no other.”- Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legalconsequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim fordamages. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved is of no momentbecause by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father's hereditary estate, and hereditary assets are always liable in theirtotality for the payment of the debts of the estate.It must, however, be made clearthat petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance.
VITUG v CA (ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA)
183 SCRA 755SARMIENTO; March 29, 1990
This case is a chapter in an earlier suit involving the probate of the two wills of thelate Dolores Luchangco Vitug naming private respondent Rowena Faustino-Coronaexecutrix. In that case, the appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-special administratorof Mrs. Vitug's estate with her (Mrs. Vitug's) widower, petitioner Romarico G. Vitug,pending probate was upheld.
- Jan.13, 1985, Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probatecourt to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate tocover allegedly his advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731.66, plus interests,which he claimed were personal funds (as found by CA, the alleged advancesconsisted of P58,147.40 estate tax, P518,834.27 deficiency estate tax, andP90,749.99 as increment thereto).- April 12, 1985, Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that thesame funds withdrawn from one of the savings account were conjugal partnershipproperties and part of the estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground forreimbursement. She also sought his ouster for failure to include the sums in questionfor inventory and for "concealment of funds belonging to the estate."- Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the samethrough a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank on June19, 1970, where it was stipulated that all the money that will be deposited by either of them (Romarico and Dolores) in their joint savings current account shall be their