P. 1
Wills Rodriguez vs Rodriguez

Wills Rodriguez vs Rodriguez

|Views: 39|Likes:
law
law

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Jan Mara Stefan Corteza on Jul 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/12/2015

pdf

text

original

CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ (now deceased), substituted by SUSANA A. LLAGAS vs.

EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ, BELEN RODRIGUEZ and BUENAVENTURA RODRIGUEZ G.R. No. 175720, September 11, 2007 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment located at San Jose Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. On October 27, 1983, he executed a Huling Habilin at Testamento giving petitioner Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, his live-in partner, apartments D and E, and his children Benjamin Rodriguez (deceased husband of respondent Evangeline Rodriguez), apartment A, respondent Buenaventura Rodriguez, apartment B, and respondent Belen Rodriguez, apartment C. Juanito later on executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of petitioner who registered it in her name. Cresenciana then filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents who, without her knowledge and consent, leased the units to some other persons who failed to vacate the premises and pay the rentals thereof. Respondents in their answer claimed ownership over the property by succession, and alleged that petitioner is only the registered owner, not the lawful owner of the property because the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and void. They filed an action to assail the validity of the sale arguing that petitioner exerted undue influence over Juanito, who at the time was seriously ill, to agree to the sale of the property for only P20,000 after knowing that only two apartments were given to her in the Huling Habilin at Testamento. The MTC in the unlawful detainer case ruled in respondent’s favor. On appeal by petitioner, the RTC reversed the MTC decision, in that petitioner’s certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the property. The RTC also held that the MTC erred in relying heavily on Juanito’s last will and testament which was not probated hence has no effect and no right can be claimed therein. Respondents filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the RTC decision and reinstated that of MTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not a will which was not probated has effect or can confer a right. RULING: NO. The Court held that respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public policy . Article 838 of the Civil Code mandates that “[n]o will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.” As the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant to the last will of Juanito can not be given effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession. Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property, he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime. Now, whether or not the disposition was valid is an issue that can be resolved only in the action filed by respondents with the RTC of Makati City. The action in this case is one of unlawful detainer which is summary in nature and hence the validity of the will shall not be subject to a collateral attack. The Court’s ruling on the issue of ownership is only provisional to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. Thus, the Court reversed and set aside the decision of the CA.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->