P. 1
Set b Sux Assign

Set b Sux Assign

|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Diosa Mae Sarillosa

More info:

Published by: Diosa Mae Sarillosa on Sep 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

09/15/2013

pdf

text

original

CELESTINO BALUS vs.

SATURNINO BALUS FACTS: Herein petitioner and respondentsare the children of the spouses Rufo andSebastianaBalus. Sebastiana died on September 6,1978, while Rufo died on July 6, 1984.On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged aparcel of land, which he owns, as securityfor a loan he obtained from the Rural Bankof Maigo, Lanao del Norte (Bank). Rufofailed to pay his loan. As a result, themortgaged property was foreclosedand was subsequently sold to the Bank asthe sole bidder at a public auction held forthat purpose. On November 20, 1981, aCertificate of Salewas executed by thesheriff in favor of the Bank. The propertywas not redeemed within the periodallowed by law. More than two years afterthe auction, or on January 25, 1984, thesheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale inthe Bank’s favor. Thereafter, a new titlewas issued in the name of the Bank. OnOctober 10, 1989, herein petitioner andrespondents executed an ExtrajudicialSettlement of Estate adjudicating to eachof them a specific one-third portion of the subject property and also containedprovisions wherein the parties admittedknowledge of the fact that their fathermortgaged the subject property to theBank and that they intended to redeem thesame at the soonest possible time. Three years after the execution of theExtrajudicial Settlement, hereinrespondentsbought the subject property from the Bank.Meanwhile, petitioner continued possessionof the subject lot. Respondents filed aComplaint for Recovery of Possession andDamages against petitioner and RTCrendered a decision ordering the plaintiffsto execute a Deed of Sale in favor of thedefendant, the onethird share of theproperty in question, presently possessedby him. The RTC held that the right of petitioner to purchase from therespondents his share in the disputedproperty was recognized by the provisionsof the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate,which the parties had executed before therespondents bought the subject lot fromthe Bank. Respondents appealed to the CA.CA reveresed decision of RTC. ISSUE: WON co-ownership between petitioner andrespondents persisted even after the lotwas purchased by the Bank and even afterit was eventually bought by theRespondents from the Bank. Held: NO. It bears to emphasize that thereis no dispute with respect to the fact thatthe subject property was exclusively ownedby petitioner and respondents’ father, Rufo,at the time that it was mortgaged in 1979.In the present case, since Rufo lostownership of the subject property duringhis lifetime, it only follows that at the timeof his death, the disputed parcel of land nolonger formed part of his estate to whichhis heirs may lay claim. Stated differently,petitioner and respondents never inheritedthe subject lot from their

petitioner’s contention thathe and his siblings intended to continuetheir supposed co-ownership of the subjectproperty contradicts the provisions of thesubject Extrajudicial Settlement where theyclearly manifested their intention of havingthe subject property divided or partitionedby assigning to each of the petitioner andrespondents a specific 1/3 portion of thesame. a plain reading of the provisionsof the Extrajudicial Settlement would not. All his evidence failed to proved legitimate filiation to his putative father.Furthermore.00 a one (1) month baby boy. Fernandez died leaving his wife Generosa A. Jose K. It seeksa severance of the individual interests of each co-owner. filed an action to declare the Extra-Judicial Partition of Estate and Deed of Sale void ab initio. Jose K. There is no co-ownership to talk about and no property topartition. an objectivewhich negates petitioner’s claims in thepresent case. de Venecia. vesting in each of them asole estate in a specific property and givingeach one a right to enjoy his estate withoutsupervision or interference from the other. as the disputed lot never formedpart of the estate of their deceased father. being nephews and nieces of the deceased Jose K. and Generosa A. It was revealed that Rodolfo is not a legally adopted son of the spouses. the purpose of partition isto put an end to co-ownership.father. purchased from a certain Miliang for P20.In other words. de Venecia and Rodolfo Fernandez an estate. Fernandez. Fernandez vs Fernandez Facts: The late Spouses Dr. It is a cardinal rule inthe interpretation of contracts that the intention of the parties shall be accordedprimordial consideration. Issue: Whether or not extra judicial partition of the estate to Rodolfo should be rescinded for failure to proved of his legitimacy as a legally adopted son Ruling: . Fernandez.in any way. support petitioner’s contentionthat it was his and his sibling’s intention tobuy the subject property from the Bank andcontinue what they believed to be co-ownership thereof. Partition calls for the segregationand conveyance of a determinate portionof the property owned in common. There isnothing in the subject ExtrajudicialSettlement to indicate any expressstipulation for petitioner and respondentsto continue with their supposed co-ownership of the contested lot. all surnamed Fernandez. the herein appellant. their father Genaro being a brother of Jose. The boy being referred to was later on identified as Rodolfo Fernandez. On thecontrary. After learning the transaction. being childless by the death of their son.

Jose Fernandez . that granting Dr. his estate consisted solely of ½ pro indiviso of the conjugal property and the other half belonged to his wife Generosa de Venecia. Jose Fernandez was only survived by his wife. Jose Fernandez between Generosa vda. de Fernandez and Rodolfo is null and void insofar as Rodolfo is concerned pursuant to Art. Rodolfo is not a child by nature of the spouses Fernandez and not a legal heir of Dr. Jose are entitled to inherit the ½ share of the decedent’s estate while the ¾ share of the conjugal property will still belong to Generosa as the widow of Dr. Jose Fernandez.Yes. but who is not. . the respondents nephews and nieces of Dr. Jose Fernandez died intestate in 1982. thus the subject deed of extra-judicial settlement of the estate of Dr. Jose Fernandez and Generosa de Venecia. thus when Dr. hence the trial court’s order reconveying the possession of the subject lot and building to respondents was contrary to the admitted facts and law since respondents are not related by consanguinity to Generosa vda de Fernandez.” Petitioners next contend that respondents admitted that the property in question was the conjugal property of the late spouses Dr. shall be void only with respect to such person.1105 of the New Civil Code which states: “A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir.

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)//-->