1. Alvarez vs IAC and Yanes issued to Rosendo Alvarez.

18 Thereafter, the court required Rodolfo Siason to
Facts: produce the certificates of title covering Lots 773 and 823.

Aniceto left his children Lots 773 and 823. Teodora cultivated only three hectares of Expectedly, Siason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased Lots 773-A, 773-B
Lot 823 as she could not attend to the other portions of the two lots. The record and 658, not Lots 773 and 823, "in good faith and for a valuable consideration
does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions of the without any knowledge of any lien or encumbrances against said properties"; that
lots but it is established that Rufino and his children left the province to settle in the decision in the cadastral proceeding 19 could not be enforced against him as he
other places as a result of the outbreak of World War II. According to Estelita, from was not a party thereto; and it has long become final and executory. The cadastral
the "Japanese time up to peace time", they did not visit the parcels of land in court nullified its previous order requiring Siason to surrender the certificates of
question but "after liberation", when her brother went there to get their share of title mentioned therein. 21
the sugar produced therein, he was informed that Fortunato Santiago,
Fuentebella (Puentevella) and Alvarez were in possession of Lot 773. 2 In 1968, the Yaneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution in Civil Case No. 5022. Siason opposed it. 22 In its order of September 28,
It is on record that on May 19, 1938, Fortunato D. Santiago was issued Transfer 1968 in Civil Case No. 5022, the lower court, noting that the Yaneses had instituted
Certificate of Title covering Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B. On May 30, 1955, Santiago another action for the recovery of the land in question, ruled that at the judgment
sold Lots 773-A and 773-B to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr and consequently, TCTs therein could not be enforced against Siason as he was not a party in the case. 23
were issued in Fuentebella's name. 6 After Fuentebella's death and during the
settlement of his estate, the administratrix thereof (Arsenia R. Vda. de Fuentebella, The CFI held that the defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, are hereby ordered
his wife) filed a motion requesting authority to sell Lots 773-A and 773-B to to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 representing the
Rosendo Alvarez. 9 Hence, it were respectively issued to Rosendo Alvarez. 10 actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre, Negros Occidental;
the sum of P2,000.00 as actual damages suffered by the plaintiff; the sum of
Two years later or on May 26, 1960, Teodora Yanes and the children of her P5,000.00 representing moral damages and the sum of P2.000 as attorney's fees, all
brother Rufino, namely, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, filed in the Court of First with legal rate of interest from date of the filing of this complaint up to final
Instance of Negros Occidental a complaint against Fortunato Santiago, Arsenia payment.
Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for
the "return" of the ownership and possession of Lots 773 and 823. During the The Alvarez appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which in its decision
pendency in court of said case, Alvarez sold the said lot to Dr. Rodolfo Siasion. of August 31, 1983 30 affirmed the lower court's decision "insofar as it ordered
Accordingly, TCT Nos. 30919 and 30920 were issued to Siason, 13who thereafter, defendants-appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs-appellees the sum
declared the two lots in his name for assessment purposes of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the
cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded
It will be noted that the above-mentioned manifestation of Jesus Yanes was not the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages
mentioned in the aforesaid decision. and attorney's fees, respectively. Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants
motion for reconsideration, said appellate court denied the same.
However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to Lot 773. In
his return of service dated October 20, 1965, the sheriff stated that he discovered Hence, the instant petition. Petitioners further contend that the liability arising
that Lot 773 had been subdivided into Lots 773-A and 773-B; that they were "in the from the sale of Lots No. 773-A and 773-B made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo
name" of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that Lot 773 Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after
could not be delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was "not a party per writ of his death.
execution." 17 The execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 having met a
hindrance, herein private respondents (the Yaneses) filed on July 31, 1965, in the Issue:
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for the issuance of a new
certificate of title and for a declaration of nullity of TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 WON the liability or liabilities of Rosendo Alvarez arising from the sale of Lots Nos.
773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre to Dr. Rodolfo Siason, if ever there is any, could
Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 - Atty. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO

2476 in the names of Teodorica Babangha — 1/2 share and her successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of his hereditary share children: Maria. Eustaquio and Ursula. Issue: whether or not the 1/2 share of interest of Teodorica Babangha in one of the 2. more or less. among them was lot 2476. 1311. defendant heirs of Ricardo Gevero (petitioners herein) appealed consequences of their father's transaction. and we have ruled that the hereditary Petitioners. on March 31. Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez. The heirs of Teodorica Babangha on October 17. lot no. According to the Civil Code state: Lot 2476-A to Lot 2476-I. Yes. among others. all surnamed immediately after such death. Elena. The other portions liable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent. their assigns and heirs portion of Lot No. particularly Lot No. and there is no legal bar to a identified as Lot No. rights and obligations of a until May 1969. containing an area of SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT transmissible by their nature. By virtue of the extra- judicial settlement and partition executed by the said heirs of Teodorica Babangha. The inheritance includes all the property. Vda. occupying the land since the sale and taking over from Lancero's possession Art. 776. Gevero vs IAC litigated lots. It was denied on April 21. 2476 situated at Gusa. 1/2 undivided share of the whole area containing 48. 2476 under OCT No. The heir is not HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT (7. Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . Borja. they cannot escape the legal From said decision. immediately from the moment of the death of the "causante" or predecessor in 1128 at the back of Original Certificate of Title No. DELCOR filed an action with the CFI (now RTC) of and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance. 7610 covering the mother lot interest (Civil Code of the Philippines. the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father's hereditary estate. 1986. 777). 1986. RTC held declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and absolute owner of that Art. 1986. Restituto. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . 28) but assets are always liable in their totality for the payment of the debts of the estate. affirmed damages. 2476 of the Cagayan Cadastre. when the defendants Abadas forcibly entered the property. or by stipulation or by provision of law. in turn acquired the same parcel from Ricardo Gevero on February 5.Atty. Plaintiff claims to have bought the land in good faith and for value.122 square determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate (De Borja v. 7610 is included in the deed of sale Facts: Held: The parcel of land under litigation is Lot No. must. be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance. Lot 2476-D. 1952 Yes. Contract stake effect only between the parties. on March 20. even if the actual extent of such share is not surnamed Gevero. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no the decision appealed from. the present petition. Art. 774.be legally passed or transmitted by operations (sic) of law to the petitioners without Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II and was survived by her six violation of law and due process children aforementioned. Ricardo. was adjudicated to Ricardo Gevero who was then alive at the time of extra-judicial Art. 2476 are hereby adjudicated to the heirs of Gevero. filed a motion for reconsideration (Rollo. moment because by legal fiction. of a person are Misamis Oriental to quiet title and/or annul the partition made by the heirs of transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation Teodorica Babangha insofar as the same prejudices the land which it acquired a of law. The hereditary share in a decedents' estate is transmitted or vested per deed of sale executed by Ricardo Gevero which was duly annotated as entry No. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property. p. rights settlement and partition in 1966. 46 SCRA 577 [1972]). inclusive. de meters.1966 executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Partition of the estate of Teodorica Held: Babangha. Hence. person which are not extinguished by his death. under subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-80450 duly approved by the Land Registration Commission. however.878) square meters. portion of lot 2476. which gave rise to the present claim for to the IAC (now Court of Appeals) which subsequently. consisting of two lots. Cagayan de Oro City. 2476-D of the except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-80450. of Lot No. Said lot was acquired by DELCOR purchase from the late Luis Lancero Luis Lancero.

Doña Catalina was appointed executrix of his estate. all the relatives agreed that 3. except the disclosed that the spouses being childless. Vda. or six (6) years after Doña Catalina's demise. family. and fully cognizant that she was also advancing in years. Don Mariano's as well as her own. Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting his wife. 138. Eventually. Those who were closest to Doña Catalina did not join the action.e. and full-blood brothers of Catalina. i. Civil Case brought under the Torrens System. Attorney Lorayes (Jaucian). hence. and those of Catalina to her "Jaucian both surnamed Jaucian. 3 The will was drawn up by his wife's After the trial. they had agreed that their properties. already disposed of more than ten (10) years before her death. After the reading of her will. (2) declaring the deeds relatives. 1 to 33 are the private properties of the deceased and form part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse. the properties of Mariano and Catalina were estate. in equal portions. incorrect to state that it was only in 1966. as the sole and universal heir of all his properties. Locsin. Locsin v CA there was no need to submit it to the court for probate because the properties devised to them under the will had already been conveyed to them by the deceased Facts: when she was still alive. relatives. Her lawyer in the probate The Locsins appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G. and sisters or nephews and nieces). by sale. were surveyed cadastrally and registered in the name of "Mariano her lifetime. all surnamed Locsin." 4 of sale. The late Getulio Locsin had three children named Mariano. except some legacies which the executor of her will or estate. Attorney Salvador Lorayes. while items Issue: Nos.R. Borja and Eduardo Jaucian. Four years before her death. Doña Catalina died on July 6. After his death. No. and her own. CFI of Albay void ab-initio. brothers being the nearest collateral heirs by right of representation of Juan and Gregorio. affirming the trial court's she submitted to the probate court for approval. It is therefore properties to their respective nephews and nieces. Mariano's properties would go to his "Locsin relatives" (i. hence. 1973 affirming and ratifying the transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her husband's. Attorney Salvador Lorayes. of Catalina Jaucian Vda. heirs of Josefina J. succession were transmitted from the moment of her death. his estate was divided among and nieces who had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her his three (3) children. He owned extensive residential and agricultural properties in In 1989. 1948 after a lingering illness. plaintiffs. de Locsin including. Doña Catalina began Held: Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . filed action in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City (Branch VIII. 34 to 42 are conjugal. As directed in his will. donations. when Ricardo sold his share over lot 2476 that share which he inherited from Teodorica was also included unless expressly excluded in the deed of sale." 7 WON the private respondents were entitled to inherit the properties which she had Don Mariano relied on Doña Catalina to carry out the terms of their compact. without consideration. CV-11186) which proceeding was Attorney Lorayes. No. In the inventory of her husband's estate 5 which rendered its now appealed judgment on March 14. his will was probated in Special Proceedings No. 1977. alleging that the conveyances were inofficious. the rightful heirs and after both of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of the entitled to the entire estate. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . 6 Catalina declared that "all items decision. nine (9) years after his death.Atty. de Locsin. but not limited to Don Mariano Locsin died of cancer on September 14. some of her Jaucian nephews the provinces of Albay and Sorsogon.e. who withdrew. without any opposition from both sides of the family. those in the inventory of known properties (Annex B of the complaint) as null and In due time. Thus. and against the Locsin defendants declaring the. when Ricardo received his share in the lot as inheritance from his mother Teodorica. mentioned from Nos. donation or assignment. judgment was rendered on July 8.. 1989. reconveyance and exchange and all other instruments conveying any part of the estate of Catalina J. Julian and Magdalena. 7152) to recover the properties which she had conveyed to the Locsins during Getulio Locsin. Those that Mariano inherited from his father. the date of extrajudicial partition.'' 2 and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession. she had made a will on October 22. proceeded to distribute. married to Catalina Jaucian.Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II. Catalina.. l985 in favor of the plaintiffs nephew and trusted legal adviser. as if in obedience to his voice from the grave. the rights to the transferring.

sufficient means for the support of himself. Branch 24. one and all. [Private respondents] therefore prayed that [petitioner] be ordered to Sell. i. accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since The trial courts order of dismissal was elevated to the Court of Appeals by private neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs.00. the right that [petitioner] had chosen to rescind the contract.000. litigation expenses. subject to the outcome of the testate and nieces. the respondents may not invoke: sale made by the administrator for the benefit of the estate do not apply.No. she put forward than ten (10) years before her death. that the contract to sell was not approved by the heirs until such time.. Vda. and even if those transfers were. but conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her property during her lifetime." 10 The rights to a person's that at the time the contract was executed. de Locsin. Laguna. 12 respondents who alleged: 1. heirs. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . In her traverse. petitioner entered into the Contract to Sell in her capacity as an heiress. provided he reserves. Civil Code which. In the contract. However. failed to comply with her obligations under the father died. "the property and transmissible rights and part of the Estate of Demetrio Carpena (petitioners father). The hereditary Natalia Carpena Opulencia executed in their favor a CONTRACT TO SELL Lot 2125 of rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedents death. the Sta. in transferring the properties she had received from her late husband to his nephews Declaring the Contract to Sell valid. 750. dispose of even her entire estate subject only to the limitation set forth in Art. attorneys fee and her share in the estate of her late father.11 Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or conveyed probate court. hence there were no legitimes that could her capacity as executrix of the will or administratrix of the estate of her father.00 as downpayment. In a complaint for specific performance filed with the court a quo [herein private not as an executrix or administratrix of the estate. Opulencia vs CA Held: Facts: Yes. the appellate court set aside the trial rights to her succession. That being so.00 but Petitioner. part thereof. in respect of which a obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and those which have petition for probate was filed with the Regional Trial Court. that realizing the nullity of the contract [petitioner] had offered to to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time return the downpayment received from [private respondents]. the private respondents. Thus. For those properties did not form part of her the following affirmative defenses: that the property subject of the contract formed hereditary estate. Art. Had she died intestate. Hence. despite demands. treated as donations. at the time of the Issue: Whether or not the Contract to Sell dated 03 February 1989 executed by the acceptance of the donation.00 in payment of his tenancy rights on the land. even if it were breached. (634a) 4.000. because the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the whole or a part of perform her contractual obligations and to further pay damages.e. There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part of Doña Catalina. she represented respondents] Aladin Simundac and Miguel Oliven alleged that [herein petitioner] herself as the lawful owner and seller of the subject parcel of land. along with other the respondents had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to properties.Atty. Rosa Estatethat plaintiffs paid a downpayment of P300. the parties were aware of the pendency succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. and do not vest in his of the probate proceeding. nephews and nieces of Doña Catalina J. The donation may comprehend all the present property of the donor or this appeal. in full ownership or in usufruct. there being no approval of the probate court. that [private respondents] further failed to provide funds for property that remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal the tenant who demanded P150. All that as an heir and more importantly as owner of said lot which. Said respondents are not her compulsory heirs. only the refused to accept it. Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . became the owner of her hereditary share the moment her defendant. [petitioner] admitted the execution of the contract in favor of are not entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed of more plaintiffs and receipt of P300. the lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to contract. are by law entitled to be supported by the donor. The lower court erred in concluding that the contract to sell is null and void. therefore. was devised to her under the will sought to be probated. an intent to circumvent the law in violation of the private respondents' proceedings on Demetrio Carpenas estate. [p]etitioner and [p]rivate [r]espondent[s] without the requisite probate court Without such reservation. the donation shall be reduced on petition of any person approval is valid. and of all relatives who. affected. the requisites stipulated in Rule 89 of the Revised Rules of Court which refer to a 750. but the latter of her death to which her heirs may lay claim. and it is courts dismissal of the complaint and ruled that the appellee sold Lot 2125 not in not pretended that she had any such. Bian.

two (2) parcels of land A prior settlement of the estate. petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao's heirs any fulfillment of petitioner's obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement statement of assets and liabilities of the partnership. Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were partners by succession. it is complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao. his rights insofar as the partnership was pending administration. they decided to dissolve their partnership and executed an agreement of transmitted. They. Niño and Talisay. action for accounting. which was of Tabanao to sue. concerned were transmitted to his heirs. Sometime in January of and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are 1986. 34 Jacinto Divinagracia's withdrawal from the partnership. is not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal branches of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Prudential Bank. in view of the provision of Article 777 of the Civil Code. there is no No. rights in a business concern known as Ma.000. despite formal 6.000. As successors who stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his death. for rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Negros Occidental. duly probated and admitted in Special Proceedings No. Dr.. more particularly Petitioner Emilio Emnace. Tabanao' s heirs. they can commence any action originally pertaining to the Throughout the existence of the partnership. and lack of capacity of the estate land surveyed as Lot No. and cash deposits in the local executrix or administratrix.1 Among the assets to be distributed were five (5) fishing boats. lack of Rabadilla. therefore.33 Moreover.00. Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to the court's intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his obligations. in this my addition (Codicil). every year to Issue: give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre.2 Facts: Consequently. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. in no wise stands in the way of such administration. or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as located at Sto. From the very settled that the sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance. and even after Vicente Tabanao's decedent. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. 855 square meters of that parcel of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit. RT-4002 of Appeals. contained the following provisions: RTC denieid the motion to dismiss and held that the heirs of Tabanao had aright to sue in their own names. but was dismissed. She and her children are premature partition and distribution of the properties of the estate. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre.. The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or basis for petitioners apprehension that the Contract to Sell may result in a administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. or the sum of P10. FOURTH: (a). Therefore. had the capacity to sue and seek the partnership's finances. although the Contract to Sell was perfected between the petitioner WON there is lack of capacity to sue on the part of plaintiff heirs of Vicente Tabanao and private respondents during the pendency of the probate proceedings.000. The said Codicil. Rabadilla vs CA demand for payment thereof. the consummation of the sale or the transfer of ownership over the parcel of land to Held: the private respondents is subject to the full payment of the purchase price and to the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings.Consequently. capacity to sue. six (6) vehicles. this petition. that should I die which states that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said Lot No. and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G. Johnny S. (10942). Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies. respondents became owners of their respective partition and distribution of the partnership properties among them.00. predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner. filed against petitioner an In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza. was instituted as a devisee of 511. respondents herein. amounting to P30. Nelma Fishing Industry. Indeed.32 5. Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 ..35 From the moment of his death.Atty. subject to the moment of Vicente Tabanao' s death. consequent to hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died. the death of the decedent. Emnace vs CA Facts: Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents by operation of law. payment of shares.000. Tabanao's heirs the deceased's 1/3 share in the total assets of the partnership. division of assets and damages. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. his rights as a partner and to demand untimely demise in 1994. Guanzon of the said lot shall expire. Petitioner Jorge Rabadilla. which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property. Hence. and to render an accounting of were transmitted to respondents.It is also my command.

being in the category as creditor of the left estate. defendants- appellee's obligation under Aleja Belleza's codicil. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. if only to establish the Lot No. Incidentally. mortgage only to the near descendants and sister of the testatrix. RT-4002 (10492). does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. lessee. Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and "Therefore. and Transfer Certificate of Title No. heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to give full meaning and semblance to her mortgage. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs of this opined that plaintiff may initiate the intestate proceedings. Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos brought a Rabadilla."[4] First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. receive 100 piculs of sugar annually out of the produce of Lot No. and shall they are the children of Jorge Rabadilla. lastly RTC ruled that the action is prematurely filed as no cause of action against the should the buyer. lease. Jorge Rabadilla. and mortgage this said Lot. in that: compliance. shall performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simply because immediately seize this Lot No. of seizure of Codicil. SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic. against the appellee's admitted non-compliance with said obligation since 1985. 1989. Lot No. lease. all surnamed Rabadilla. The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs to SIXTH: I command. until the said Maria Marlina filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil. that they will obey and follow that should they decide to sell. Dr. before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City. shall have also the obligation the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina late Aleja Belleza. compliance. the above-mentioned heirs of Dr. the sugar as specified in the Fourth mortgagee shall likewise have the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per crop paragraph of his testament. 1392 was transferred to the deceased. on each month of December. 1. The banks failed to comply with the 6th paragraph of the Codicil which provided the Bacolod Cadastre. lease. defendants- complaint. 1392 was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and the Republic However. Dr. as heirs of the modal heir. Defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver one hundred of Lot No. Coscolluela y Belleza. mortgagee. 1392. 1392. to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of year to herein private respondent. lessee or the mortgagee of this lot. 1392 of 3. 44498 in the name of the deceased. 1392. in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. or shall have the obligation to still give yearly. Pursuant to the same Codicil. secure the appointment of an administrator. ratiocinating and ordering thus: Jorge Rabadilla. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . FIFTH: (a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die. the that the one to whom I have left and bequeathed. Aurora. Ofelia and Zenaida. The Complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of Lot No. Lot No. lessee. 1392 from my heir and the latter's heirs.Atty. that in case of the sale. to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff-appellant. (sic) and the latter shall then have the question. to enforce the provisions of subject punitive consequences enjoined by both the codicil and the Civil Code. or mortgage of the property. reserved to her by the codicil. the buyer. in the event reconvey/return-Lot No. 1392 and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such non- the Codicil. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to enforce her right. or Belleza's estate. 1392 until she dies. his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza. not have respected my defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. lease. 1392 from the estates of Jorge Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. While there maybe the non- command in this my addition (Codicil). sister. 44498 thereto issued in his name. the buyer.and Twenty Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar. it is die. this Court deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. (100) piculs of sugar (75 piculs export sugar and 25 piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza from sugar crop years 1985 up to the Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . they cannot negotiate with others than my near descendants and my claim under the Codicil. until Maria Marlina shall die. the evidence on record having established plaintiff-appellant's right to children Johnny (petitioner). plaintiff-appellant must institute separate proceedings to re-open Aleja Planters Bank in disregard of the testatrix's specific instruction to sell. December of each year. and distribute Lot No. and his heir shall later sell. the title holder/owner of the lot in turn it over to my near desendants. Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza. and. to receive her legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce 2. Jorge On August 21. Jorge Rabadilla. The remedy at bar obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria Marlina shall must fall. cancellation of TCT No. despite repeated demands for Coscolluela y Belleza dies.

the petitioner. In February 1981. E). private respondent has a cause of action against children all the property he would inherit from the latter (Exh. Therefore. petitioners herein. as to the application of any of its provisions. whereby he conveyed to the latter in Held: consideration of P1. Lazardo Taedo executed a notarized deed of absolute estate of the testatrix Aleja Belleza on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Codicil sale in favor of his eldest brother. when an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will. forced heirs. 166451 (Exh. inheritance includes all the property. On June 7.without any sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted. covering his undivided ONE TWELVE (1/12) of a parcel of land known as Lot 191 x x without need of further proceedings. relation to their legitimate parents. Lazaro executed a sworn statement (Exh. And since obligations not extinguished by Petitioners on July 16. the fulfillment or signed by Lazaro in the presence of two witnesses. 6) and the Deed of Sale (Exh. therefor.000. rights 1980 (Exh. as compulsory heirs of the Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of private respondents instituted heir.00. and they prepared and signed by Matias dated December 28. Teresita Barera. The legitimate children and descendants. in executed an Affidavit of Conformity dated February 28.[11] Thus. 4). at the time of his death. 191 of the cadastral survey of Gerona. (2) a typewritten document dated March 10. Lazaro called to succeed by operation of law. were likewise property inherited by Lazaro from his father. Dr. corollarily. 1981 (Exh. wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in circumstances under which it was made. subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year. 1392 to Dr. On January 13. succeeded the latter by operation of law. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are l3829 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac. Province of Tarlac and covered by Title T- No. executed an Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 29. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . however presented in evidence a Deed of Revocation of a to be ascertained from the words of the Will. Petitioners claimed that their father. 1982. not extinguished by his death. However. 1980 (Exh. acknowledge and validate the sale I made in 1962.500. E). 1982 filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the death also form part of the estate of the decedent.Atty. are compulsory respect. Upon the death of Dr. Matias. private respondents herein. Jorge Rabadilla. [24] consideration whatsoever. Carmela. and the widow or widower. stating that it was his also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to desire that whatever inheritance Lazaro would receive from him should be given to herein private respondent. his mother and sisters. Jorge Rabadilla. Rabadilla. 4) in favor of private respondents. He acknowledged therein his receipt of P 10. Tanedo vs CA Lazaro testified that he sold the property to Ricardo. 1981. Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children. Jorge Rabadilla. through a deed of sale dated December 29. which deed included the land in litigation (Lot 191). Conformably. stating that his share in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his father was intended for his children.  In the interpretation of Wills. Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code. 1962. Dr. wherein he confirmed that he performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through the institution would voluntarily abide by the wishes of his father. 1980 (Exit. transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. G) which virtually repudiated the contents of the Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale (Exh. his Petitioners also presented in evidence: (1) a private writing purportedly compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property. Jorge executed by the heirs of Matias. A). B). Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his Transfer Certificate of Title No. heirs. the obligations deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private respondents covering the imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. dated January 1. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally his (Lazaros) children (Exh. 1979 corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct.Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the On October 20. petitioners herein (Exh. conveying to his ten children his allotted portion under the extrajudicial partition In the said Codicil. and that it was a lawyer who Facts: Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 .[23] Such construction as will favor of petitioners for the reason that it was simulated or fictitious . 5). Lazaro. Jorge Rabadilla. Shortly after the case a quo was filed. Upon the death of his father Matias. and (3) a letter petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below. and the latters wife. one hectare of whatever share I shall have over Lot No.00 as consideration to them from the moment of death of the decedent. 3) to re-affirm. taking into consideration the Deed of Sale dated March 12. whatever 4) in their favor in the Registry of Deeds and the corresponding entry was made in rights Dr. and the successional rights were transmitted (Exh. the testator's intention is Private respondents. 7. 1978. to give to his (Lazaros) of the case at bar. 1). 6). private respondents recorded the Deed of Sale (Exh. C). testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1980 of Lazaro to his daughter. Ricardo Taedo. the said property being his future transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent [10]and compulsory heirs are inheritance from his parents (Exh. and obligations of a person.

ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it first Issue: WON the sale of a future inheritance valid in the registry of property. an additional seven square subsequently registered on June 7. acting fraudulently and in conspiracy with one another. Rita sold 100 square meters of her inchoate share in her mother’s estate through a document denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa. although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners. respondents Spouses Lumbao took actual conflicting. 1982. who died intestate on 19 September 1978. ruling that the Deed of who presents the oldest title. and thereafter upon herein petitioners. As the exclusive owners of the subject Critical in determining which of these two deeds should be given effect is the property. Maria Catoc (Maria). (n)o contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.Atty. Even private respondents in deceased mother. registration of the sale in favor of private respondents with the register of deeds during her lifetime. pp." dated 17 However. On the first occasion. is also useless and. necessary documents to effect the issuance of a separate title in favor of respondents Spouses Lumbao insofar as the subject property is concerned. suffers from the same infirmity. On appeal. insofar as it On two separate occasions during her lifetime. acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.00) to buy a drink (TSN September 18. These two documents "Bilihan ng Lupa. Rita informed cases of multiple sales. executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . if it should be movable property. Santos vs Lumbao Consequently. 204-205). On the second occasion. the Spouses Lumbao claimed that petitioners. The property in question is land. Hence. Pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code.5 were executed after the death of Matias (and his spouse) and after a deed of extrajudicial settlement of his (Matias) estate was executed. their memorandum4 concede this. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees. Thus. and following the above- quoted law." dated 9 January 1981. as shown by their Lazaros undivided inheritance of one-twelfth (1/12) share in Lot No. 1544. respondents Spouses Lumbao made several verbal demands upon Rita. ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith. the ownership shall pertain to the person who in failed to adduce a preponderance of evidence to support (their) claim. 1982. 1981 in favor of private respondents covering document was witnessed by petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo. 1980 in favor of petitioners covering the same property. for them to execute the on June 7. 9) was valid and that its registration in good faith vested title in said respondents. these dispositions. in the absence thereof. thus vesting in Lazaro actual title over said property. petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all. Rita sold to respondents Spouses sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . were no longer infected with the infirmities of the 1962 sale. On 2 May 1986. and. Sale dated January 13. 8. 1981(Exh. to the person the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. the documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are: (a) August 1979. though After acquiring the subject property. In other words. Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in Respondents Spouses Lumbao alleged that prior to her death. the had not yet been partitioned. the affidavit of conformity dated February 28. said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be the Facts: source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties. 1985. ownership would vest in Held: the former because of the undisputed fact of registration. the ownership shall belong to the person pesos (P5. The trial court decided in favor of private respondents.4 Respondents Spouses Lumbao claimed the execution of the aforesaid the deed of sale of January 13. provided there is good faith. holding that petitioners Should there be no inscription. No.induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of his children after giving him five Should it be immovable property. an immovable. On the other hand. which was signatures affixed therein. good faith was first in the possession. and (b) the deed of sale dated December meters was added to the land as evidenced by a document also denominated as 29. as follows: respondent Proserfina Lumbao she could not deliver the title to the subject property because the entire property inherited by her and her co-heirs from Maria Art. in the words of the Lumbao the subject property which is a part of her share in the estate of her respondent Court. 1980. possession thereof and erected thereon a house which they have been occupying as exclusive owners up to the present. 191.

reconvey the subject property to herein respondents spouses Lumbao. without their knowledge. a mode of acquiring the property." dated 17 August 1979 and 9 Carolina Morales as their witnesses. Article 131132 of the NCC is the the Complaint for lack of cause of action because respondents Spouses Lumbao basis of this rule. they are still bound to During the trial. Also. demand letter8 to petitioners but despite receipt of such demand letter. respondents Spouses Lumbao presented Proserfina Lumbao and comply with the provisions of the "Bilihan ng Lupa. in answer to the allegation of which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the petitioners that they failed to comply with the mandate of the Revised the personal representatives of the deceased. Dissatisfied. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and failed to comply with the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under Republic obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by Act No. Being heirs. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract the back of TCT No. respondents Spouses Lumbao. cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the Respondents Spouses Lumbao. description that can be placed in the "Bilihan ng Lupa. respondents Spouses Lumbao said that the excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in Complaint was filed directly in court in order that prescription or the Statute of the subject matter of the contract. Consequently. they prayed for the dismissal of predecessors-in-interest applies in the present case. 150810 requiring first resort to barangay decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. through counsel. was not yet divided among Aggrieved. the mother of Rita.Settlement. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . In the end. with leave of court. The appealed Decision dated June 17. there is privity of interest because they discovered that on 16 February 1990. amended their Complaint liability affecting their common ancestor.00 for attorney’s fees and the estate left by Maria. A new judgment is hereby entered ordering respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly determined at that time. respondents Spouses Lumbao appealed to the Court of Appeals. petitioners’ mother. Esplana mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as for the sum of ₱30. Lumbao the 107-square meter lot which they bought from Rita. [petitioners] to reconvey 107 square meters of the subject [property] covered by Nevertheless. They only succeed to what rights their petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Julieta S. **** The property owned by Maria.34 Limitations may not set in. petitioners still failed and refused to reconvey the subject property to the respondents Spouses Issue: Whether or not herein petitioners are legally bound to comply with the Lumbao. that does not make the contract of sale between Rita and TCT No. PT-81729 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City. respondents Spouses Lumbao and now covered by TCT No.000. Metro Manila.Atty.000. between them and their deceased mother. The trial court held that the instant complaint is hereby denied for lack of merit. despite the death of the petitioners’ mother. PT-81729 on 26 April 1991. this Petition. The said Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was annotated at against them. Petitioners filed their Answer denying the allegations that the subject property had Held: been sold to the respondents Spouses Lumbao. petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision but it was denied in the Resolution of the appellate court dated 29 July 2005 for On 15 June 1992. to [respondents spouses Lumbao] the sum of ₱30. The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their duly published as required by law. rights and obligations of the repealed Presidential Decree No. dated 17 August 1979 and 9 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. 62175 is January 1981" because the exact metes and bounds of the subject property sold to hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently. the heirs conciliation. sent a formal lack of merit. CA held her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire estate is the only that the present appeal is hereby GRANTED. and to pay respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid because both the law and jurisprudence have Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . They likewise denied that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement had been fraudulently executed because the same was Yes. which way of succession. On the contrary.6 adjudicating and partitioning among themselves and the other heirs. 81729 7 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City. which included the subject property already sold to litigation expenses. Similarly. nonperformance is not Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Branch 69 in Civil Case No.00. while the petitioners presented only the January 1981. 7160. 33 Thus. the latter filed a Complaint for Reconveyance with "Bilihan ng Lupa" dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981 and consequently. Hence. they must reconvey to herein respondents Spouses testimony of petitioner Virgilio. otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. Damages9before the RTC of Pasig City.

NHA vs Almeida 5. Beatriz without any physical division. I live and serve my son Francisca (TCT) No. 4. at In front of Notario Publico G. 9 January 1981. Pagina no. 3216 are both located in Barrio Rosario. For the sake of the foregoing. in the event that the life of the God of No. Tolosa.Atty. 2 NHA as the successor agency of LTA is the petitioner each full ownership of their respective aliquots or undivided shares and may in this case. Philippines. The records show that Margarita Herrera had two children: Beatriz Herrera- because such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion Mercado (the mother of private respondent) and Francisca Herrera. it is clear that there was only one estate left by Maria upon her death. and the solar ore that is said to be paid for his own stake in the Maria is of no moment because in the "Bilihan ng Lupa. the LTA was succeeded by the Department of Agrarian having 2 pages in total. It is. the DAR was succeeded by the NHA by virtue of in the second page and at the left-hand margin of the first page of the document. 1975. Book No. co-owners have Presidential Decree No. which in this case measures 467 square meters. The award is evidenced by an Agreement to Sell No. and Likewise.categorically held that even while an estate remains undivided. allegedly executed by Margarita Herrera. And this fact was not refuted by the petitioners. 3216 are one and the Macario Berroya . That the property is payable by the Land Tenure Administration. the mere fact that the deed purports to Herrera-Mercado predeceased her mother and left heirs. 1974. 9." dated 17 August 1979 and Land Tenure Administration. Due to my old age and no work life. the AGREEMENT TO SELL No. San Pedro Laguna. 1 By virtue of signed at the left-hand side of both pages of the document with the said document Republic Act No. or to his or her successors. On July 31. A-018-01674 and the property mentioned in TCT 4. therefore alienate. already sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao can no longer be inherited by the petitioners because the same was no longer part of their inheritance as it was 2. 3216 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal in the name of Herrera. Jose C. IV. being the sole surviving daughter of the deceased. the property described in Tax Declaration No. my life has been taken away. however. The said document was signed by two witnesses and notarized. Francisca Herrera. 1959.square meter lot sold claimed to be the exclusive legal heir of the late Margarita Herrera. In any case. the fact that the property mentioned in the two "Bilihan ng Lupa" appearing in his Notebook as Documents No. 3488. Furthermore. and on already sold during the lifetime of their mother.29 On August 22. 757. PRAISE and CONTINUE the content in my son's name. 13. thus. transfer a concrete portion does not per se render the sale void. July 30. WHICH I LOVED to anybody. A-018-01674. Declarations No. the land to which I am to say is given to my and almost have the same boundaries. 3787. has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common." while the subject matter of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement was the property described in Transfer Certificate of Title 3. 1971. Besides. inherited by them in representation of their deceased The Deed of Self-Adjudication was based on a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated October mother. but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. San Vicente. Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . 1959. safe to state that the property son FRANCISCA HERRERA. June 28. the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) awarded to Margarita Herrera several portions of land which are part of the Tunasan Estate in San Pedro. the remaining child of the late Margarita Herrera executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication claiming that she is the only In the case at bar. I Facts: would like to acknowledge. Francisca Herrera. 1960. the 107. Currently residing and receiving a letter to Nayong of same. The sale is valid. assign or mortgage them. Municipality of Pasig. Province of Rizal. She also 1986 by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement. the front of the house. The 107-square meter lot 7. documents was described as "a portion of a parcel of land covered in Tax Serie of 1959. The witnesses Laguna. in the middle age. Margarita Herrera placed her thumbmark 5 above her name Reform (DAR). married to mentioned in Tax Declaration No. 28 The co-owner. 3787 is made and adopted in the City of Manila. 3 sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the co- ownership. by the mother of the petitioners to respondents Spouses Lumbao should be deducted from the total lot. the Margarita Herrera passed away on October 27. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . when the estate left by Maria had been partitioned on 2 May remaining relative. A-018-01674 and in TCT No. if I ever had the life of God in my life.

Margarita Herrera passed away on October 27. They 7. petitioner NHA should have noted that the original disregarded. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision setting aside the Self-Adjudication) was rendered and the deed was declared null and void. a Decision in Civil Case No. was barred by laches and that the decision of the Office of the President was 1971. It declared the deeds of sale executed by During trial on the merits of the case assailing the Deed of Self-Adjudication. Her heirs executed an extrajudicial Issue: WON the decision of the NHA is arbitrary settlement of her estate which they submitted to the NHA. B-1263. On October reconsideration which were both denied on July 21. for " Nullification of Government Lot's Award . It then held that the said document must first be mother. holding that. B-1263 (questioning the Deed of On March 9. the Court of Appeals transferred all her rights and interest over the lots in question in favor of the affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. 13 Thereafter. in such period. Said transfer of rights Held: was approved by the NHA. 34 The NHA issued its resolution 35 on February 5. and re-raised the fact that Francisca Herrera's declaration of self-adjudication has been adjudged as a nullity because the other heirs were By considering the document. Francisca Herrera died. as heir of Beatriz Herrera-Mercado. author of the instrument. 9 upheld the trial court ruling that the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" was not an assignment of rights but one that involved disposition of property which shall take effect upon Private respondent Almeida appealed to the Office of the President. Private respondent Almeida. private respondent Segunda Mercado-Almeida sought the cancellation heirs By virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code which provides that: of the titles issued in favor of the heirs of Francisca." Therefore. NHA in favor of Herrera's heirs null and void and ruled that the "Sinumpaang Francisca Herrera filed an application with the NHA to purchase the same lots Salaysay" was not an assignment of rights but a disposition of property which submitting therewith a copy of the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" executed by her shall take effect upon death. On December 29. 1980. 6 mere tolerance and that they had been paying taxes thereon. When the petitioner received the "Sinumpaang Salaysay. 15 Further. 33 the disputed properties. protested submitted to probate before it can transfer property. In her words "in case I will be deprived of God of my life . Laguna. the application. the Yes. The case for annulment money. The defendant heirs of Francisca Herrera alleged that the complaint applicant has already passed away. The Court of Appeals ruled that protestee . Both the NHA and the heirs of Francisca Herrera filed their respective motions for NHA granted the application made by Francisca Herrera. Resolution was affirmed by the Office of the President in a Decision dated January 23.. 2003. The NHA gave due already final and executory. they argued that plaintiff's occupation of the property was by was docketed as Civil Case No. 1986.. 1988. Margarita Herrera executed a "Sworn Statement" whereby she waived or both appealed to the Court of Appeals. Laguna (now Regional Trial Court Branch 25). This Office finds that protestee has a better preferential right to the NHA acted arbitrarily in awarding the lots to the heirs of Francisca Herrera. 12 The NHA executed several deeds of sale in favor of the heirs of Francisca Herrera and titles were issued in their favor. It purchase the lots in question. rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance. The issue of whether it was a valid will must first be determined by probate. 1987." with the Art. 1960. She filed a Complaint on February 8. 14 They also contended that the transfer of purchase of course to the application made by Francisca Herrera without considering that the Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . 1998 for lack of merit. of a person are transmitted through his death to another or In her complaint. all the interests of the person should cease to be Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Office of the President and the resolution hers and shall be in the possession of her estate until they are transferred to her of the NHA.The surviving heirs of Beatriz Herrera-Mercado filed a case for annulment of the the subject lots is perfectly valid as the same was supported by a consideration and Deed of Self-Adjudication before the then Court of First Instance of Laguna.Atty. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro. On February 1. property. 11 Petitioner NHA elevated the case to this Court. 1987. private respondent Almeida invoked her forty-year occupation of others either by his will or by operation of law . 774. Branch 31." it should have noted heirs of Francisca Herrera directed Segunda Mercado-Almeida to leave the that the effectivity of the said document commences at the time of death of the premises that she was occupying. On August 28. 7 resolution of the NHA and the decision of the Office of the President awarding the subject lots in favor of Francisca Herrera. Branch that Francisca Herrera paid for the property with the use of his own 1 in Binan. 1998. 10 The NHA death.

Felino Noguerra went to the property. The warrant of arrest issued against her is hereby ordered reiterated. Art. Pfc. and sought the help of Francisco Manalo and told him the seller. Upon arraignment. Manalo returned with When the original buyer died. 4. In the course of the investigation. Few minutes there after (sic). The NHA therefore acted arbitrarily in the award of the lots. Felino Noguerra for drug dependency and for an alleged crime of robbery. the lower court transferred property. this Contract to Sell was neither nullified social and pernicious effect of prohibited drugs like marijuana being peddled to nor revoked. Tiaong. Pierre Pangan a minor was investigated by Pat. Gloria Umali entered a plea of noted that it has an element of testamentary disposition where (1) it devolved and "not. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. (2) the effect of which shall transpire upon the death of the rendered a decision finding accused Gloria Umali guilty beyond reasonable doubt of instrument maker. Quezon. the same should go to his estate. the Chief of the Investigation Division petitioned Self-Adjudication) which rendered the deed therein null and void 40 should have the Court for the issuance of a search warrant as a justification for them to search alerted the NHA that there are other heirs to the interests and properties of the the house of Gloria Umali located at Rector (sic) Street. accused Francisco Manalo was likewise facing other charges such as concealment of The death of Margarita Herrera does not extinguish her interest over the deadly weapon and other crimes against property. The sales and obligations. The serial numbers of the money was entered in the police blotter. The case against Suzeth Umali. After trial.Atty. Aside from said case. Quezon Police Department properties. Francisco Manalo. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Poblacion. The opposition of other heirs to the repurchase by the manner and circumstances of how he was able to purchase two (2) marijuana Francisca Herrera should have put the NHA on guard as to the award of the foils from accused Gloria Umali. Article 1 of determine. Accused being a detention prisoner is entitled to enjoy the 10. This Contract to Sell was an obligation on both parties . and served the search warrant on her. Chief of the Investigation contract to sell to other parties of a property already initially paid for by the Division gave him four (4) marked P5. 41 violating Sec. Obligations are transmissible. We affirm the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court which the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In return he asked the policeman to help him in some law. Margarita Herrera had an existing Contract to Sell 36 with NHA as the Tiaong Municipal Jail. Thereafter. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO . the police operatives. then the Judge Eriberto Rosario. Pat. NHA can not make another With the consent of Francisco Manalo. the policemen discovered that Pierre Pangan was capable of committing crime Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . 37 Margarita Herrera's obligation to the appeal made to him by the policeman and agreed to help in the identification of pay became transmissible at the time of her death either by will or by operation of the source of the marijuana. guilty" as accused Suzeth Umali remained at large. Such would be an act contrary to the law on succession and the law on to him.00 bills to buy marijuana from sources known decedent. before Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. decedent who may claim the property after a testate or intestate proceeding Is After securing the same. To the extent of the interest that the original owner had over the and for which a case for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act was filed against him property. Quezon. For as it stands. interests of the decedent should transfer by virtue of an operation of law and not by virtue of a resolution by the NHA.Margarita minors of Tiaong. as he has entered a plea of guilty to the charged (sic) before the sala of If we sustain the position of the NHA that this document is not a will. The issue is for the probate court to Gloria Umali and Suzeth Umali were charged for violation of Section 4. the Decision in the said Civil Case No. Upon Margarita Herrera's demise. We need not delve into the validity of the will. People vs Umali privileges of her preventive imprisonment. went to the house of Gloria Umali concluded. He did not negotiate his case for violating the dangerous drug act. Manalo although a detention prisoner was touched by Herrera and NHA. the NHA should have considered the estate of the two (2) foils of dried marijuana which lie allegedly bought from the accused Gloria decedent as the next "person" 39likely to stand in to fulfill the obligation to pay the Umali. 38 instruction was (sic) for Manalo to bring back the prohibited drug purchased by him to the police headquarters.initial applicant's death would transfer all her property. who the estate including whatever interest she has or may have had over the disputed was likewise investigated by operatives of the Tiaong. Further. cases pending against him. rights and Obligations to against property. With the affidavit of Francisco Manalo. he was asked by the police investigators to give a statement on rest of the purchase price. 1 (sic) of RA 6425 as amended. B-1263 (questioning the Deed of by the two (2) foils of marijuana. Sarmiento. supported lots. her co- Facts: accused in this case is hereby ordered ARCHIVED to be revived until the arrest of said accused is effected. only if under the influence of drug (sic).

The appellant vehemently denied the findings of the lower court and insisted that said court committed reversible errors in convicting her.Hence. Hence. IV First Ed. this appeal from the lower court's decision contending that the court GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE BIASED TESTIMONY OF FRANCISCO MANALO. p.29 January 1988. Castillo-Taleon | MATEO ." (Paras. he was likely to tell falsehood. She alleged that witness Francisco Manalo is not reputed to be trustworthy and reliable and that his words should not be taken on its face value. Wills and Succession Case Digest 17-18 . in the absence of evidence that he was actuated by improper motive (People v. 75268. Melgar. 157 SCRA 718). Vol. Issue: WON Francisco Manalo’s testimony should be given weight and credit Held: Yes. he stressed that said witness has several charges in court and because of his desire to have some of his cases dismissed. The testimony of a witness should be given full faith and credit. No. perjury or false testimony" are disqualified from being witnesses to a will. 44) Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify him as a witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will.. RULES OF COURT ANNOTATED. We rule that the fact that said witness is facing several criminal charges when he testified did not in any way disqualify him as a witness. his testimony must be accorded full credence.R.Atty. The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law" takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons 91 convicted of falsification of a document. G. Furthermore. in the absence of any evidence that witness Francisco Manalo was actuated by improper motive.