Kristine Joy S.

Esgana LLB - 3 Succession (6:30 – 9:00/7:30 – 9:00 Mon/Tue)

TITLE: Barretto vs. Tuason

CITATION: G.R. No. 23923, March 23, 1926

FACTS:
This case was remanded to the court of origin for the purpose of intervenors in order that
they or any other person entitled to participate in one-fifth of the properties may intervene, on
suggestion of counsel for the parties, the court appointed Modesto Reyes as referee, and upon
his death, Atty. Crispin Oben. Both referees filed their written reports, although that of the
former does not resolve the major portion of the question raised due to his premature death.

The defendants and some intervenors, not being agreeable to certain portions of the
decision and order promulgated by the court, took four appeals before the Supreme Court.

One of the appeal is interposed by appellants who are likewise descendants of the
founder of the mayorazgo. Some of them directly sold to the defendants their participations in
one-fifth of the revenue and all their rights and interest; the others are descendants of other
relatives of the founder who likewise sold their participation in one-fifth of the revenue and all
their rights and interest in favor of the same defendants.

The appellants impugn all the sales as null and void. And that the court erred in holding
that, by the deeds of sale executed by the intervenors-appellants, or their predecessors in
interest, their participation in the ownership of the one-fifth of the properties were sold.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sales in question are null and void.

RULING:
No. The most recent sales impugned were made between the years 1905 and 1910; the
oldest deeds were executed between the years 1891 and 1898. Nineteen years had lapsed before
appellants challenged the validity if the sale and it is more than that required for the prescription
of the action of annulment.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 657 of the Civil Code, successory rights are
transmitted from the death of the decedent, wherefore, it cannot be said that in the above sales,
undetermined rights were conveyed. It is true that on the dates of the sales, the amount of the
participations sold were not yet determined, but it can be determined through the appraisal and
liquidation provided under the Disentailing Statute. Thus, the sales in question are valid.
Kristine Joy S. Esgana LLB - 3 Succession (6:30 – 9:00/7:30 – 9:00 Mon/Tue)

TITLE: Tordilla vs. Tordilla

CITATION: G.R. No. 39547, May 3,1934

FACTS:
Francisco Tordilla died intestate, leaving his wife, a legitimate son and Moises Tordilla a
natural child and an appellant in the case at bar.

A contract was entered into between the appellee and the appellant in another case and
signed shortly before the death of their father. The contract is in the nature of a compromise and
convered two items, the support of the natural daughter which the brother agreed to assume for
one year and a proposed division of their future inheritance upon the death of their father.

Moreover, one of the contentions of the appellant that where a certain value is in a deed
of donation. The value cannot be questioned when properties are brought into collation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the compromise agreement entered into by the parties as to their future
inheritance was valid and whether or not the contention of the appellant is correct.

RULING:
No. The second portion of the contract clearly related to the anticipated future
inheritance and, therefore, is null and void under the provisions of article 1271 of the Civil Code
which provides that no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances, except
those the object of which is to make a division intervivos of the estate. Thus, the compromise
agreement entered into by the parties as to their future inheritance was not valid.

The appellant’s contention is not correct as article 1045 of the Civil Code provides for the
assessment of the property at its actual valuation at the time of donation. The rectial in the deed
cannot therefore be controlling. The actual value at the time of the donation is a question of fact
which must be established by proof the same as any other fact.
Kristine Joy S. Esgana LLB - 3 Succession (6:30 – 9:00/7:30 – 9:00 Mon/Tue)

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
(BARRETTO vs. TUASON VS. TORDILLA vs. TORDILLA)

Both cases involve the determination of the validity of the contract entered into by the
parties in the respective cases and the value of the property donated.

In the case of Barretto vs. Tuason the issue was whether or not the sale of the successory
right was valid while in the case of Tordilla vs. Tordilla, the issue was whether or not the
compromise agreement enter into by the parties involving their future inheritance was valid.

In the former case, it was held that pursuant to the provisions of Article 657 of the Civil
Code, successory rights are transmitted from the death of the decedent,the rights conveyed was
determined, and thus the sale was valid. On the other hand, in the latter case, it was held that
future inheritance cannot be an object of a contract and thus, the compromise agreement was
not valid.

In the case of Barretto vs. Tuason, it was held that on the dates of the sales, the amount
of the participations sold were not yet determined, but it can be determined through the
appraisal and liquidation provided under the Disentailing Statute. While in the case of Tordilla vs.
Tordilla, it was held that, Article 1045 of the Civil Code provides for the assessment of the
property at its actual valuation at the time of donation and that the actual value at the time of
the donation is a question of fact which must be established by proof the same as any other fact.