Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wills Annie 1 PDF
Wills Annie 1 PDF
The reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a
Laura Alvarez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Jesus Yanes, et al.(grandchildren of payment by the heirs or distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes
the deadz sila) G.R. No. L-68053; May 7, 1990 or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.( Estate of
Facts: Hemady v. Luzon Surety)
Aniceto was survived by his children Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. The PRs are the children Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the
of Rufino. Ani left his children lots 773 and 823. Rufino and his children left the during legal consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for
WW2. After liberation, they found out that lot 773 was in the possession of Santiago, damages. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment
Fuentebella, and Alvarez. Record shows that TCTs covering lot 773-A;B were already because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their
issued to Santiago. Santi sold the lots to Fuente. When Fuente died, his wife sold the lots to father's hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable in
Rosendo Alvarez. their totality for the payment of the debts of the estate. It must, however, be made clear
PRs filed a complaint against Santi, Fuente, Alvarez, and the RD of Negros for the return of that petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance.
the ownership and possession of lots 773 and 823. During the pendency of the case, Alva
sold the lots to Dr. Siason. Meanwhile, in 1962, Jesus executed a quitclaim in favor of
defendant. However, in 1963, the CFI rendered a decision in favor of PRs.(Civil case 5022
Note: pets did not file an appeal in this dec.) Decision cannot be executed coz 733 was
already registered in the name of Siason. The cadastral court initially ordered Siason to
produce his TCTs. Afterwards, the court nullified its previous order coz Siason was in GF
and without knowledge.
The PRs filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of exec. The court ruled
that the judgment cannot be enforced bec. Siason was not a party in the case.
Another action was filed by the PRs for the recov of the land plus damages and prutas. The
pets raised res judicata, prescription and estoppel in their answer.The lower court ruled in
favor of the PRs. It ruled that equity demanded that the PRs recover the actual value of the
land bec. the sale was executed without court approval. The appellate court affirmed the
TCs decision. MR also denied.
Wills Issue:
WON the obligation of deceased Alvarez(he died already) to pay the PRs could be legally
transmitted and passed down to his legitimate children and heirs.
Ruling:
*Civil Case 5022 is already the law of the case because pets failed to file an appeal. Said
decision had long become final and executory. SC is already powerless to review the
decision.
Yes. The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not
altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be
liquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule
Deed of Absolute Sale exec in favor of DELCOR, a TCT was issued. Luis acquired the same Carpena Opulencia on the ground that the latter executed in their favor a 'contract to sell' of lot 2125.
The defendant, despite demands, failed to comply with her obligations under the contract. The
parcel of land from Ricardo Gevero(1952). The sale bet Luis and Ricardo waqs annotated
defendant averred that the property subject of the contract formed part of the Estate of Demetrio
at the back of an OCT covering a mother lot(lot no. 2476) in the names of Ricardo, his
Carpena, in respect of which a petition for probate was filed with the RTC of Binan. The court ordered
mother Teodorica and his siblings.
the parties to submit their evidence. Pet, instead of submitting evid, filed a demurrer. Moreover, the
Teodorica died long before WW2. In 1966, an extra-judicial settlement and partition was pet maintained that the contract was null and void for want of approval of the probate court.
executed by the heirs of Teo. Lot 2476 was adjudicated in favor of Ricardo who was then Meanwhile, the court a quo granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the
alive. DELCOR filed an action with the CFI of Misamis Oriental to quiet title and/or annul appellate court set aside hte trial court's dismissal of the complaint.
the partition made by the heirs insofar as the same prejudices the land which it acquired. Issue:
After trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff corporation. The appellate court WON a contract to sell a real property involved in estate proceedings valid and binding without the
approval of the probate court.
affirmed the decision.
Ruling:
Wills Issue:
Yezz naman. Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the
WON the 1/2 share of interest of Teodorica in one of the litigated lots is included in the
decedent's death. Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary share the
deed of sale.
moment her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the Contract
Ruling:
to Sell, because the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the whole or a part of her
Yezz. The hereditary share in a decedents' estate is transmitted or vested immediately
share in the estate of her late father.
from the moment of the death of the "causante" or predecessor in interest (Art. 777), and
Petitioner contends that "[t]o sanction the sale at this stage would bring about a
there is no legal bar to a successor disposing of his hereditary share immediately after
partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate
such death, even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent
proceedings." Petitioner's contention is not convincing. The Contract to Sell stipulates that
liquidation of the estate. Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II, hence, the
petitioner's offer to sell is contingent on the "complete clearance of the court on the Last
rights to the succession were transmitted from the moment of her death. It is therefore
Will Testament of her father." Consequently, although the Contract to Sell was perfected
incorrect to state that it was only in 1966, the date of extrajudicial partition, when Ricardo
between the petitioner and private respondents during the pendency of the probate
received his share in the lot as inheritance from his mother Teodorica. Thus, when Ricardo
proceedings, the consummation of the sale or the transfer of ownership over the parcel of
sold his share over lot 2476 that share which he inherited from Teodorica was also
land to the private respondents is subject to the full payment of the purchase price and to
included unless expressly excluded in the deed of sale.
the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings. Therefore, there is no basis for
petitioner's apprehension that the Contract to Sell may result in a premature partition and
distribution of the properties of the estate. Indeed, it is settled that "the sale made by an
heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the pending administration, in no wise stands
in the way of such administration."