ALVAREZ VS.

IAC

FACTS:
Two parcels of land, were registered in the names of the heirs of Yanes.
However, a TCT over said lots was issued in favor of Santiago who then thereafter sold the lots to
Fuentebella. After Fuentebella died, his widow sold the said lots to Alvarez.
Two years from the sale of the lots by vda. Fuentebella to Alvarez, the heirs of Yanes filed a complaint
against Santiago, vda. Fuentebella and Alvarez for the return of ownership and possession of lots 773
and 823.

During the pendency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Siason, who thereafter declared the two
lots in his name.
The lower court ordered Alvarez to reconvey the lots to the heirs of Yanes. However, the sheriff was
unable to execute said decision since the lot was now registered under the name of Dr. Siason who
was not a party to the writ of execution.
The Yaneses then filed another case for recovery against the heirs of Alvarez (who is now deceased)
and Dr. Siason for the recovery of real property with damage which was dismissed by the court.
However, the court ordered the heirs of Alvarez to pay the actual value of the lots to the heirs of
Yanes.
The heirs of Alvarez appealed, contending that the liability arising from the sale of Lots No. 773-A and
773-B made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo
Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.

ISSUE: WON petitioners are liable for the value of the lots.

RULING:
Such contention is untenable for it overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the general
transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs
particularly found in arts. 774, 776 and 1311 of the Civil Code. Petitioners being the heirs of the late
Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to
the present claim for damages.
That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment because by legal fiction,
the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father's hereditary estate, and we
have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the payment of the debts of
the estate.
It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the extent
of the value of their inheritance.