GENERAL PROVISIONS The Court dismissed the complaint against Siason but

Article 774 to 782 sustained the same against Alvarez. The Court then
awarded damages in favor of the Yaneses.
LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO The Alvarezes appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate
ALVAREZ vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE Court which, in its decision of August 31, 1983, 30 affirmed
APPELLATE COURT and JESUS YANES, ESTELITA the lower court's decision and subsequently denied their
YANES, ANTONIO YANES, ROSARIO YANES, and motion to reconsider. Hence, the present petition.
ILUMINADO YANES
G.R. No. 68053. May 7, 1990 ISSUE: Whether or not the liability or liabilities of Rosendo
Alvarez arising from the sale of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B
FACTS: The real properties involved are two parcels of land of Murcia Cadastre to Dr. Rodolfo Siason, if ever there is
identified as Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B which were originally any, could be legally passed or transmitted by operations
known as Lot 773 was registered in the name of the heirs of (sic) of law to the petitioners without violation of law and
Aniceto Yanes. Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, due process."
Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private respondents,
Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufino HELD: YES, it can be legally passed. "The binding effect of
who died in 1962 while the other private respondents, contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not
Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Aniceto altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money
left his children Lots 773 and 823. Teodora cultivated only debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his
three hectares of Lot 823 as she could not attend to the estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs
other portions of the two lots which had a total area of (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever payment is thus
around twenty-four hectares. The record does not show made from the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs or
whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact
of the lots but it is established that Rufino and his children diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have
left the province to settle in other places as a result of the been entitled to receive.
outbreak of World War II. According to Estelita, from the "Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a party's
"Japanese time up to peace time", they did not visit the contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the
parcels of land in question but "after liberation", when her successors. The rule is a consequence of the progressive
brother went there to get their share of the sugar produced 'depersonalization' of patrimonial rights and duties that, as
therein, he was informed that Fortunato Santiago, observed by Victorio Polacco, has characterized the history
Fuentebella (Puentevella) and Alvarez were in possession of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation
of Lot 773. from person to person, the obligation has evolved into a
Teodora Yanes and the children of her brother Rufino, relation from patrimony to patrimony, with the persons
namely, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, filed in the Court of occupying only a representative position, barring those rare
First Instance of Negros Occidental a complaint against cases where the obligation is strictly personal, i.e., is
Fortunato Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of its
and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the performance by a specific person and by no other. . . ."
"return" of the ownership and possession of Lots 773 and Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez,
823. During the pendency in court of said case or on they cannot escape the legal consequences of their father's
November 13, 1961, Alvarez sold Lots 773-A, 773-B and transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for
another lot for P25,000.00 to Dr. Rodolfo Siason. The Court damages. That petitioners did not inherit the property
ruled in the plaintiff’s (herein private respondents) favor. involved herein is of no moment because by legal fiction,
However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of
with respect to Lot 773. The sheriff stated that he their father's hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the
discovered that Lot 773 had been subdivided into Lots 773- hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the
A and 773-B; that they were "in the name" of Rodolfo payment of the debts of the estate. 42
Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that Lot It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable
773 could not be delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was only to the extent of the value of their inheritance. With this
"not a party per writ of execution." clarification and considering petitioners' admission that
An action was then filed by the Yaneses for recovery of real there are other properties left by the deceased which are
property with damages. Named defendants therein were Dr. sufficient to cover the amount adjudged in favor of private
Rodolfo Siason, Laura Alvarez, Flora Alvarez, Raymundo respondents, we see no cogent reason to disturb the
Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. (Tugade)
Gevero vs. IAC and Del Monte Development
Corporation
G.R. No. 77029. August 30, 1990
Facts:
 The parcel of land under litigation is 20,119 sq.m.
and situated at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City. Said
lot was acquired by purchase from the late Luis
Lancero by the private respondent corporation
DELCOR.
 Luis Lancero, in turn acquired the same parcel from
Ricardo Gevero covering the mother lot identified in
the names of Teodorica Babangha — 1/2 share
and her children: Maria; Restituto, Elena, Ricardo,
Eustaquio and Ursula, all surnamed Gevero, 1/2
undivided share of the whole area containing
48,122 square meters.
 Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II
and was survived by her six children
aforementioned. The heirs of Teodorica Babangha
executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Partition
of the estate of Teodorica Babangha, consisting of
two lots, among them was lot 2476.
death, even if the actual extent of such share is not
determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate.
Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II, hence,
the rights to the succession were transmitted from the
moment of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it
was only in 1966, the date of extrajudicial partition, when
Ricardo received his share in the lot as inheritance from his
mother Teodorica. Thus, 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.
As to petitioners' claim that the signature of Ricardo in the
1952 deed of sale in favor of Lancero was forged without
Ricardo's knowledge of such fact it will be observed that the
deed of sale in question was executed with all the legal
formalities of a public document. It has the presumption of
regularity and to contradict all these, evidence must be
clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. (De
Castro)
DELCOR is the true and absolute owner of Lot 2476.

 By virtue of the extra-judicial settlement and

partition executed by the said heirs of Teodorica
Babangha, Lot 2476-A to Lot 2476-I, inclusive,
under subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-80450 duly
approved by the Land Registration Commission,
Lot 2476-D, among others, was adjudicated to
Ricardo Gevero

 Private respondent filed an action with the RTC to

quiet title and/or annul the partition made by the
heirs of Teodorica Babangha insofar as the same
prejudices the land which it acquired a portion of lot
2476.

 Petitioners maintain that the deed of sale is entirely

invalid citing alleged flaws thereto, such as that the
signature of Ricardo was forged without his
knowledge of such fact.

Issue: Whether or not the successor may validly dispose

his hereditary share after the death of the decedent making
the deed of sale executed by Ricardo Gevero to Luis
Lancero valid.

Held: Yes. The hereditary share in a decedents' estate is

transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the
death of the 'causante' or predecessor in interest (Civil
Code of the Philippines, Art. 777), and there is no legal bar
to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity)
disposing of his hereditary share immediately after such
LOCSIN v. CA respondents' rights to her succession. Said respondents are
February 19, 1992 not her compulsory heirs, and it is not pretended that she
had any such, hence there were no legitimes that could
FACTS: Spouses Mariano Locsin and Catalina Jaucian conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her property
possess individual properties which they inherited from their during her lifetime. (CRUZ)
parents which properties were brought by them into their
marriage. As the spouses were childless, they both agreed
that after both of them shall have died, their respective
properties shall revert to their respective sides of the family.
Such agreement was set forth in a will made by Mariano
Locsin. 9 years after Mariano’s death in 1948, Catalina
began transferring, by sale, donation or assignment, Don
Mariano's, as well as her own, properties to their respective
nephews and nieces. On 1973, or 4 years before Catalina’s
death, she made a will affirming and ratifying the transfers
she had made during her lifetime in favor of her husband's,
and her own, relatives. In 1989, or six (6) years after Doña
Catalina's demise, some of her Jaucian nephews and
nieces who had already received their legacies and
hereditary shares from her estate, filed action in the RTC to
recover the properties which she had conveyed to the
Locsins during her lifetime, alleging that the conveyances
were in officious, without consideration, and intended solely
to circumvent the laws on succession.

ISSUE: WON the conveyances made by Catalina were

invalid.

HELD: NO. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
declaring the private respondents, nephews and nieces of
Doña Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin, entitled to inherit the
properties which she had already disposed of more than ten
(10) years before her death. For those properties did not
form part of her hereditary estate, i.e., "the property and
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of
(the decedent's) death and those which have accrued
thereto since the opening of the succession." 10 The rights
to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment
of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such time. 11
Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or conveyed
to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of
her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may
lay claim. Had she died intestate, only the property that
remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to
her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were, one and
all, treated as donations, the right 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 neither they nor the donees are
compulsory (or forced) heirs. 12
There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part
of Doña Catalina, in transferring the properties she had
received from her late husband to his nephews and nieces,
an intent to circumvent the law in violation of the private
Opulencia v. CA
GR No. 125835, July 3, 1988
Facts: On Feb. 3, 1989 Aladin Simundac and Miguel Olive
(private respondents) entered into a contract to sell with
Natalia Carpena Opulencia (petitioner) a parcel of land
situated in Sta. Rosa Laguna. The price of the said sell is
Php. 150.00 per square meters. Private respondents
already gave Php. 300,000 to petitioner. Both parties had
knowledge that the subject land in the said contract is
subject of probate proceedings and at of this time the
probate court has not yet issued an order either approving
or denying it. Petitioner was sued by the private
respondents for specific performance because she failed to
comply with her obligation concerning the contract.
Petitioner now alleged as a defense that the contract is null
and void for want of an approval from the probate court.
Petitioner also argued that she is an administrator and
cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior
approval of the probate court. Trial court ruled in favor of
the petitioner. CA reverse the decision of the Trial court and
ruled that petitioner made the said contract in her capacity
as an heir of a property that was devised to her under the
will sought to be probated.. Hence this appeal to the SC.
Issue: Whether or not the contract to sell of the petitioner is Issue: Whether or not the heirs of Vicente Tabanao has
valid without the requisite of the probate court?
Held: Yes. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals,
Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court is not applicable,
because petitioner entered into the Contract to Sell in her
capacity as an heiress, not as an executrix or administratrix
of the estate. In the contract, she represented herself as the
"lawful owner" and seller of the subject parcel of land. 12
She also explained the reason for the sale to be "difficulties
in her living" conditions and consequent "need of cash." 13
These representations clearly evince that she was not
acting on behalf of the estate under probate when she
entered into the Contract to Sell. Accordingly, the
jurisprudence cited by petitioner has no application to the
instant case.
We emphasize that hereditary rights are vested in the heir
or heirs from the moment of the decedent's death. 14
Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary
share the moment her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial
approval does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because
the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the whole or a
part of her share in the estate of her late father. (Delos
Santos)
EMILIO EMNACE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF
VICENTE TABANAO, et al
G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001
Facts: * Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto
Divinagracia were partners in a business known as Ma.
Nelma Fishing Industry.
* 1986, it was dissolved and parties executed an
agreement of partition and distribution of the partnership
properties among them.
* Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the
agreement and also on his promise to turn over to
Tabanao's heirs the deceased's 1/3 share in the total
assets of the partnership, amounting to P30,000,000.00,
* Tabanao's heirs, filed an action for accounting,
payment of shares, division of assets and damages against
petitioner.
* Petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of
Vicente Tabanao has no legal capacity to sue since she
was never appointed as administratrix or executrix of his
estate.
the legal capacity to sue.
Held: Yes. Petitioner's objection in this regard is
misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to be
appointed as executrix or administratrix of the estate before
she can file the action. She and her children are
complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente
Tabanao. From the very moment of Tabanao's death, his
rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were
transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against
the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to
respondents by operation of law, more particularly by
succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of
which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of
the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted.
Moreover, respondents became owners of their respective
hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died.
A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment of
Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or administratrix, is not
necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity to
sue. As successors who stepped into the shoes of their
decedent upon his death, they can commence any action
originally pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of
his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment
of petitioner's obligations as outlined in their dissolution
agreement were transmitted to respondents. They,
therefore, had the capacity to sue and seek the court's
intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
(Lamigo)
 JOHNNY S. RABADILLA vs. CA et.al. transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And
G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000 since obligations not extinguished by death also form part
of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations
FACTS: imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge
 Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, in a codicil (a supplement to a will; an Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs
appendix) of Aleja Belleza, was instituted devisee of Lot No. upon his death.
1392 with an area of 511,855 square meters with the
obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to herein private In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No.
respondent every year during the latter's lifetime.
1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that
 The codicil provides that the obligation is imposed not only
on the instituted heir but also to his successors-in-interest the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private
and that in case of failure to deliver, private respondent respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge
shall seize the property and turn it over to the testatrix's Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and
"near descendants." title over said property, and they also assumed his
 Dr. Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife and (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved
children, one of whom is herein petitioner. to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the
 Private respondent, alleging failure of the heirs to comply instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private
with their obligation, filed a complaint with the RTC praying
respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance
for the reconveyance of the subject property to the surviving
heirs of the testatrix. of which is now being demanded by the latter through the
 During the pre-trial, a compromise agreement was institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent
concluded between the parties wherein the lessee of the has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court
property assumed the delivery of 100 piculs of sugar to erred in dismissing the complaint below. (Punzalan)
private respondent; however, only partial delivery was
made.
 The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of
action stating that, “While there may be the non-
performance of the command as mandated, exaction from
them (the petitioners), simply because they are the children
of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in
question, does not warrant the filing of the present
complaint.”
 The CA, reversed the decision and held that the institution
of Dr. Rabadilla is in the nature of a modal institution and a
cause of action in favor of private respondent arose when
petitioner failed to comply with their obligation under the
codicil, and in ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the
estate of testatrix. Thus, the present petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent has a legally
demandable right against the petitioner, as one of the
compulsory heirs of Dr. Rabadilla.

HELD: YES.It is a general rule under the law on succession

that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of
death of the decedent and compulsory heirs are called to
succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and
descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the
widow or widower, are compulsory heirs. Thus, the
petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of
the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter
by operation of law, without need of further proceedings,
and the successional rights were transmitted to them from
the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance

includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person,
not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were
Tanedo v. CA
GR No. 104482, 22 January 1996
Facts: October 20, 1962 – Lazaro Tanedo executed a
notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of his eldest
brother, Ricardo Tanedo, & the latter’s wife, private
respondents herein, whereby he conveyed 1 hectare of
whatever share he shall have over Lot No. 191 in Tarlac.
Said property was his future inheritance from his parents
Feb 28, 1980 – Lazaro executed an Affidavit of Conformity
upon the death of his father, Matias, to validate the sale he
made in 1962
Jan 13, 1981 – Lazaro executed another notarized deed of
sale in favor of private respondents covering his undivided
1/12 of Lot 191
Feb 1981 – Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same
property to his children, petitioners herein through a Deed
of Sale dated Dec 29, 1980
June 7, 1982 – private respondents recorded the Deed of
Sale in their favor in the Registry of Deeds
Petitioners filed a complaint for rescission of the deeds of
sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private respondents.
Issue: Whether the sale of future inheritance is valid
Held: No. Pursuant to Art 1347 NCC, no contract may be
entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases
authorized by law. Consequently, the contract made in
1962 is not valid & cannot be the source of any right nor the
creator of any obligation between the parties. Hence, the
affidavit of conformity dated Feb 28, 1980, insofar as it
sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless &
suffers from the same infirmity. (Calo)
(Although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents
was later than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership
would vest in the former because of the undisputed fact of
registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not
registered the sale to them at all. As between 2
purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has
a preferred right over the other who has not registered his
title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the
immovable property.)
SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS & ESPERANZA LATI
SANTOS, SPS.VICTORINO F. SANTOS, & LAGRIMAS
SANTOS, ERNESTO F. SANTOS, and TADEO F.
SANTOS vs.SPS. JOSE LUMBAO and PROSERFINA
LUMBAO
G.R. No. 169129             March 28, 2007
Facts:
 -Herein petitioners Virgilio, Victorino, Ernesto and
Tadeo, all surnamed Santos, are the legitimate and
surviving heirs of the late Rita Catoc Santos (Rita),
who died on 20 October 1985. 
 -On two separate occasions during her lifetime, Rita
sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao the subject
property which is a part of her share in the estate of
her deceased mother, Maria Catoc (Maria), who
died intestate on 19 September 1978.
 -On the first occasion, Rita sold 100 square meters
of her inchoate share in her mother’s estate through
a document denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa,"
dated 17 August 1979. Respondents Spouses
Lumbao claimed the execution of the aforesaid
document was witnessed by petitioners Virgilio and
Tadeo, as shown by their signatures affixed therein.
 -On the second occasion, an additional seven
square meters was added to the land as evidenced
by a document also denominated as "Bilihan ng
Lupa," dated 9 January 1981.
 -After acquiring the subject property, respondents
Spouses Lumbao took actual possession thereof
and erected thereon a house which they have been
occupying as exclusive owners up to the present. 
 -As the exclusive owners of the subject property,
respondents Spouses Lumbao made several verbal
demands upon Rita, during her lifetime, and
thereafter upon herein petitioners, for them to
execute the necessary documents to effect the
issuance of a separate title in favor of respondents
Spouses Lumbao insofar as the subject property is
concerned. 
 -Respondents Spouses Lumbao alleged that prior
to her death, Rita informed 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 had not yet been
partitioned.
 -On 2 May 1986, the Spouses Lumbao claimed that
petitioners, acting fraudulently and in conspiracy
with one another, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement, adjudicating and partitioning among
themselves and the other heirs, the estate left by
Maria, which included the subject property already
sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao and now
covered by TCT No. 81729 of the Registry of Deeds
of Pasig City.
 -On 15 June 1992, respondents Spouses Lumbao,
through counsel, sent a formal demand letter to
petitioners but despite receipt of such demand
letter, petitioners still failed and refused to reconvey
the subject property to the respondents Spouses
Lumbao. Consequently, the latter filed a Complaint
 for Reconveyance with Damages before the RTC of
Pasig City. 2. Yes. The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts
 -Petitioners filed their Answer denying the entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in the
allegations that the subject property had been sold present case. Article 131132 of the NCC is the basis of this
to the respondents Spouses Lumbao. They likewise
rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights
denied that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
had been fraudulently executed because the same and obligations the decedent have over the property were
was duly published as required by law. transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of
 -Moreover, in the said answer, Virgilio and Tadeo acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the
admitted to being witnesses to the transaction decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the
between their mother and the respondents. heirs.33 Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal
However, they denied during cross-examination consequence of a transaction entered into by their
that they have knowledge of said transaction.
predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the
 -The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioners. On
appeal, the decision was reversed and an order to property subject to the liability affecting their common
reconvey the land to the Lumbaos was entered. ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between
The Court of Appeals noted that the failure of the them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to
petitioners to adduce any additional evidence to what rights their mother had and what is valid and binding
override Virgilio and Tadeo’s admission in their against her is also valid and binding as against them. The
Answer that they were witnesses to the transaction death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a
rendered the presence of said signatures
contract which involves a property right and the rights and
conclusive upon them.
obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives
of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused
Issues:
by the death of the party when the other party has a
1. WON the sale was valid even though the
property interest in the subject matter of the contract. 34
questioned property had not yet been partitioned as
of the time of the sale?
2. WON the transaction entered into by Rita, the In the end, despite the death of the petitioners’ mother, they
petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, is binding upon are still bound to comply with the provisions of the "Bilihan
her heirs? ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981.
Consequently, they must reconvey to herein respondents
Held: 1. Yes. Both the law and jurisprudence have Spouses Lumbao the 107-square meter lot which they
categorically held that even while an estate remains bought from Rita, petitioners’ mother. (Adrid)
undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their
respective aliquots or undivided shares and may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage them.28 The co-owner,
however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or
determinate part of the thing owned in common, because
such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or
ideal portion without any physical division. In any case, the
mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete
portion does not per se render the sale void. The sale is
valid, but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling
co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of
the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership.

In the case at bar, when the estate left by Maria had been
partitioned on 2 May 1986 by virtue of a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, the 107- square meter lot sold by
the mother of the petitioners to respondents Spouses
Lumbao should be deducted from the total lot, inherited by
them in representation of their deceased mother, which in
this case measures 467 square meters. The 107-square
meter lot 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 already
sold during the lifetime of their mother.
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. "Nullification of Government Lot's Award," with the
SEGUNDA ALMEIDA, COURT OF APPEALS, and RTC of Regional Trial Court. The RTC rendered a Decision setting
SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, BR. 31, respondents. aside the resolution of the NHA and the decision of the
G.R. No. 162784             June 22, 2007 Office of the President awarding the subject lots in favor of
Francisca Herrera. The Regional Trial Court ruled that the
Facts: * The Land Tenure Administration (LTA) awarded to "Sinumpaang Salaysay" was not an assignment of rights
Margarita Herrera several portions of land which are part of but a disposition of property which shall take effect upon
the Tunasan Estate in San Pedro, Laguna. death. It then held that the said document must first be
submitted to probate before it can transfer property. The
* The LTA was succeeded by the Department of CA, affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Agrarian Reform (DAR). On July 31, 1975, the DAR was
succeeded by the NHA by virtue of Presidential Decree No. Issue: WON the Sinumpaang salaysay could bind the
757.2 NHA as the successor agency of LTA is the petitioner NHA
in this case.
Held: NO. When the petitioner received the "Sinumpaang
* Margarita Herrera had two children: Beatriz Salaysay," it should have noted that the effectivity of the
said document commences at the time of death of the
Herrera-Mercado (the mother of private respondent) and
author of the instrument; in her words "sakaling ako'y
Francisca Herrera. Beatriz Herrera-Mercado predeceased bawian na ng Dios ng aking buhay…" Hence, in such
her mother and left heirs. Thereafter, Margarita Herrera period, all the interests of the person should cease to be
died. hers and shall be in the possession of her estate until they
are transferred to her heirs by virtue of Article 774 of the
* Francisca Herrera, the remaining child of the late Civil Code which provides that:
Margarita Herrera executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by
claiming that she is the only remaining relative, being the virtue of which the property, rights and
sole surviving daughter of the deceased. She also claimed obligations to the extent of the value of the
to be the exclusive legal heir of the late Margarita Herrera. inheritance, of a person are transmitted through
The Deed of Self-Adjudication was based on a Sinumpaang his death to another or others either by his will
Salaysay dated October 7, 1960, allegedly executed by or by operation of law.
Margarita Herrera.
By considering the document, petitioner NHA should have
noted that the original applicant has already passed away.
* The surviving heirs of Beatriz Herrera-Mercado Margarita Herrera passed away on October 27, 1971.The
filed a case for annulment of the Deed of Self-Adjudication NHA issued its resolution on February 5, 1986. The NHA
before the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and the gave due course to the application made by Francisca
deed was then declared null and void. Then, during trial on Herrera without considering that the initial applicant's death
would transfer all her property, rights and obligations to the
the merits of the case assailing the Deed of Self-
estate including whatever interest she has or may have had
Adjudication, Francisca Herrera filed an application with the over the disputed properties. To the extent of the interest
NHA to purchase the same lots submitting therewith a copy that the original owner had over the property, the same
of the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" executed by her mother. should go to her estate. Margarita Herrera had an interest
Private respondent Almeida, as heir of Beatriz Herrera- in the property and that interest should go to her estate
Mercado, protested the application. Thereafter, the NHA upon her demise so as to be able to properly distribute
them later to her heirs—in accordance with a will or by
granted the application made by Francisca Herrera holding
operation of law.
that protestee has a better preferential right to purchase the
lots in question. The death of Margarita Herrera does not extinguish her
interest over the property. Margarita Herrera had an
* When FranciscaHerrera died, her heirs executed existing Contract to Sell with NHA as the seller. Upon
an extrajudicial settlement of her estate which they Margarita Herrera's demise, this Contract to Sell was
neither nullified nor revoked. This Contract to Sell was an
submitted to the NHA. 
obligation on both parties—Margarita Herrera and NHA.
Obligations are transmissible. Margarita Herrera's obligation
* Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Office of to pay became transmissible at the time of her death either
the President and the resolution of the NHA, private by will or by operation of law.
respondent Segunda Mercado-Almeida sought the
If we sustain the position of the NHA that this document is
cancellation of the titles issued in favor of the heirs of
not a will, then the interests of the decedent should transfer
Francisca. She filed a Complaint on February 8, 1988, for by virtue of an operation of law and not by virtue of a
resolution by the NHA. For as it stands, NHA cannot make
another contract to sell to other parties of a property already
initially paid for by the decedent. Such would be an act
contrary to the law on succession and the law on sales and
obligations.

When the original buyer died, the NHA should have

considered the estate of the decedent as the next "person"
likely to stand in to fulfill the obligation to pay the rest of the
purchase price. The opposition of other heirs to the
repurchase by Francisca Herrera should have put the NHA
on guard as to the award of the lots. Further, the Decision
in the said Civil Case No. B-1263 (questioning the Deed of
Self-Adjudication) which rendered the deed therein null and
void should have alerted the NHA that there are other heirs
to the interests and properties of the decedent who may
claim the property after a testate or intestate proceeding is
concluded. The NHA therefore acted arbitrarily in the award
of the lots. (Parrenas)