Cruz vs.

Cristobal
G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006

Facts: Petitioners claim that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his first
marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. On the other hand, private respondents are also the children of
Buenaventura Cristobal resulting from his second marriage to Donata Enriquez.

Buenaventura Cristobal purchased a parcel land located at Sta. Lucia, San Juan, Metro Manila.

Sometime in the year 1930, Buenaventura Cristobal died intestate.

More than six decades later, petitioners learned that private respondents had executed an extrajudicial
partition of the subject property and transferred its title to their names.

A Complaint for Annulment of Title and Damages was filed before the RTC by petitioners against private
respondents to recover their alleged pro-indiviso shares in the subject property. In their prayer, they
sought the annulment of the Deed of Partition executed by respondents; the cancellation of TCTs issued
in the individual names of private respondents; and re-partitioning of the subject property in accordance
with the law of succession.

The RTC dismissed the case and ruled that that petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased
Buenaventura Cristobal as the baptismal and birth certificates presented have scant evidentiary value and
that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time amounts to laches.

The Court of Appeals ruled that they were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura
Cristobal thru "other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," but affirmed the ruling of
the trial court barring their right to recover their share of the subject property because of laches.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are bound by the Deed of Partition of the subject property
executed by the private respondents

Ruling: The settlement is not binding on the petitioners since they were not able to participate in the
execution of the Deed of Partition, which constitutes as an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the
late Buenaventura Cristobal by private respondent.

The rule that should be applied regarding the validity of the Deed of Partition of the subject property
executed by the private respondents is Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, which states:

The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of

general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial
settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice
thereof. 

Under the said provision, without the participation of all persons involved in the proceedings, the
extrajudicial settlement is not binding on said persons.  In the case at bar, since the estate of the
deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof by the
private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura Cristobal’s estate.

In sum, the partition of the subject property by the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners
since petitioners were excluded therefrom.