SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES

Michelle C. Llaneta-Villamora
JD-3A

CASE TITLE:
Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao vs. Prudencio, G.R. No. 187942,
September 7, 2016, J. Jardeleza

FACTS:
Felipe Prudencio married twice in his lifetime. He begot five (5) children with
his first wife, Elena Antonio and two (2) with his second wife Teodora Abad. During
his marriage with Elena, they acquired a 13.0476 hectares (or 130,476 sq. m.) parcel
of land located at Sitio Abbot, Barrio Imurung, Baggao, Cagayan. Felipe and their
children became co-owners of the property, when Elena died.
Felipe then died intestate during his second marriage. His family in the
second marriage executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of the Estate with
Waiver of Rights in favor of Teodora. The Extra-Judicial partition acknowledged that
the Cagayan lot was acquired during the marriage of Felipe and Elena, however, it
stated that Felipe and Elena did not have any children who could inherit the property;
hence, Teodora and her children with Felipe are the only living heirs by operation of
law. It also provided that Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora waived their rights over the
Cagayan lot in favor of their mother Teodora. Accordingly, after publication, the
Cagayan lot was transferred to Teodora's name.
Teodora sold the lot to Spouses Cepeda, then the Spouses Cepeda sold the
lot to herein petitioner thus the issuance of TCT No. 20084 under its name.
Respondent-appellees filed a Complaint for Partition with Reconveyance alleging
that they are the children and grandchildren of Felipe by his first marriage. They
asserted that upon the death of Elena, they became the owners of Elena's conjugal
share on the Cagayan lot, while the other undivided half remained with Felipe. Upon
the death of Felipe, respondents-appellees then became owners as well of Felipe's
conjugal share in the property, together with Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora. 
Petitioner filed an Answer with Cross claim countering that they do not have
knowledge of any defect over Spouses Cepeda’s Title. Spouses Cepeda also
maintained that they were purchasers for value and good faith.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent-appellees. CA affirmed with
modification the ruling of the RTC. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was
denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
 

RULING:

DOCTRINE:

1|Page MCLV