Guevara vs.

Guevara
GR No. 48840
December 29, 1943

FACTS:

Ernesto M. Guevara and Rosario Guevara, legitimate son and natural daughter, respectively, of
the deceased Victorino L. Guevara. Rosario Guevara filed a complaint against Ernesto to claim her strict
legitime as an acknowledged natural daughter of the decedent, to wit, a portion 423, 492 square meters
issued in the name of the latter, and a certain amount for damages for withholding her legitime. It was
only Ernesto Guevara who appeared to have possessed the land adjudicated to him in the registration
proceeding and have disposed various portion thereof for the purpose of paying the debts left by his
father

Ernesto answered that whatever rights Rosario might have had been barred by the operation of
the law. It is due to the fact, according to him, that the large portion of the land in questioned was
entitled to his name by virtue of Deed of Sale executed by the testator ( Victorino ), subject the southern
portion of the said land, while the northern portion was sold to Rafael B Tuzon for personal expenses of
the decedents.

When Victorino died, his last will and testament, which was in the custody of Rosario, was
never presented to the court for probate. It was only presented by Rosario to proved that she was
acknowledged as natural child of the decedent but not the content of the will.

.
The RTC and CA rendered decision in favor of Rosario Guevara. The CA ruled that if the said case
filed by the respondent be dismissed, and ordered the filing of testate proceeding, it would cause
injustice, inconvenience, delay, and much expenses to the party.

Unsatisfied to the decision of the CA, Ernesto filed a petition to the Supreme Court .

ISSUE:

Whether or not the procedure adopted by Rosario, not probing the will of his father, is valid?

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court held that a voluntary partition of the estate among the heirs and legatees
should be supported by the evidence not by unprecedented and unheard procedure adopted by the
respondent ( Rosario ) who seek to prove her status as acknowledged natural daughter of the decedent
by his will and attempts to nullify and circumvent the testamentary disposition by not presenting the will
to the court for probate by claiming her legitime as an acknowledged natural child on the basis of
intestacy.
 The Supreme Court reiterated that the respondent should present the will to court for probate
because the rights of the legatees and devisees under the will cannot be disregard nor be obliterated
on the ground of the failure or refusal of the custodian of the will to present it to the court.

Segura vs. Segura et al

G.R. No. L-29320
September 19, 1988

FACTS:

On May 31, 1956, Plaintiffs in this case filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership
of the land which is supposed to be their inheritance, but was not received by them due to the executed
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition made by their co-heirs, the respondents in this case. The said Deed of
extra Partition made by respondents , has arrogated the entire property in questioned to themselves
alone as equal pro indiviso owner, excluded the plaintiffs.

The defendant in this case has executed several transaction of the subject land included the sale
of the same to Amojido, then, to Elison, then to De Javelosa, and lastly was mortgaged to Rural Bank of
Sta. Barbara.

On January 16, 1958 the action filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on the motion of the
plaintiff’s counsel.

The case was refilled on January 11, 1968 with the allegation that the partition and the
subsequent transfer of the subject land were null and void, insofar as those transaction deprived the
plaintiffs shares as co-owners of the said properties.

The defendant move to dismissed the case, contending that the action was barred by prior
judgment and by prescription under the Rules of Court and Civil Code.

The trial court and CA dismissed the case on the ground of prescription and res judicata.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the cause of action of the plaintiff has already prescribed and barred by res
judicata.?

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The ruling of the supreme Court as to the barred by res judicata is on negative while on the
prescription of the caused of action is on affirmative.

According to the Supreme Court, the case was not barred by prior judgment as the dismissal of
the earlier complaint was without prejudice to the refilling at future date. The Supreme Court found that
the plaintiff’s counsel had an intention of reviving the case, and that must have impression too of the
trial judge because his dismissal did not state that it was with prejudice to the refilling of the case.

On the issue of prescription based on the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court ruled that Section
1, of Rule 74 of Rules of Court is not applicable on the ground that said deed of extrajudicial partition
null and void. However, on the issue of prescription based on the civil code, the SC ruled that the rights
of the plaintiffs has already prescribed based on article 1134 and 1144, which reiterating the ten years
prescriptive period of the rights acquired by operation of law. The said prescriptive period has started
last 1953, during the sale of the subject land to amojido who did not retained the annotation to
Transfer of Certificate of Title, and was suspended on May 1956 but continue running again on 1958,
and completed the ten ( 10 ) years prescriptive period on 1965. Hence, the complaint was barred by
prescription.

The Roam Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao

Vs.
Prudencio

G.R. No. 187942

September 7, 2016

FACTS:
Petiitoner Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao is the one who bought the subject land to this
case from spouses Cepeda, who also bought the same from Teodora Abad. Teodora Abad is the second
wife of Felipe Prudencio, who had two children. The first wife of Felipe is Elena Antonio who begot 5
children, who are respondents to this case.

Upon the death of Felipe, Teodora, Fraudencio jr, and Leonora executed a deed of extra
Judicial partition of the estate of the former , which stated thereon that Teodora and her children is the
only heirs of the decedent. The two children of the Teodora has waived their rights to the subject
property which resulted to the transfer of the title of the subject land to Teodora.

On September 15, 1972, Respondent- appellees filed a complaint for partition with re-
conveyance of the subject land against petitioner. They alleged that they are the children and grand
children of Felipe by his first marriage. They also posited that they were fraudulently deprived of their
rightful shares in the estate of Felipe and Elena when Extra Judicial Partition declared Teodora as the
sole owner of the Cagayan Lot ( the subject land of this case ). They prayed that they be declared the
owners pro indiviso of the subject land , and that portion be re-conveyed to them.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao contended that they do not have any knowledge of
any defect over the spouses Cepeda’s land title during the execution of the sale of the subject land.
They averred that they are innocent purchaser for value.

Spouses Cepeda also maintained that they had no knowledge to any other person had interest
on the subject land during the sale of the same by Teodora. They asserted that they were purchaser for
value and in good faith.
 The RTC rendered decision in favor of the respondents-appellees. The RTC held that it was
impossible for Teodora and her children to not know that Felipe had children by his first marriage.

The CA found that the petitioner and spouses Cepeda failed to prove that they are purchaser in
good faith. Hence, it affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action for partition with re-conveyance will prosper?

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The answer of the Supreme Court is on affirmative. It reiterated that the excluded hiers in the
deed of extra judicial partition could recover what is rightfully thiers from person who are innocent
purchaser for value. It stressed out that the answer would not depend on the good faith or bad faith on
the part of the purchaser, but rather on the fact of ownership, for no one give what he does not have.

The title of the subject land in favor of Teodora is void since the extra judicial partition they
executed was totally null and void due to the exclusion of the respondents to the said partition,
pursuant to section 1, rule 74 of the Rules of court.

The petition was denied.

Morales vs. Olondriz et al

G.R. No. 198994
February 3, 2016

FACTS:
The heirs of Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz Sr. believed that he died intestate which caused them to
filed an action for the partition of the estate of the former. However, on July 28, 2003, Iris Morales filed
a separate petition with the RTC alleging that the decedent left a will, and she prayed for the probate of
the said will. On the will, Francsisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz, the illegitimate son of the decedent
was omitted. Because of the said omission, the respondents moved to dismiss the probate proceeding
on the ground of preterition. Morales contended that the probate court should not touch on the
intrinsic validity of the will.

The RTC found that Francisco, as admitted by Morals as one of the heirs, was clearly preterited.
Hence, ordered for case to proceed to intestacy.

The CA dismissed Morales petition for certiorari.. It held that the continuation of probate
proceeding with a will which is void due to preterition would be superfluous and impractical because the
inheritance should be adjudicated intestate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the probate court should not touch the intrinsic validity of the will?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT;

The general rule is that in the probate proceeding, the scope of the court’s inquiry is limited only
to the questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the probate court will only determine the will’s
formal validity and due execution. However, this rule is not inflexible and absolute. It is not beyond the
probate court’s jurisdiction to press upon the intrinsic validity of the will when so warranted by
exceptional circumstances. When practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will
be passed upon even before it is probated, the probate court should meet the issue.

The decedent’s will does not contain specific legacies or devisees, and Francisco’s preterition
has annulled the institution of the heirs. The said annulment effectively caused the total abrogation of
the will, resulting in the total intestacy of the inheritance. The said will, no matter how valid it may
appear extrinsically, is null and void due to preterition.

The petition was dismissed.