LAW 105 SUCCESSION ATTY.

DIVINA GRACIA
PEDRON
MTh 10:30AM-12:00PM Page 1 of
3

GR NO. 162784 Case Title: NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.

SEGUNDA ALMEIDA, COURT OF APPEALS, and RTC of SAN PEDRO,
LAGUNA, BR. 31, respondents.

Ponente: PUNO, C.J. Case Date: JUNE 22, 2007

Topic: DEFINITION OF TERMS AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

Doctrine: The terms of the disputed Salaysay reveal its nature. Since it is explicitly stated that transfer of
property only occurs upon the death of the instrument maker, the Salaysay has an element of testamentary
disposition which makes it distinct from an instrument which merely assigns rights and interests.

Super Summary: NHA (then called LTA) awarded Margarita portions of land, evidenced by a Contract
to Sell. Margarita had 2 children, Beatriz and Francisca. Beatriz died and eventually so did Margarita.
Later, Francisca executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication as allegedly the only remaining relative, with a
Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Margarita years prior as the basis of the Deed. Beatriz’ heirs contested
this by filing a complaint with RTC. During trial, Francisca filed with NHA an application for the
purchase of the subject lots, presumably to pay for the balance of the Contract to Sell. Beatriz’ heirs also
contested this. RTC declared the Deed of Self-Adjudication void. While the NHA initially granted
Francisca’s application, RTC later also set this aside after a complaint from Beatriz’ heirs. CA affirmed,
stating that the Salaysay was not an assignment of rights but a disposition of property (a will). Thus, the
Salaysay must first be submitted for probate before it can transfer property. NHA appealed to SC.

SC held that the Salaysay was a will due to the wording used by Margarita and the fact that it only takes
effect upon death. When Margarita died, 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 RTC
Decision which rendered the Deed of Self-Adjudication void should have alerted 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. NHA therefore acted arbitrarily in the award of the lots.

Facts
● June 28, 1959 – The Land Tenure Administration (LTA) awarded to Margarita Herrera several
portions of land in San Pedro, Laguna. The award is evidenced by an Agreement to Sell No. 3787.
(Contract to Sell, hence transfer of ownership requires full payment)
● By virtue of succeeding laws, the LTA became part of the Dept of Agrarian Reform, until it became
the NHA by virtue of PD 757.
● Margarita had 2 children – Beatriz and Francisca. However, Beatriz predeceased her mother and left
heirs. On Oct. 27, 1971, Margarita also died.
● August 22, 1974 – Francisca executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication as, allegedly, the only remaining
relative of her mother. Such Deed was based on a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated Oct. 7, 1960 which
was executed by Margarita.
○ This was signed by two witnesses and notarized.
○ The witnesses signed at the left-hand side of both pages of the document with the said
document having 2 pages in total. Margarita Herrera placed her thumb mark above her name
in the second page and at the left-hand margin of the first page of the document.
● As a response, the surviving heirs of Beatriz (Margarita’s other daughter) petitioned for the
annulment of the Deed of Self-Adjudication.
LAW 105 SUCCESSION ATTY. DIVINA GRACIA
PEDRON
MTh 10:30AM-12:00PM Page 2 of
3
● During trial, Francisca filed an application with the NHA for the purchase of the lots which were the
subject of Agreement to Sell No. 3787. (Presumably, to pay the remaining balance of the contract to
sell). The heirs of Beatriz protested the application.

● RTC (December 29, 1980) – Declared the Deed of Self-Adjudication null and void.
● NHA (Feb. 5, 1986) – Granted Francisca’s application because, as per the Salaysay, Margarita
already waived and transferred all her rights and interests over the lots in favor of Francisca.
○ In effect, NHA treated the Salaysay as an Assignment of rights and interests.
○ Almeida, one of Beatriz’ heirs, appealed the NHA decision to the Office of the President.
■ OP – Affirmed the NHA’s decision.

● Feb. 1, 1987 – When Francisca died, her heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate which
was approved by the NHA. The NHA issued deeds of sale in favor of Francisca’s heirs. Thereafter,
Francisca’s heirs directed Almeida to leave the premises that she was occupying.
● Almeida filed a complaint seeking the cancellation of the titles issued in favor of Francisca’s heirs.
She invoked her 40-year occupation of the disputed properties, and re-raised the fact that Francisca
Herrera's declaration of self- adjudication has been adjudged as a nullity because the other heirs were
disregarded.
● Meanwhile, Francisca’s heirs argued that the complaint was barred by laches and that the President’s
decision had already attained finality. They also argued that Almeida’s occupation of the disputed
premises was by mere tolerance.
● RTC (March 9, 1998) – Set aside the NHA and President’s decision granting the application, since
the Salaysay was not an assignment of rights but a disposition of property (a will) which only takes
effect upon death. The Salaysay must first be submitted for probate before it can transfer property.
● CA (August 28, 2003) – Affirmed the RTC decision.
○ The document is a simple disposition of Margarita’s estate to take effect after her death – a
will. This intention of Margarita was shared by Francisca who after Margarita's demise even
executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication claiming that she is her sole and legal heir. It was only
when said Deed was questioned by the heirs of Beatriz, that Francisca filed an application to
purchase the lots and presented the Salaysay stating that it is a deed of assignment of rights.
○ NHA elevated the case to the SC.

Issue Rationale

[MAIN ● The Salaysay states that transfer of property shall only commence upon
ISSUE] Margarita’s death – “sakaling ako’y bawian na ng Diyos ng aking buhay.” Thus,
all of Margarita’s interests in the property shall be in the possession of her estate
W/N until they are transferred to her heirs by virtue of NCC 774.
Margarita’s NCC 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
Sinumpaang and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
Salaysay was a
● Margarita’s death did not extinguish her existing Contract to Sell with NHA
will or a mere
since such obligation is transmissible.
assignment of
● Even if NHA’s argument that the Salaysay was merely an assignment of rights
rights – WILL
was correct, it cannot make another contract to sell with Francisca since
Margarita already paid for a part of her contract.
● The NHA erroneously gave due course to the application made by Francisca
without considering that Margarita’s death would transfer all her property, rights
and obligations to the estate, including whatever interest she has or may have
had over the disputed properties, either by will or by operation of law.
LAW 105 SUCCESSION ATTY. DIVINA GRACIA
PEDRON
MTh 10:30AM-12:00PM Page 3 of
3
● When Margarita 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 should have put the NHA on guard as to the award of the lots. Further,
the Decision which rendered the Deed of Self-Adjudication 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.
● The Court did not find it necessary to still rule on the will’s validity since that
issue is for the probate court to determine. Nonetheless, the Salaysay has an
element of testamentary disposition since it devolved and transferred
property; and the effect of which shall transpire upon the death of the
instrument maker.

W/N ● Despite the rule on administrative res judicata, courts are empowered to
Almeida’s determine the existence of grave abuse of discretion in the actuations of
complaint is executive agencies.
barred by res ● Court stopped there, no longer addressed the question of laches
judicata – NO

Disposition
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition of the National Housing Authority is DENIED. The decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 68370 dated August 28, 2003, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of San Pedro, Laguna in Civil Case No. B-2780 dated March 9, 1998, is hereby AFFIRMED.

No cost. SO ORDERED.