Facts
The case involves conjugal properties of Spouses Emerenciano and Adalia located in Olongapo City. After Adalia’s death in 1996, Emerenciano remarried Luz, with whom he had three children. In 2009, Emerenciano and Luz executed an Extrajudicial Settlement falsely declaring that only Emerenciano and his children with Luz were Adalia’s heirs, and thereafter transferred the entire property in their favor.
Upon Emerenciano’s death in 2011, his children from his first union—Demy, Montano, Irene, and Seatiel (“respondents”)—discovered the conveyances and filed a case to annul the documents, claiming that they were deprived of their rightful shares as Adalia’s heirs. In response, Luz and her children (“petitioners”) challenged the respondents’ filiation.
The RTC and the CA both ruled in favor of the respondents, recognizing them as legal heirs and annulling the deeds of conveyance executed by Emerenciano in favor of his children from his second marriage, to the exclusion of Demy (natural child), Montano, Irene, and Seatiel (all adopted).
Petitioners elevated the case, arguing that filiation cannot be resolved in an ordinary civil action and must first be determined in a separate special proceeding. They likewise assail the legality of the conveyances made by their father through the Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver and the Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim, and Transfer of Residential Buildings.
ISSUE:
- Is a separate proceeding necessary before the trial court can acknowledge respondents’ heirship?
- Were the Deeds of Conveyances (i.e Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver and Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim and Transfer of Residential Buildings) void?
Ruling
1. No. In their Complaint, respondents assert their right as the natural and adopted children of their deceased mother and seek to annul deeds of extrajudicial settlement and conveyances which deprived them of their hereditary rights. They are not seeking to establish their heirship since they already possess such status and right by virtue of law. Indeed, as Adalia’s children, respondents are Adalia’s legal heirs by operation of law.
Hence, a separate proceeding is not necessary for the RTC to acknowledge them as Adalia’s legal heirs.
Besides, it was petitioners who raised questions on respondents’ succession rights, claiming that Demy is not a natural child but merely adopted like Montano, Irene, and Seatiel. Hence, at this point, petitioners cannot validly question the RTC’s jurisdiction to rule on the matter that they themselves raised. It is settled that a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, which the RTC had consequently adjudged; or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be reopened. Verily, we find no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC on respondents’ status as Adalia’s legal heirs.
2. Yes, with qualifications. It is undisputed that the properties subject of the EJSW and Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim and Transfer of Residential Buildings formed part of the conjugal properties of Emerenciano and Adalia. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the spouses are co-owners of all the conjugal properties. Thus, Emerenciano, as the surviving spouse, had an actual and vested one-half undivided share in the properties. The other half of the undivided share pertains to Adalia’s estate, which Emerenciano and respondents, as Adalia’s legal heirs, shall then co-own in equal shares pursuant to Article 980, in relation to Article 979, and Article 996 of the New Civil Code.
In the EJSW, however, Emerenciano and his minor children misrepresented that they are the sole legal heirs of Adalia when the law on intestate succession does not grant any successional right from the deceased spouse to the surviving spouse’s second family. By such misrepresentation, respondents were unlawfully excluded from the settlement of their mother’s estate. In this regard, Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that “no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.” Hence, the Court has consistently ruled that an extrajudicial settlement which excluded co-heirs of their rightful share in the inheritance is void and inexistent for having a purpose or object that is contrary to law. It produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone.
Despite nullity of the extrajudicial settlement, however, Francis, Catherine, and Lorence had rights over the free portion of Emerenciano’s share in the properties. Simply put, the conveyances under the EJSW and the Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim and Transfer of Residential Buildings in favor of Francis, Catherine, and Lorence are not totally void. The Court stresses that the properties in question are co-owned by Emerenciano and respondents until liquidation of the conjugal partnership and proper settlement and partition of Adalia’s estate. In this regard, Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership provides:
ART. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. (Emphasis supplied)
Verily, Emerenciano’s full ownership over his undivided share in the properties cannot be disregarded. The conveyances under the EJSW and Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim and Transfer may be sustained to the extent of Emerenciano’s undivided interest (one-half portion of the entire properties as his conjugal share and one-fifth portion of the other half pertaining to Adalia’s estate as his inheritance) subject to proper liquidation of the conjugal partnership and partition of Adalia’s estate.