Balilo-Montero v. Septimo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jose Balilo was the registered owner of a parcel of land in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, evidenced by Homestead Patent No. 46784 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3014. Jose Balilo died intestate on August 12, 1943. His sister, Niniana Balilo, initiated guardianship proceedings for Jovencio Balilo, whom she claimed was Jose's son. As guardian, Niniana was authorized to sell the property to Jose Septimo for P750.00. Jose Septimo took possession and paid taxes but failed to register the deed or obtain a Torrens title. Jovencio Balilo later filed a complaint to compel a resale, alleging he was Jose Balilo's legitimate son. This complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance (CFI) as the repurchase period had expired. 2. Procedural History: Purificacion Balilo-Montero, claiming to be a daughter and heir of Jose Balilo, filed a complaint in 1987 against Eugenia Septimo (Jose Septimo's widow) and the spouses Placido and Consuelo Robles for recovery of possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Jovencio and Purificacion, ordering Eugenia Septimo to reconvey one-half of the property to Purificacion. Eugenia Septimo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the RTC decision, applying the Old Civil Code and ruling that Jovencio was entitled to two-thirds and Purificacion to one-third of the property. Purificacion moved for reconsideration, seeking a one-half share, which the CA denied. 3. The Petition: Purificacion Montero, now the petitioner, filed this petition for review, contending that the CA erred in awarding her only a one-third share. She argues that the CA should have applied the Old Civil Code provisions on intestate succession, asserting that she and Jovencio Balilo were entitled to equal shares of the property inherited from Jose Balilo, as there was no competent evidence of a marriage between Jose Balilo and Juana Villarama, Jovencio's mother. The Supreme Court granted the petition, agreeing that the Old Civil Code on intestate succession should apply and that Purificacion and Jovencio were entitled to equal one-half shares of the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Purificacion Balilo-Montero is entitled only to one-third (1/3) share of the property, considering the applicable law on succession. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the law on testate succession instead of intestate succession under the Old Civil Code, and the effect of the sale executed by Jovencio Balilo.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law, intestate succession, and shares of inheritance: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the law on testate succession. Since Jose Balilo died intestate in 1943, before the New Civil Code took effect, the provisions of the Old Civil Code on intestate succession should have been applied. The Court found no evidence on record that Jose Balilo and Juana Villarama were married or cohabited as husband and wife. Similarly, there was no evidence of marriage between Jose Balilo and Gertrudes Nicdao. Therefore, Jose Balilo was survived by his legitimate children, the petitioner Purificacion Balilo-Montero and Jovencio Balilo. Applying Article 931 and 932 of the Old Civil Code, legitimate children and their descendants succeed without distinction of sex or age, and inherit in their own right in equal shares. Article 939 of the Old Civil Code states that in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, natural children legally acknowledged and legitimated by royal succession shall succeed. In this case, only the petitioner and Jovencio Balilo inherited the property in equal shares, to the exclusion of Juana Villarama and Gertrudes Nicdao, neither of whom was the lawful wife of Jose Balilo. Article 946 of the Old Civil Code further clarifies that the surviving spouse inherits only in default of persons enumerated in preceding articles. On the effect of the sale and the extent of Jose Septimo's title: Consequently, when Jovencio Balilo, through his guardian Niniana Balilo, executed the deed of absolute sale over the entire property in favor of Jose Septimo, Jose Septimo did not acquire title over the entire property. He only acquired title to an undivided one-half portion thereof, which was Jovencio Balilo's inherited share from Jose Balilo. Jose Septimo could not have purchased and acquired the other half of the property from Jovencio Balilo because Jovencio was not the owner of that portion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Jovencio Balilo inherited an undivided two-thirds portion of the property and that Jose Septimo acquired title over the said two-thirds undivided portion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision, holding that under the Old Civil Code, the petitioner and Jovencio Balilo inherited the property in equal shares, as they were the legitimate children of Jose Balilo, to the exclusion of Juana Villarama and Gertrudes Nicdao, neither of whom was the lawful wife of Jose Balilo. Consequently, the sale executed by Jovencio's guardian only conveyed Jovencio's one-half undivided share.