Bautista v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teodora Rosario owned a parcel of land. Upon her death intestate in 1970, she was survived by her spouse Isidro Bautista and five children: Teofilo, Alegria, Angelica, Pacita, and Gil. In 1981, Isidro and four children (Alegria, Angelica, Pacita, Gil) executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, excluding Teofilo. Alegria and Angelica later sold their shares to Pacita and her common-law husband Pedro Tandoc. Pacita and Pedro obtained new titles. Pacita then sold half of the property to Cesar Tamondong. In 1994, Teofilo filed a complaint for annulment of documents, partition, recovery of ownership, possession, and damages, alleging fraud and fictitious sale. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Teofilo, declaring the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, subsequent sales, and titles void, and ordering partition among all compulsory heirs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, dismissing Teofilo's complaint on the ground of prescription, holding that Teofilo was deemed to have constructive notice of the partition upon its registration in 1981 and had four years to file his action. The Petition: Teofilo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing his complaint due to prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the action to annul the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition has prescribed. Whether the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which excluded a compulsory heir, is valid. Whether the subsequent sales of portions of the property are valid.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the action to annul the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition has prescribed: The Court held that the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was invalid because it excluded Teofilo, a compulsory heir. Citing Segura v. Segura, the Court reiterated that a partition is invalid if it excludes heirs entitled to equal shares and that no extra-judicial settlement is binding upon those who did not participate or have notice. Since the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heir, the action to have it annulled does not prescribe. The Court of Appeals erred in applying the four-year prescriptive period for fraud and the ten-year period for reconveyance based on constructive trust, as these do not apply to a void instrument. On whether the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which excluded a compulsory heir, is valid: The Court unequivocally ruled that the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was invalid. The partition excluded Teofilo, one of the compulsory heirs, from his rightful share of the property. Under the law, an extra-judicial settlement is not binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. As such, the partition was a total nullity concerning Teofilo and did not affect his rights as an heir. The exclusion of a compulsory heir renders the entire partition void ab initio. On whether the subsequent sales of portions of the property are valid: Consequently, since the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was declared invalid, it transmitted no valid rights to Teofilo's co-heirs who executed it. Therefore, the subsequent transfers of portions of the property by Angelica and Alegria to Pacita and Pedro, and by Pacita to Cesar Tamondong, were also invalid. These transfers were based on a void partition and thus conferred no rights upon the transferees, applying the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have). The transferees could not acquire rights from a partition that was legally non-existent with respect to the excluded heir.
Main Doctrine
An extra-judicial partition that excludes compulsory heirs is considered a total nullity and does not transmit any rights to the transferees, rendering the action to annul it imprescriptible.