Rebusquillo v. Gualvez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo and Salvador Orosco filed a complaint for annulment of an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated December 4, 2001, and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 6, 2002. They alleged that Avelina was one of the children of Eulalio Abarientos, who died intestate in 1964, leaving an untitled parcel of land. Avelina claimed she was made to sign the documents by her daughter Emelinda Rebusquillo-Gualvez and son-in-law Domingo Gualvez (respondents) on the pretext of facilitating the titling of the lot, only to discover later that they were in favor of the respondents. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale, ordering the cancellation of the tax declaration in the respondents' names and its reinstatement in the name of Eulalio Abarientos. The RTC also ordered Avelina to return the ₱50,000.00 advance payment. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that heirship must be determined in administration proceedings and that the Deed of Absolute Sale, being a notarized document, enjoys a presumption of regularity. The Petition: Petitioners, with Avelina substituted by her heirs (except respondent Emelinda), appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC correctly annulled the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, considering the general rule on heirship determination and its exceptions. Whether the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of Absolute Sale for being a simulated contract, despite its notarization.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the annulment of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication: The Court reiterated the rule that declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding but clarified exceptions when parties present heirship evidence in a civil case and the RTC renders judgment. Citing Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, the Court deemed a separate special proceeding impractical. Given respondents' admission that Avelina was not the sole heir and Salvador was a co-heir, the RTC correctly ruled on the Affidavit's validity. An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir; Avelina's false declaration rendered the adjudication void. On the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court affirmed the RTC's nullification. Avelina could not validly sell the entire property as she was not the sole heir and her Affidavit was void; she only had an aliquot portion. The Deed was a simulated contract, as respondents admitted it was to "facilitate titling" not transfer ownership. Their failure to take exclusive possession or collect rentals further indicated simulation. The notarized form does not validate a simulated contract, and exceptions to the parole evidence rule allowed evidence of the parties' true intent.
Main Doctrine
An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is void if the affiant is not the sole heir, and a Deed of Absolute Sale executed to facilitate titling, without intent to transfer ownership, is a void simulated contract.