Rivera v. Villanueva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, claiming to be illegitimate children of the deceased Donato, Sr., filed a complaint for partition of real property against petitioners, who are the legitimate children of Donato, Sr.'s legitimate daughter, Milagros. Donato, Sr. died intestate, leaving several properties. His legitimate children, Emerenciana and Milagros, managed his properties. Emerenciana and Milagros executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition on September 7, 1956, adjudicating certain properties between themselves. Respondents alleged that their paternity and filiation to Donato, Sr. were duly established and that they were excluded from the partition. They sought partition of the properties and declaration of nullity of certain transfer certificates of title. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) partially ruled in favor of respondents, declaring them co-owners of certain properties and ordering petitioners to render an accounting of income from the filing of the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, ordering the accounting to be reckoned from the death of Donato, Sr. The CA also declared the Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition fraudulent for excluding respondents. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners argued that respondents' action for partition had prescribed, that the properties were already adjudicated, and that the CA erred in applying the Family Code provisions regarding legitime and in awarding litigation expenses. They also claimed res judicata and forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents' action for partition has prescribed. Whether the Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition executed by Emerenciana and Milagros is binding upon respondents. Whether the properties subject of the case form part of Donato, Sr.'s estate. Whether the reckoning period for accounting of income should be from the filing of the complaint or from the death of Donato, Sr. Whether the legitime of illegitimate children should be determined under the Civil Code or the Family Code, and what the correct share is. Whether the award of litigation expenses is proper.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The CA decision is affirmed with modification regarding the legitime of the illegitimate children. The case is remanded to the trial court for the rendition of accounting and submission of a project of partition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prescription of the action for partition: The Court held that prescription does not run against respondents as long as the co-ownership is not expressly or impliedly repudiated. The Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition executed by Emerenciana and Milagros is not effective as to respondents because they had no knowledge or participation therein. The partition was not valid and binding upon respondents, thus their right to demand partition has not prescribed. The Court reiterated that an extra-judicial settlement is not binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. On the validity of the Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition was fraudulent and not binding on respondents. Emerenciana and Milagros could not claim to be the only surviving heirs when they were aware of their half-brothers and half-sister. The Court emphasized that respondents' paternity and filiation to Donato, Sr. had been determined in previous court orders, establishing their right to inherit. On the properties forming part of Donato, Sr.'s estate: The Court confirmed that the Bulacan property, 46.9% of the Sampaloc property (lot only), and the SMC shares form part of Donato, Sr.'s estate. The Earnshaw property was correctly excluded as it was already titled in the name of the heirs of Emerenciana and Milagros. The Court noted that the previous orders from Judge Serafin Cuevas and Judge Herminio Mariano had already determined these matters. On the reckoning period for accounting: The Court agreed with the CA that the accounting of income should be reckoned from the death of Donato, Sr. on August 21, 1956. This is based on Article 774 of the Civil Code, which states that succession transmits property, rights, and obligations from the moment of death. Rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death, entitling respondents to share in the income derived from the properties from that point forward. On the legitime of illegitimate children: The Court modified the CA's ruling. It clarified that the Civil Code provisions apply since Donato, Sr. died in 1956. The Court agreed with petitioners that the legitime of Flora, Ruperto, Virgilio, and Donato, Jr., as acknowledged illegitimate children, should be four-fifths (4/5) of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child, pursuant to Article 895(2) of the Civil Code. The CA and RTC erred in applying a 1/2 share of the legitime of legitimate children. On the award of litigation expenses: The Court affirmed the award of P30,000.00 as litigation expenses. This was based on Article 2208(2) and (5) of the Civil Code, as petitioners' refusal to partition the properties compelled respondents to litigate to protect their interests. The Court found that petitioners acted in bad faith by refusing to give respondents their rightful share despite knowing their entitlement.
Main Doctrine
The action for partition is imprescriptible as long as the co-ownership is not repudiated. An extrajudicial partition is not binding upon heirs who did not participate or have notice thereof. The legitime of illegitimate children, under the Civil Code, is four-fifths (4/5) of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child.