Bernardo v. Siojo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The spouses Marcelo Velayo Bernardo and Florentina de los Santos had two daughters, Valeriana (appellant) and Maria Trinidad. Maria Trinidad married Pablo Aguirre and had two children, Roman and Maximina. Roman died without issue, and Maximina married Miguel Siojo (appellee) and died without issue. The lands in question originated from the Velayo spouses and were inherited by Maximina Aguirre. Maximina's will bequeathed two-thirds of the property to her father, Pablo Aguirre, and one-third to her husband, Miguel Siojo. Miguel Siojo was appointed executor and administered the property with Pablo Aguirre. Pablo Aguirre later filed an action for partition against Miguel Siojo, which was withdrawn through a compromise agreement where Siojo retained possession of the lands in exchange for P3,250. Valeriana Velayo was not a party to this agreement, but it was stated that she consented and renounced her rights. Subsequently, to pay debts of Maximina's estate, Siojo sold half of parcels B, C, and F to Pablo Aguirre, who then sold them to Valeriana Velayo. Cadastral proceedings were held, and various parcels were adjudicated or are pending adjudication. Valeriana Velayo filed an action to compel partition and claim a share of the lands. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan dismissed the complaint. Valeriana Velayo appealed. The Petition: The appellant assigns several errors, primarily arguing that the trial court erred in declaring that she had renounced her rights to the reservable lands through the compromise agreement, that the agreement was binding on her despite not being a party, and that the alleged waiver was null and void for lack of consideration and because it was made during the lifetime of the reserver.
Issue(s)
Whether the lands in question are reservable property. Whether the compromise agreement entered into between Pablo Aguirre and Miguel Siojo constituted a valid transfer or waiver by Valeriana Velayo of her right to the reservable property. Whether the proceedings in the cadastral case had the effect of depriving Valeriana Velayo of her right to claim participation in said lands. Whether the alleged transfer or waiver of Valeriana Velayo's reservable rights is null and void for lack of consideration and for being made during the lifetime of the reserver. Whether the decision approving the compromise agreement is effective against or binding on Valeriana Velayo, who was not a party to the case.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Valeriana Velayo is declared entitled to five-sixths (5/6) of parcels A, D, G, and H, and five-sixths (5/6) of half of parcels B, C, and F, along with a proportionate share of the fruits derived from said lands from May 20, 1928. Miguel Siojo is ordered to render an accounting, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the partition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reservable nature of the property: The parties admitted that all the lands partake of the character of reservable property, having been inherited by an ascendant and reserved for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property came, in accordance with Article 811 of the Civil Code. The defendant's own answer admitted this character, with his defense resting on the alleged waiver of rights. On the validity of the compromise agreement and waiver: The Court found that Valeriana Velayo was not a party to Civil Case No. 2954 and the compromise agreement. Therefore, the statement in the stipulation and decision that she gave her consent was not binding on her. Even if she had participated, the act of transferring or waiving rights to reservable property during the lifetime of the reserver (Pablo Aguirre) is prohibited by Article 1271 of the Civil Code, which forbids contracts concerning future inheritances, except for divisions inter vivos. Such a transfer is considered null and void. On the consideration for the waiver: The Court found insufficient evidence that Valeriana Velayo received any part of the P3,250 from Pablo Aguirre. Even if she had, this would not justify the transfer or waiver of reservable property, as it is an act expressly prohibited by law. On the effect of cadastral proceedings and Torrens titles: The Court held that even though Miguel Siojo obtained certificates of title for some parcels, he is bound to transfer the portions to which Valeriana Velayo is entitled. This is because he obtained the titles knowing that the properties did not fully belong to him but to the reservee, Valeriana Velayo. The Torrens system does not protect titles obtained through fraud, and the defendant's omission of Valeriana's co-ownership in his application constituted fraud, preventing him from invoking the irrevocability of the titles. On the extent of Valeriana Velayo's share: While the original decision declared Valeriana entitled to five-sixths (5/6), a subsequent motion for reconsideration modified this, holding that strictly applying Article 811 of the Civil Code, the defendant is entitled to one-fourth (1/4) of the property, and thus the plaintiff is entitled to three-fourths (3/4) of the property. This modification was based on the principle that only properties acquired by the reserver by operation of law are reservable.
Main Doctrine
A waiver or transfer of rights to reservable property made during the lifetime of the reserver is null and void as it constitutes a contract with respect to future inheritance, which is expressly prohibited by law, except for divisions inter vivos of the estate.