of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Sps. Butiong and Villafria vs Plazo Facts: Pedro L. Riñoza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including his children with his first wife, respondents Ma. Gracia R. Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, his second wife Benita Tenorio and other children, as well as several properties including a resort covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 51354 and No. 51355, each with an area of 351 square meters, and a family home, the land on which it stands is covered by TCT Nos. 40807 and 40808, both located in Nasugbu, Batangas. Respondents Plazo filed an action for Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession dated September 15, 1993, on the ground their co-heirs, Pedro's second wife, Benita Tenorio and o ther children, had sold Pedro’s resort and family home to petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria and Maria Butiong, who are now deceased and substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel B.Villafria, without their knowledge and consent. When confronted about the sale, Benita acknowledged the same, showing respondents a document she believed evidenced receipt of her share in the sale, which, however, did not refer to any sort of sale but to a previous loan obtained by Pedro and Benita from a bank. Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a notice of an extra- judicial settlement of estate of their late father was published in a tabloid called Balita. Because of this, they caused the annotation of their adverse claims over the subject properties before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu and filed their complaint praying, among others, for the annulment of all documents conveying the subject properties to the petitioners and certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. RTC ruled in favor of the respondents due to the irregularities irregularities in the documents of conveyance offered by petitioners as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the same. Specifically, the Extra-Judicial Settlement was notarized by a notary public who was not duly commissioned as such on the date it was executed. The Deed of Sale was undated, the date of the acknowledgment therein was left blank, and the   typewritten name Pedro Riñoza, Husband on the left side of the document was not signed.  The CA affirme d RTC’s decision. Before the SC, petitioners contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction. According to them, the allegations i n the complaint filed by the respondents show that the cause of action is actually one for settlement of estate of decedent Pedro. Considering that settlement of estate is a special proceeding cognizable by a probate court of limited jurisdiction, while judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession are ordinary civil actions cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction , the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the respondent’s complaint.   Issue:  WON the RTC had no jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint filed is for the settlement of the estate of Pedro and not of Partition. Held:  Yes. The RTC had jurisdiction. Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action pertaining to the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs and the nature and extent of their interests thereon, may fall under an action for settlement of estate. However, a complete reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession. Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. —  A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature   and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real   estate of which partition is demanded and  joining as   defendants all other persons interested in the property.  Here, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro died intestate; (2) that respondents, together with their co-heirs, are all of legal age, with the exception of one who is represented by a judicial representative duly authorized for the purpose; (3) thatthe heirs enumerated are the only known heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an account and description of all real properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate has no known indebtedness; and (6) that respondents, as rightful heirs to the decedent's estate, pray for the partition of the same in accordance with the laws of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that based on the allegations of the complaint, the case is one for judicial partition. That the complaint alleged causes of action identifying the heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, and their rights thereto, does not perforce make it an action for settlement of estate.   Utulo v. Vda. de Garcia    Facts: Juan Sanchez died intestate leaving his widow and 3 children as heirs. His widow, Vda. de Garcia was appointed administratix. One of their children Luz, died leaving her spouse Pablo Utulo and her mother as forced heirs. Utulo commenced the judicial administration of her properties where Vda. de Garcia opposed arguing that there is no need for judicial administration and in case it should be granted by court that she be appointed administratix. The CFI appointed Utulo as judicial administrator hence this appeal. Issue: W/N there was need of judicial administration Held: NO! The general rule as provided for in Sec. 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that that “if no executor is named in the wil l, or if a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted”. However this is subject to 2 exceptions provided by Secs. 596 a nd 597 of the same Code. Sec. 596 provides that when all the heirs are of lawful age, and there are no debts due from the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator. Sec. 597 provides that if the property left does not exceed P6,000, the heirs may apply to the competent court to proceed with the summary partition without instituting the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator. When a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to a  judicial administration, which is always long and costly or to apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court . Rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death hence his heirs succeed immediately to all the property of the deceased. It is at their option if they want to enter upon the administration of the property or if they want to partition it. When there are no debts existing against the estate, there is no need for the intervention of an administrator. Gregorio Fule vs CA, Cruz and Belarmino (286 SCRA 698) Facts:    Gregorio Fule, a banker and jeweler, acquired a 10 hectare of property in Rizal which used to be under the name of Fr. Jacobe on which (Jacobe) mortgaged the land to the Bank of Alaminos to secure a loan of P10,000. The mortgage was forclosed and the property later offered for public auction.    1984, Gregorio asked Remilia and Oliva to look for a buyer (property), the found Dr. Cruz, just so happens that Gregorio wants the 2.5 carat EMERALD CUT EARRINGS of Dr. Ninevetch Cruz (MD), Gregorio offered to buy the jewelry for P100,000, was refused, he then offered $6000 in the exchange rate of $1 is to P25, was still refused. They agreed, however, on the land of Fule for the jewelry.    Dr. Cruz asked her counsel, Atty. Belarmino to check the land for any impediments. There was. Gregorio then executed to a DEED OF REDEMPTION to cut through the legal impediment. Land is now A-Okay       Dr. Cruz went to the bank with Gregorio to show the jewelry and said (non- verbatim “Oy bobo check this shit out, tapat mo sa ilaw to see if it’s fake or not. ICE ba?”. Gregorio checked it and was happy. Gregorio and the counsel executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. The Property was for P200,000 and the Jewelry for P160,000, both agreed that Dr. Cruz will pay the remaining P40,000 by cash.    Gregorio happy with his jewelry, went straight to a appraiser named * wait for it * DIMAYUGA hahahahaha but anyway, Dimayuga said that the jewel is fake.    Gregorio then filed a complaint before the RTC, praying for the CONTRACT OF SALE be deemed null and void.    RTC ruled in favor of Cruz stating that Gerggy boy was in badfaith. CA affirmed. Issue: W/ON CA erred in upholding the validity of the Contract of Sale Held: No. The NCC provides that the Contract of Sale is consensual, and is perfected when the minds met. Contract may be rendered void if (1) Party has no capacity to give consent, and (2) if consent was gained because of VIMFU (Violence, Intimidation, Mistake, Fraud, and Undue Influence). Dr. Cruz was not Fraudulent. SC said that Greggy Boy was also a jeweler, he was given time to inspect the jewel before perfecting the contract.

1806 8405-1-pb

Apr 16, 2018

Historia Mundial

Apr 16, 2018
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks