EMNACE vs. CA

EMNACE vs. CA

November 23, 2001

FACTS:        

Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were partners in a business concern known as Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry. Sometime in January of 1986, they decided to dissolve their partnership and executed an agreement of partition and distribution of the partnership properties among them. 

Petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao's heirs any statement of assets and liabilities of the partnership, and to render an accounting of the partnership's finances. Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to Tabanao's heirs the deceased's 1/3 share in the total assets of the partnership.  Tabanao's filed against petitioner an action for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and damages.

ISSUE:

WON the heirs of Vicente Tabanao Lacks the capacity to sue the petitioner.

HELD:

No.  The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. She and her children are complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the very moment of Vicente Tabanao's death, his rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.

Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted.  Moreover, respondents became owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died.

RIOFERIO vs. CA

RIOFERIO vs. CA

January 13, 2004

FACTS:

Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving several personal and real properties. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he had seven children who are the herein respondents.

      Also, the decedent also left his paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero and co-petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. Respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes (legitimate children of the deceased) discovered that petitioner Teodora and her children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located in Dagupan City.

      Respondent Alfonso filed a Petition for Letters of Administration. Respondents filed a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate. Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of the administration proceedings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate pending the appointment of an administrator.

HELD:          

Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law.

 

 Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation.

DELA MERCED vs. DELA MERCED

DELA MERCED  vs. DELA MERCED

February 25, 1999

FACTS:  

Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate, without issue and left (5) parcels of land. At the time of her death, Evarista was survived by three sets of heirs.

On April 20, 1989, the three sets of heirs of the decedent, executed an extrajudicial settlement, adjudicating the properties of Evarista to them, each set with a share of (1/3) pro-indiviso. Joselito P. Dela Merced, illegitimate son of the late Francisco, filed a "Petition for Annulment of the Extrajudicial and prayed that he be included to share in the (1/3) pro-indiviso share in the estate of corresponding to the heirs of Francisco.

  

ISSUE:

WON Joselito as an illegitimate child is barred from inheriting from Evarista’s estate.

HELD:

 No.  Article 992 of the NCC is not applicable because involved here is not a situation where an illegitimate child would inherit ab intestato from a legitimate sister of his father, which is prohibited by the aforesaid provision of law. Rather, it is a scenario where an illegitimate child inherits from his father, the latter's share in or portion of, what the latter already inherited from the deceased sister, Evarista. As opined by the Court of Appeals, the law in point in the present case is Article 777 of the NCC, which provides that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Since Evarista died ahead of her brother Francisco, the latter inherited a portion of the estate of the former as one of her heirs. Subsequently, when Francisco died, his heirs inherited his (Francisco's) share in the estate of Evarista.

VITUG vs. CA

VITUG  vs. CA

183 SCRA 755

FACTS:  

Dolores Vitug, deceased, during her lifetime together with her husband Romarico Vitug, executed a survivorship agreement with the bank. It provides that after the death of either of them, the fund shall belong exclusively to the survivor.

ISSUES:

             WON the survivorship agreement is a will.

 WON it is valid.

RULING:

                Because the account was a joint account and they made a will while they were married, so naturally the cash would be their absolute community or conjugal property.  The cash is owned in-common by them. When the spouses opened savings account, they merely put what rightly belonged to them in a money-making venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other.  Since the wife predeceased her husband, the latter acquired upon her death a vested right over the amount under the savings account. 

MAGLASANG vs. CABATINGAN

MAGLASANG vs. CABATINGAN

June 5, 2002

FACTS: 

Conchita Cabatingan executed deed of donation over a house and lot in favor of his brother. Also, she executed 4 other deeds of donation in favor of the petitioners. The deeds provided that it shall take effect upon the donor’s death. Conchita died. Respondents filed an action to annul the 4 deeds on the ground that it is void for failure to comply with the formalities of a will.

ISSUE: WON the deed is a donation mortis causa.

HELD:

Yes, it is.

            The nature of the donations as mortis causa is confirmed by the fact that the donations do not contain any clear provision that intends to pass proprietary rights to petitioners prior to Conchita’s death.

Donations mortis causa must be executed in accordance with the requisites on solemnities of wills and testaments.

Though the deeds were acknowledge before a notary public, they were not executed in the manner provided for under Article 805-806 of the Civil Code, thus it is void.

NON vs. CA

NON vs. CA

February 15, 2000

FACTS: 

            Petitioners contended that the late Nilo employed forgery and undue influence to coerce Julian to execute the deed of donation. Petitioner Rebecca averred that her brother Nilo employed fraud to procure her signature to the deed of extrajudicial settlement. She added that the exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia Viado, in the extrajudicial settlement, resulted in the latter's preterition that should warrant its annulment.

ISSUE:

            Was preterition present that would warrant annulment?

HELD:          

            When Virginia died intestate, her part of the conjugal property, the Isarog property included, was transmitted to her heirs — her husband Julian and their children. The inheritance, which vested from the moment of death of the decedent, remained under a co-ownership regime among the heirs until partition.

      Petitioners are vague on how and in what manner fraud, forgery and undue influence occurred.

      The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to be a retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial settlement verily has had the effect of preterition. This kind of preterition, however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith, does not justify a collateral attack on the TCT issued. The relief instead rests on Article 1104 of the Civil Code to the effect that where the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. Again, the appellate court has thus acted properly in ordering the remand of the case for further proceedings to make the proper valuation of the Isarog property and ascertainment of the amount due petitioner Delia Viado.

MANINANG vs. CA

MANINANG vs. CA

June 19, 1982

FACTS: 

            Clemencia, left a holographic will which provides that all her properties shall be inherited by Dra. Maninang with whose family Clemencia has lived continuously for the last 30 years.  The will also provided that she does not consider Bernardo as his adopted son.  Bernardo, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings.

ISSUE:

            Was Bernardo preterited?

HELD: 

            In the instant case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is whether under the terms of the decedent's Will, private respondent had been preterited or disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance. Preterition and disinheritance are two diverse concepts.

            Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.  Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.

            By virtue of the dismissal of the testate case, the determination of that controversial issue has not been thoroughly considered. The conclusion of the trial court was that Bernardo has been preterited. The SC is of opinion, however, that from the face of the will, that conclusion is not indubitable.  Such preterition is still questionable.  The Special Proceeding is REMANDED to the lower court.