This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The CA ruled that prescription had set in, citing the case of Pedrosa v. Court of Appeals,[20] which held that the applicable prescriptive period to annul a deed of extrajudicial settlement is four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. It reasoned that when petitioners filed the instant complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial settlement of Antonio Feliciano's estate, more than four (4) years had elapsed from the issuance of the free patents. As regards the portion claimed by the late Jacinto Feliciano, sixteen (16) years had elapsed from the time the free patent was issued to him before petitioners filed the complaint, while in the case of Canoza, fourteen (14) years had elapsed from the issuance of the free patent in Canoza's favor. Hence, according to the CA, the action for the annulment of the documents had prescribed. | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.[16] The deed of settlement made by petitioners was invalid because it excluded respondents who were entitled to equal shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.[17] Thus, the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated January 23, 1998 and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando issued pursuant to such deed. | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby.[18] It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition), and not after such an agreement has already been executed[19] as what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among heirs. | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the said provision, without the participation of all persons involved in the proceedings, the extrajudicial settlement is not binding on said persons.[20] In the case at bar, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof by the private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura Cristobal's estate. The partition of the subject property by the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners were excluded therefrom. Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of Partition executed by private respondents among themselves in 1948. Petitioner Elisa became aware of the transfer and registration of the subject property in the names of private respondents only in 1994 when she was offered by private respondent Eufrocina to choose between a portion of the subject property or money, as one of the children of private respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the subject property.[21] This led petitioner Elisa to inquire as to the status of the subject property. She learned afterwards that the title to the subject property had been transferred to the names of private respondents, her half brothers and sisters, to the exclusion of herself and her siblings from the first marriage of Buenaventura Cristobal. The Deed of Partition excluded four of the eight heirs of Buenaventura Cristobal who were also entitled to their respective shares in the subject property. Since petitioners were not able to participate in the execution of the Deed of Partition, which constitutes as an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the late Buenaventura Cristobal by private respondents, such settlement is not binding on them.[22] As the extrajudicial settlement executed by the private respondents in February 1948 did not affect the right of petitioners to also inherit from the estate of their deceased father, it was incorrect for the trial and appellate court to hold that petitioners' right to challenge the said settlement had prescribed. Respondents defense of prescription against an action for partition is a vain proposition. Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, "no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned." In Budlong v. Bondoc,[23] this Court has interpreted said provision of law to mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be barred by prescription. For Article 494 of the Civil Code explicitly declares: "No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership."[24] | |||||