tome's digest (compliance for the finals)

EUGENIO CAGAOAN vs. FELIX CAGAOAN and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

FACTS: On November 3, 1915, Gregorio Cagaoan executed a deed of gift of four parcels of land situated in the municipality of Tayug, Province of Pangasinan, in favor of Felix Cagaoan. On October 26, 1918, he executed a similar deed in favor of Eugenio Cagaoan for a parcel of land which is the same as that described as parcel No. 4 in the deed of gift executed in favor of Felix. Both of the deeds of gift are free from formal defects and were duly accepted by the donees. Eugenio filed an action to have himself declared owner of the land donated and to set aside, for fraud, the donation made in favor of Felix and cancel the record in the registry.

ISSUE: Who has the better right to the land in question?

RULING: Eugenio, who is in actual possession of the property, and having first taken possession in good faith, should be the owner of the land. Felix had full notice of Eugenio’s claim before he recorded his gift with the Register of Deeds. He is aware of the nature of the property and thus will not be considered as a third person who is not aware of another’s claim as contemplated under Art. 34 of the Mortgage Law. Moreover, there are strong indications in the evidence that some form of deception was practiced upon the donor at the time of the execution of the deed in favor of Felix and that the donor never intended to donate the parcel now in dispute to Felix. 

CENON FERNANDEZ vs. CESAR MERCADER and ISABEL NOEL

FACTS: Fernandez and Juan Melgar entered into a partnership involving parcels of lands and carabaos, to be administered by Mr. Fernandez. During Melgar’s lifetime, he executed a deed of gift of parcel of land together with the work animals therein, in favor of Cesar Mercader and his wife Isabel Noel. Before Melgar died, Mercader had a conversation with Fernandez and as a result of the conversation agreed in writing to continue the partnership between Fernandez and Melgar under the new name of Mercader-Fernandez. When Fernandez filed an action for the partition of the parcels of land, alleging that the property he seeks to have partitioned is owned by him in common with the defendants, the latter denied the allegations of Fernandez’ complaint, asserting that they have acquired title in fee simple to the entire property through a donation made by Juan Melgar and his wife.

ISSUE: Whether or not Fernandez has a right to one-half of the property in question

RULING: The Court ordered that said parcel be partitioned as prayed for in the complaint, one-half thereof to be assigned to Cenon Fernandez and the other half to be assigned to the spouses Mercader and Noel jointly. It was further ordered that the registration in the names defendants should be cancelled. Melgar was the owner of only an undivided one-half of the land and that was all he could legally convey to the donees. Mercader had full notice of the claim of Fernandez to the property in question before the donation was recorded as he is the grandson of Melgar, was in intimate relations with him, and the interest of Fernandez in the Basak property appear to have been quite generally known. Mercader and his wife are not deemed third persons within the meaning of article 34 of the Mortgage Law, and their position was not improved by the recording of their title in the registry of deeds.

FLORENTINO GENATO, FRANCISCO GENATO, and GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION vs. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

FACTS: The Genato Commercial Corporation is a family corporation, founded by the spouses Vicente Genato and Simona B. de Genato. The spouses had six children named Francisco, Florentino, Manuel, Carmen, Felisa and Juan all surnamed Genato. Two of their children, Francisco and Florentino, are now claiming that they own 530 shares of stocks of the company because of the alleged donation made by the late Simona Genato. The other heirs want to recover said shares to include in the partition of the estate of the decedent. After CA reversed the ruling of CFI Manila to cancel the stock certificates issued to herein petitioners, only Felisa filed an appeal by certiorari.

ISSUES:

1.      Whether or not there was a valid donation

2.      Whether or not Felisa’s appeal can inure to the benefit of the other children of Simona

RULING:

1.      There was no valid donation because of the absence of proper acceptance. One of the donees was absent and it was not shown that he authorized his brother to accept the donation for both of them. Delivery and acceptance must be simultaneous. The acceptance by a person other than the donee must be authorized by a proper power of attorney set forth in a public document. As these requirements were not present in the instant case, the transfer of shares to Francisco and Florentino was invalid.

2.      Felisa’s appeal can inure to the benefit of the other heirs. As the estate of Simona was still pending liquidation, the interest of each heir cannot be deemed independent to that of the others. Their interests are so interwoven as to become inseparable, and the appeal by one heir prevented the appealed decision from becoming final as to the others.

REV. FR. VICENTE CORONEL, RODOLFO CORONEL, GERARDO CORONEL, SANTOS CORONEL AND DOMINGA CORONEL, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REV. FR. RUSTICO CUEVAS, PRISCILLANO CUEVAS, LOURDES CUEVAS SEBASTIAN, NATALIA CUEVAS GARCIA AND BRIGIDA CUEVAS JUDI

FACTS: Petitioners are the children and compulsory heirs of the late Gaudencio Coronel; while the respondents are the children and compulsory heirs of the late Querubin Cuevas. Gaudencio and Querubin are the legitimate, exclusive and compulsory heirs of Bernarda David Lim. When Bernarda died, she left a parcel of land with an area of 1158 square meters more or less, which was distributed to 12 heirs including Gaudencio and Querubin. Further, Querubin was given the right to occupy the whole lot as his house where his family resides was built on lot 5967 and inasmuch as the lot shall remain intact staying as a community property for ten (10) years. Gaudencio fraudulently registered said lot in his name under Act No. 496 swearing among others that he was the owner in fee simple and the only one in occupation of the lot which resulted in Original Certificate of Title No. 5770 dated February 7, 1972. After Gaudencio died, his heirs, herein petitioners, executed a Deed of Partition among themselves and a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in their names. When respondents learned of this fraudulent transfer, they filed a civil case for reconveyance which was granted. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

(1)   Did the action for reconveyance based on trust prescribe because the action was brought more than ten years after the repudiation of the trust?

(2)   Do the respondents have a right to the property in dispute?

RULING:  

(1)   The action for reconveyance has not prescribed. It is necessary that the one who pleads prescription against co-owners or co-heirs must be in possession and must occupy the property openly and adversely to the exclusion of his co-owners or co-heirs. In the instant case, Gaudencio and his children who are the herein petitioners have never been in possession of the property in question. As a matter of fact, it is being occupied then by Querubin Cuevas’ family, respondents herein, up to the present time.

(2)   Yes. In registering the lot exclusively in his name to the exclusion of the other heirs, Gaudencio deprived Querubin of his lawful share over the land in question, knowingly fully well that he only owned 1/12 share of the lot. Herein petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of their late father Gaudencio who co-owned together with the late father of the respondents and others, the designated community of property adjudicated by their late ancestor and ascendant Bernarda. When Gaudencio applied for the Torrens Title of the property, he was merely the designated administrator, and at the same time, one of the co-owners of the said property. As such all the other co-owners who are legitimate heirs should be given their due share. No one should enrich himself at the expense of another. 

 

LEONARDO GALEON, PETITIONER, VS. MARCIAL GALEON, ZOSIMA GALEON-CANDA, MATEO GALEON, AND COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, BRANCH II, LUCENA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:  Petitioner filed a complaint for partition (which was amended on August 13, 1963), against private respondents, alleging, among others, that petitioner is the illegitimate (adulterous) son of Demetrio Galeon, who during his lifetime had acknowledged and recognized him as such illegitimate child, while the private respondents are Demetrio Galeon's only legitimate children begotten with his lawfully-wedded wife, Felisa Venal. Private respondents moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that petitioner "has no legal capacity or personality to sue,” and that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. The amended complaint was dismissed by the respondent court on the "lack of personality of the petitioner to sue, because there is no "allegation or proof that plaintiff's filiation has been established.”

ISSUE: Whether or not from the averments in the amended complaint, petitioner has shown a present substantial interest in the real properties left by the deceased Demetrio Galeon, as to entitle him to file the action for partition

RULING: Petitioner has the personality to sue. As a basis for his claim in the estate, it is necessary for him to allege that his putative father had acknowledged and recognized him as an illegitimate child. Acknowledgment is essential and is the basis of the right of a spurious child to inherit in the estate of his deceased putative parent. It is therefore evident that the questioned averment in petitioner's amended complaint substantially complies with the requirement. The case at bar is not an action to compel recognition of petitioner as the illegitimate child of the deceased Demetrio, but an action by one who alleges as a matter of fact that he is an acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child of the deceased, for the partition of his estate. As to whether or not petitioner was actually acknowledged and recognized by Demetrio as his illegitimate child is a question of fact, which will depend upon the evidence to be presented at the trial. Inasmuch as such alleged acknowledgment and recognition by Demetrio of petitioner as the illegitimate child, other than natural, of the latter was deemed hypothetically admitted in private respondents' motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the dismissal of the case would therefore be premature. It deprived petitioner of the opportunity of submitting proof of his acknowledgment and recognition. It amounted to a denial of his day in court.

DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D. SEANGIO AND VIRGINIA D. SEANGIO, VS. HON. AMOR A. REYES, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 21, MANILA, ALFREDO D. SEANGIO, ALBERTO D. SEANGIO, ELISA D. SEANGIO-SANTOS, VICTOR D. SEANGIO, ALFONSO D. SEANGIO, SHIRLEY D. SEANGIO-LIM, BETTY D. SEANGIO-OBAS AND JAMES D. SEANGIO,

FACTS: The testator Segundo made a holographic will, denominated as Kasulatan sa Pag-aalis ng Mana, whereby he disinherited his son Alfredo. The will did not provide anything regarding the disposition of his will. The petitioners then filed a petition for the probate of the said will, which was opposed by the private respondents on the ground that the document purporting to be the will of Segundo did not contain the disposition of the estate and did not meet the definition of a will.

ISSUE: Whether or not said disinheritance is acceptable as a holographic will.

RULING: The document, although it may come across as a mere disinheritance, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. Under Art. 810 of the Civil Code, a holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. The document in question is written, dated and signed by the testator. Even if there is no stipulation regarding the disposition, the fact of disinheritance can be considered as an act of disposition in itself, as it results in the disposition of the property in favor of those who will succeed in the absence of Alfredo. A holographic will made by one who is not learned in the law is construed more liberally should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator. Testacy is favored than intestacy.