Submitted
by: Manuel Zosimo M. Ozoa
Facts: Petitioner Juan de Dios
Carlos and Teofilo Carlos are brothers.
During the lifetime of their
father, their father agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The agreement
was made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn,
undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir,
petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. Teofilo is married to Felicidad and had a son Teofilo
Carlos II.
When Teofilo died, his brother the
petitioner commenced an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135,
against respondents Felicidad and Teofilo Carlos II with the following causes
of action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c)
recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages. The
complaint was raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC in Muntinlupa.
Petitioner avers that the marriage
between his brother Teofilo and Felicidad is null and void in view of the
absence of a marriage license and that their son, Teofilo Carlos II is neither
a natural nor an adopted son of the couple.
Issue:
Can Juan de Dios Carlos the
petitioner in this case file a petition for declaration of nullity on void
marriage?
Decision:
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1)
Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC (March 15, 2003); and (2) Marriages celebrated during the
effectivity of the Civil Code.
Applicable
law is the law in effect at the time of the celebration of marriage. The
marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad was on May 14, 1962. The New Civil Code is
the applicable law.
Under the New Civil Code which is
the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the
Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to
declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate "proper
interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of
marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action.
Can petitioner demonstrate proper
interest to be able to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage
between his brother Teofilo and Felicidad?
Being not a compulsory heir of his
brother Teofilo, petitioner has to first prove that Teofilo Carlos II is not a
legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of
Teofilo and Felicidad.
The records reveal that Teofilo was
predeceased by his parents. He had no other siblings but petitioner. Thus, if
Teofilo II is finally found and proven to be not a legitimate, illegitimate, or
adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner succeeds to the other half of the estate of
his brother, the first half being allotted to the widow pursuant to Article
1001 of the New Civil Code, which reads
Art. 1001 “Should brothers and
sisters or their children survive with widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their
children to the other half”.
This makes petitioner a
real-party-interest to seek the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of
his deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. If the subject marriage is
found to be void ab initio, petitioner succeeds to the entire estate.
But the
RTC is strictly instructed to dismiss the nullity of marriage case for lack of
cause of action if it is proven by evidence that Teofilo II is a legitimate,
illegitimate, or legally adopted son of Teofilo Carlos, the deceased brother of
petitioner.
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-58671 November 22, 1985)
Facts:
In 1969, Eduvigis J. Cruz, a
childless widow, donated a 235.5 sq.m residential lot in San Isidro, Taytay
Rizal together with the two-door apartment erected thereon to her grandnieces
private respondents herein, in a deed of donation entitled "Kasulatan Sa
Kaloobpala". The property was accordingly transferred to the names of
private respondents.
In 1974, Eduvigis Cruz judicially
adopted Cresencia Ocreto, a minor, after which she extrajudicially tried to
revoke the donation, but the donees resisted, alleging that—
(a) the
property in question was co-owned by Eduvigis Cruz and her brother. the late
Maximo Cruz, grandfather of the donees, hence the latter own 1/2 of the
property by inheritance; and
(b)
Eduvigis Cruz owns another property, an agricultural land of more than two
hectares situated in Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, hence the donation did not
impair the presumptive legitime of the adopted child.
Issue:
Can Eduvigis Cruz revoke the donation?
Decision:
Article
760 of the Civil Code says that she can, which reads
Art. 760, Every donation inter
vivos made by a person having no children or descendants, legitimate or
legitimated by subsequent marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced
as provided in the next article, by the happening of any of these events:
xxx xxx
xxx
(3) If the donor
should subsequently adopt a minor
child.
However, Art. 761 should be taken
into consideration in relation to Art. 760. Article 761 which states: " In the cases referred to in
the preceding article, the donation shall be revoked or reduced insofar as it
exceeds the portion that may be freely disposed of by will, taking into account
the whole estate of the donor of by will, taking into account the whole estate
of the donor at the time of the birth, appearance or adoption of a child.
In an action for revocation of donation, the
donor has the burden to show that the donation has impaired the legitime of the
subsequent child; but in this case, Eduvigis did not even allege it in her
complaint.
Unfortunately, in the case at bar,
the complaint for annulment does not allege that the subject donation impairs
the legitime of the adopted child. Indeed it contains no indication at all of
the total assets of the donor.
Eceta vs. Eceta G.R. No. 157037 ( 2004)
Facts:
Petitioner
Rosalina Eceta is the grandmother
of the respondent Maria Theresa Vell Eceta. Petitioner was
married to Isaac Eceta. They begot a son, Vicente. During Vicente’s lifetime he
sired Maria Theresa, an illegitimate daughter. At the time of Vicente’s death,
his compulsory heirs were his mother, Rosalina and illegitimate child, Maria
Theresa.
In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 218, for "Partition
and Accounting with Damages" against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of
her father’s death, she became Rosalina’s co-heir and co-owner of a Cubao
property. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-8922.
After trial on the merits the court
rendered a decision that Maria Theresa
was entitled to one -fourth of the Cubao
property plus back rentals and other matters concerning how the transfer be
facilitated.
Rosalina appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court’s ruling.
Her motion for reconsideration
having been denied, Rosalina now questions the filiation of Maria Theresa by way
of petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Can Petitioner question the
filiation of Maria Theresa at this stage of the case?
Decision:
Clearly this is just an attempt of
Rosalina to mislead the Court by representing that this case is one for compulsory
recognition, partition and accounting with damages.5 Notably,
what was filed and tried before the trial court and the Court of Appeals is one
for partition and accounting with damages only. The filiation, or compulsory
recognition by Vicente Eceta of Maria Theresa, was never put in issue. In fact,
both parties have already agreed and admitted, as duly noted in the trial
court’s pre-trial order,6 that Maria Theresa is Rosalina’s
granddaughter.
Besides, Maria Theresa has
successfully established her filiation by presenting a duly authenticated birth
certificate.
Mateo vs. Lagua G.R. No. L-26270
October 30, 1969
Facts:
On May 15, 1917, Spouses Cipriano
and Alejandra Lagua, donated 2 parcels of lot to their son Alejandro in
consideration of the latter’s marriage to Bonifacia Mateo, Petitioner of this
case.
In 1923, the son, Alejandro, died.
His widow, Bonifacia Mateo, and her infant daughter lived with her
father-in-law, Cipriano Lagua, who then undertook the farming of the donated
lots. It seems that at the start, Cipriano Lagua was giving to Bonifacia the
owner's share of the harvest from the land. Relationship turned sour and on
July 31, 1941 Cipriano sold the lots to his son respondent Gervasio Lagua but Gervasio, the brother in
law of Bonifacia has only registered it on his name on 1955.
After learning of the sale of the
lots, Bonifacia Mateo, went to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Civil
Case No. T-339), seeking annulment of the deed of sale in favor of Gervasio
Lagua and for recovery of possession of the properties. On 3 January 1957 the
court declared that the sale as null and void,
ordered the cancellation of the titles and ordered Gervasio to vacate
and deliver the said lots to the Petitioner.
On 18 August 1957, the spouses
Gervasio Lagua and Sotera Casimero commenced an action for annulment of the
donation of the two lots, insofar as one-half portion thereof was concerned
(civil Case No. T-442). It was their claim that in donating the two lots, which
allegedly were all that plaintiff Cipriano Lagua owned, said plaintiff not only
neglected leaving something for his own support but also prejudiced the
legitime of his forced heir, plaintiff Gervasio Lagua.
Issues:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals
acted correctly in ordering the reduction of the donation for being inofficious
?
Decision:
Civil Case No. 442 is not one exclusively for
annulment or revocation of the entire donation, but of merely that portion
thereof allegedly trenching on the legitime of respondent Gervasio Lagua; that
the cause of action to enforce Gervasio's legitime, having accrued only upon
the death of his father on 12 November 1958, the dispute has to be governed by
the pertinent provisions of the new Civil Code; and that a donation proper
nuptias property may be reduced for being inofficious. Contrary to the
views of petitioners, donations proper nuptias are without onerous consideration, the
marriage being merely the occasion or motive for the donation,
not its causa. Being liberalities, they remain subject to reduction for
inofficiousness upon the donor's death, if they should infringe the legitime of
a forced heir.
However, in rendering the judgment
under review, the Court of Appeals acted on several unsupported assumptions:
that the three (3) lots mentioned in the decision (Nos. 998, 5106 and 6541)
were the only properties composing the net hereditary estate of the
deceased Cipriano Lagua; that Alejandro Lagua and Gervasio Lagua were his only
legal heirs; that the deceased left no unpaid debts, charges, taxes, etc., for
which the estate would be answerable. In the computation of the heirs'
legitime, the Court of Appeals also considered only the area, not the value, of
the properties.
The infirmity in the above course of
action lies in the fact that in its Article 908 the new Civil Code specifically
provides as follows:
ART. 908.
To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the
testator shall be considered, deducting all debts, and charges, which shall not
include those imposed in the will.
To the net
value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by
the testator that are subject to collation, at the time he made them.
In other words, before any
conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is
necessary that certain steps be taken first. The net estate of the decedent
must be ascertained, by deducting an payable obligations and charges from the
value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, all
donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate
thus determined, the legitimes of the compulsory heir or heirs can be
established; and only thereafter can it be ascertained whether or not a
donation had prejudiced the legitimes. Certainly, in order that a donation may
be reduced for being inofficious, there must be proof that the value of the
donated property exceeds that of the disposable free portion plus the donee's
share as legitime in the properties of the donor. In the present case, it can
hardly be said that, with the evidence then before the court, it was in any
position to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved here, and to
order its reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to the respondents. The issue of inofficiousness should be
settled in another proceeding giving due notice to all interested party in the
estate of Cipriano Lagua.
Paterno vs. Paterno
G.R. No. 63680 March 23, 1990
Facts:
In the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of Manila, now defunct, there was filed by Feliza Orihuela, as
guardian ad litem of her children, Beatriz Paterno and Bernardo Paterno,
a complaint praying
that the latter be declared illegitimate
children of, and consequently entitled to inherit from, the deceased
Jose P. Paterno. According to Feliza, Beatriz and Bernardo had been begotten of
her illicit liaison with Jose P. Paterno, a married man, and should thus be
counted among the latter's compulsory heirs in accordance with Article 887 of
the Civil Code.
Issues:
Whether or not the right of action is lost , the moment they failed to file the
corresponding action for recognition during the lifetime of their putative
parent, Jose P. Paterno?
Decision:
The action for recognition (or to
establish filiation) having been timely filed-having been instituted after the
demise of the putative parent and before the attainment of the age of majority
of the children concerned-and the ground invoked therefor having been
satisfactorily proven, the Court of
Appeals committed no error in declaring and confirming the status of the
private respondents as illegitimate children of the late Dr.Jose P. Paterno.
Further, there are sufficient evidence,
clear and convincing, establishing the filiation of plaintiffs appellants
Beatriz and Bernardo Paterno as spurious children of Dr. Jose P. Paterno.
No comments:
Post a Comment