Blood relative by legal fiction

This is the case of an extrajudicial partition of the estate of a deceased person where one of the heirs has been excluded. The main questions resolved here are: Is the extrajudicial partition valid? Within what period must an action be filed questioning its validity?

The excluded heir here is Riza. She is the legally adopted daughter of Mike and Mila by virtue of a decree of adoption issued by the court way back on August 1,1946. On April 29,1972, Miguel died leaving an estate consisting of fourteen parcels of land covering a total area of 224,883 square meters. Riza, who was then of legal age, and Mila entered into an extrajudicial settlement of Mike’s estate adjudicating between themselves the said properties in equal proportion.

But on November 21, 1972 more than 26 years after the issuance of the decree of Riza’s adoption, an action to annul said decree was filed by four siblings of Mike led by Pete putting into question Riza’s status as an adopted child of Mike. The lower court upheld the validity of said adoption, but Pete et al., still appealed the said ruling of the lower court. And pending appeal, Pete et al. and Mila entered into another extrajudicial settlement on March 11,1983 not only of Mike’s estate but of the estate of Mike’s other sister, Patsy, a spinster who also died after Mike’s death.

By virtue of this new extrajudicial partition of Mike’s estate, only three parcels of land with a total area of 34,250 sq. m. were allocated to Mila and Riza. The rest of the parcels of land were given to Pete and his brother and two other sisters who obtained title thereto and subsequently sold them to thirteen other parties including a private school.

Meantime, the pending appeal on the validity of Riza’s adoption was dismissed upon motion of the contending parties themselves. In its dismissal, the CA nevertheless upheld the validity of Riza’s adoption.

Thereafter, Riza tried to claim her share of the properties of her late adoptive father Mike from Pete et al. But the latter refused saying that Riza was not an heir since she was not their blood relative.

Thus on January 28, 1987 Riza filed a complaint to annul the 1983 extrajudicial partition entered into by Pete et al. and her adoptive mother Mila. In response Pete et al. claimed that Riza’s action had already prescribed pursuant to Section 4, Rule 74 which provides only for a two-year prescriptive period. They also averred that the shares of Mike’s heirs (Riza and Mila) were adequately protected in the extrajudicial settlement. Riza’s non-partcipation therein was understandable since her status as an adopted child was then under litigation.

Were Pete et al. correct?

No.

Riza’s complaint for annulment has not yet prescribed. The two-year prescriptive period in Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court applies only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and (2) when all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in it or are represented by themselves or through their guardians. In this case Riza has not participated in the 1983 extrajudicial partition. Patently then, the two-year prescriptive period is not applicable in her case.

The applicable prescriptive period here is four years from the discovery of fraud since the action to annul it was on the ground of fraud. So it has not yet prescribed when Riza filed it on January 28, 1987 because only three years had lapsed since the 1983 extrajudicial.

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. Riza is an heir of Mike together with her adopting mother Mila. Being the lone descendant of Mike, she excludes the collateral relatives from participating in his estate following the provisions of Art. 1003 of the Civil Code. The complaint seeking to annul the adoption of Riza was filed only 26 years after the decree of adoption, patently a much-delayed response to prevent Riza from inheriting from her adoptive parents. Pete et al. and Mila apparently executed the deed of partition in bad faith with intent to defraud Riza.

To say that Riza was represented by Mila in the partitioning is imprecise. Riza was no longer a minor at the time Mike died. Mila represented only her own interests and not those of Riza. Since Mike died ahead of his other deceased sister, Patsy, his estate automatically vested to his adopted child and widow, in equal shares. Pete. et al.’s interests did not include Mike’s estate but only Patsy’s estate (Pedrosa vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. 118680 March 5, 2001).