Left out

This usually happens in the sharing of inheritance when some heirs are passed over like in this case of the heirs of Ana.

Ana was first married to Greg with whom she had two children, Elsa and Vicky. When Greg died, Ana married Erik with whom she begot five children, Pol, Alice, Minda, Danny and Rosie. During her second marriage with Erik, they acquired several homestead properties with a total area of 296,555 square meters duly covered by Original Certificates of Title (OCTs).

When Ana died intestate, her husband Erik in his personal capacity and as guardian of Danny and Rosie who were then still minors, together with his other children Pol, Alice and Minda, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale adjudicating unto themselves the said homestead properties, and thereafter transferring them to the spouses Harry and Julie for a total consideration of P80,000 only. The document was not signed by Elsa and Vicky, Ana’s children by her first marriage. Nor were they notified of it.

Almost 20 years later when Erik died, his children Pol, Alice, Minda, Danny and Rosie filed a complaint for the annulment of said Extrajudicial Settlement and Deed of Sale. They contended that the sale was not valid because it was made within the prohibited period of 5 years from issuance of the patents. Later on however, Rosie filed a manifestation ratifying the sale while Ana’s children by her first marriage, Elsa and Vicky also intervened as plaintiffs for having been excluded and deprived of their legitime. During the pendency of the case, the spouses Harry and Julie died so they were substituted by their heirs.

In their amended answer with counterclaim, the heirs countered that the sale was made beyond the 5-year prohibitory period. They also denied knowledge of Elsa and Vicky’s exclusion from the extrajudicial settlement and interposed further the defense of prescription and laches considering that their late parents have been in possession of the properties for 17 years already.

After trial the RTC rendered a decision declaring among others the annulment of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale. The RTC ruled that while the sale occurred beyond the 5 year period, it is still void because Elsa and Vicky were deprived of their hereditary rights and that Erik had no judicial authority to sell the shares of Danny and Rosie who were then still minors. It also rejected the heirs’ defense of laches and prescription because co-ownership rights are imprescriptible. Was the RTC correct?

The RTC is correct in declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement as not valid and binding because Elsa and Vicky had not participated therein or had no notice thereof. Pursuant to Articles 979 and 980 ot the Civil Code, all the legitimate children of Ana by her first and second marriage to Greg and Erik are entitled to inherit from her in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares. As such when she died, her children and husband Erik acquired their respective inheritances as follows: Erik, 9/16 (1/2 conjugal asset +1/16), Elsa, Vicky, Pol, Alice, Minda, Danny and Rosie, 1/16 each.

As far as Danny and Rosie who were still minors at the time of its execution, said settlement is not also valid and binding because their father who acted in their behalf as guardian, does not have the power to dispose or encumber their shares. As guardian, he is only the administrator of their property and this includes only all acts for the preservation of the property and receipt of their fruits. Any acts of disposition or alienation or any reduction in substance of the patrimony of the children exceeds the limits of administration.

However, while the settlement of the estate is null and void, the subsequent sale of the subject properties made by Erik and his children, Pol, Alice and Minda in favor of the spouses is valid but only with respect to their proportionate shares therein. These heirs have acquired their respective shares in the properties of Ana from the moment of her death and that as owners thereof they can very well sell their  undivided share in the estate. With respect to Rosie, the sale of her share is also valid because she filed a manifestation in the RTC ratifying said sale

Hence the sale in favor of the late spouse Harry and Julie as regards the 13/16 share of Erik, Pol, Alice, Minda and Rosie are valid. On the other hand, the sale is not valid with respect to the 3/16 shares of Elsa, Vicky and Danny who remains the lawful owners thereof. The estate of Erik and his children Pol, Alice, Minda and Rosie should return to the heirs of the spouses Harry and Julie the amount paid corresponding to the 3/16 shares of Elsa, Vicky and Danny amounting to P15,000 with 6% interest from the time the spouses paid it to them until finality of the decision and 12% thereafter until fully paid (Neri et.al. vs Heirs of Uy, G.R. 194366, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA, 553).

Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law, and Criminal Law, Vols. I and II, are available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226 Ortigas Ave. Greenhills S.J. Tel 7249445. Email address: [email protected]