LAW ON SUCCESSION | JOKOSALEM VS. RAFOLS, G.R. NO. 48372, JULY 24, 1942
JOKOSALEM
VS. RAFOLS,
G.R.
NO. 48372, JULY 24, 1942
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
In the case
of Ramirez vs, Bautista, 14 Phil. 528, where some of the heirs,
without the concurrence of the others, sold a property left by their deceased
father, this Court, speaking thru its then Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano,
said that the sale was valid, but that effect thereof was limited to the share
which may be allotted to the vendors upon the partition of the estate.
FACTS
The land in
question described in the appealed in the decision originally belonged to Juan
Melgar. The latter died at the judicial administration of his estate was
commenced in 1915 and came to a close on December 2, 1924, only. During the
pendency of the said administration, that is, on July 5, 1917, Susana Melgar,
daughter of the deceased Juan Melgar, sold the land with the right of
repurchase to Pedro Cui, subject to the stipulation that during the period for
the repurchase she would continue in possession of the land as lessee of the
purchaser. On December 12, 1920, the partition of the estate left by the
deceased Juan Melgar was made, and the land in question was adjudicated to
Susana Melgar. In 1921, she conveyed, in payment of professional fees, one-half
of the land in favor of the defendant-appellee Nicolasa Rafols, who, entered
upon the portion thus conveyed and has been in possession thereof up to the
present. On July 23, 1921, Pedro Cui brought an action to recover said half of
the land from Nicolas Rafols and the other half from the other defendants, and
while that case was pending, or about August 4, 1925, Pedro Cui donated the
whole land in question to Generosa Teves, the herein plaintiff-appellant. After
trial, the lower court rendered a decision absolving Nicolas Rafols as to the
one-half of the land conveyed to him by Susana Melgar, and declaring the
plaintiff owner of the other half but express acknowlegment of the other
defendants. The plaintiff appealed from that part of the judgment which is
favorable to Nicolas Rafols.
ISSUE
Whether the sale made by an heir of his share in an
inheritance, subject to the result of the pending administration is valid.
RULING
Yes.
The court
ruled that in the case of Ramirez vs, Bautista, 14 Phil. 528, where some of the heirs,
without the concurrence of the others, sold a property left by their deceased
father, this Court, speaking thru its then Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano,
said that the sale was valid, but that effect thereof was limited to the share
which may be allotted to the vendors upon the partition of the estate.
It results
therefore that the sale made by Susana Melgar in favor of Pedro Cui was valid,
but it would be effective only as to the portion to be adjudicated to the vendor
upon the partition of the property left by her deceased father Juan Melgar. And
as on December 12, 1920, upon the partition of said property, the land in
question was adjudicated to Susana Melgar, the sale of the whole land which the
latter made in favor of Pedro Cui was entirely confirmed.