LAW ON SUCCESSION | LANDAYAN VS. BACANI, G.R. NO. L-30455, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
LANDAYAN
VS. BACANI,
G.R.
NO. L-30455, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The Supreme Court set
aside the order of respondent Judge and remanded the case to be tried on the
merits holding that if the petitioners’ allegation that respondent Severino is
not a legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar is true, the portion of the document of partition
adjudicating certain properties to him would be void. An action seeking
declaration of nullity of a document does not prescribe.
FACTS
Teodoro Abenojar died
intestate. in 1949, private respondents Maxima Andrada, the surviving spouse of
the deceased, and Severino Abenojar,representing himself as "the only
forced heir and descendant" of the deceased, executed an
"extra-judicial agreement of partition" adjudicating between
themselves the properties of the deceased. In 1968, Petitioners, the Landayans, filed a complaint in the Court of
First Instance seeking a judicial declaration that they are legal heirs of the
deceased and that the extra-judicial agreement is null and void. Petitioners
alleged that they are the legitimate children of the deceased’s only child
while respondent Severino is the illegitimate child of their (petitioners’)
mother. Respondents denied petitioner’s allegation claiming that Severino is an
acknowledged natural child of the deceased and that petitioners’ mother is the
spurious child of the deceased. Respondents also alleged that petitioners’
cause of action had prescribed 18 years having already elapsed from the time of
execution of the document of partition to the time of filing of the complaint
Respondent Judge issued an order declaring petitioner’s action barred by
prescription and dismissed the complaint as a consequence thereof. Hence, this
petition.
RULING
The court ruled that should it be proved, therefore, that Severino Abenojar is, indeed, not a
legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar, the portion of the deed of extra-judicial
partition adjudicating certain properties of Teodoro Abenojar in his favor
shall be deemed inexistent and void from the beginning in accordance with
Articles 1409, par. (7) and 1105 of the Civil Code. By the express provision of
Article 1410 of the Civil Code, the action to seek a declaration of the nullity
of the same does not prescribe.