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.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147