LAW ON SUCCESSION | LOCSIN VS. CA, G.R. NO. 89783, FEBRUARY 19, 1992
LOCSIN
VS. CA,
G.R.
NO. 89783, FEBRUARY 19, 1992
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The rights to
a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not
vest in his heirs until such time.
FACTS
The late
Getulio Locsin had three children named Mariano, Julian and Magdalena, all
surnamed Locsin. He owned extensive residential and agricultural properties in
the provinces of Albay and Sorsogon. After his death, his estate was divided
among his three (3) children.
Those that
Mariano inherited from his father, Getulio Locsin, were surveyed cadastrally
and registered in the name of "Mariano Locsin, married to Catalina
Jaucian.'' Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting
his wife, Catalina, as the sole and universal heir of all his properties.
Don Mariano relied on Doña Catalina to carry out the terms of their compact,
hence, nine (9) years after his death, as if in obedience to his voice from the
grave, and fully cognizant that she was also advancing in years, Doña Catalina
began transferring, by sale, donation or assignment, Don Mariano's as well as
her own, properties to their respective nephews and nieces.
In 1989, or
six (6) years after Doña Catalina's demise, some of her Jaucian nephews and
nieces who had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her
estate, filed action in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City (Branch VIII,
Civil Case No. 7152) to recover the properties which she had conveyed to the
Locsins during her lifetime, alleging that the conveyances were inofficious,
without consideration, and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession.
ISSUE
Whether the court ruled that the trial court and the Court of
Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents, nephews and nieces of Doña
Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties which she had
already disposed of more than ten (10) years before her death.
RULING
Yes.
The court
ruled that the rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment
of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such time
Here, the
court ruled that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring
the private respondents, nephews and nieces of Doña Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin,
entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed of more than
ten (10) years before her death. For those properties did not form part of her
hereditary estate, i.e., "the property and transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and those which have accrued thereto since the opening
of the succession." Property which Doña Catalina had
transferred or conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed
part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may lay claim. Had
she died intestate, only the property that remained in her estate at the time
of her death devolved to her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were, one
and all, treated as donations, the right arising under certain circumstances to
impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter
vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the
donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs. Apart from the foregoing
considerations, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not
dismissing this action for annulment and reconveyance on the ground of
prescription. Commenced decades after the transactions had been consummated,
and six (6) years after Doña Catalina's death, it prescribed four (4) years
after the subject transactions were recorded in the Registry of Property,28 whether considered an action based on fraud,
or one to redress an injury to the rights of the plaintiffs. The private
respondents may not feign ignorance of said transactions because the
registration of the deeds was constructive notice thereof to them and the whole
world.