THIRD DIVISION
|
IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
BASILIO MA.
PILAR SANTIAGO and CLEMENTE SANTIAGO, Petitioners, - versus - ZOILO
S. SANTIAGO, FELICIDAD SANTIAGO-RIVERA, HEIRS OF RICARDO Respondents. FILEMON
SOCO, LEONILA SOCO, ANANIAS SOCO, URBANO SOCO, GERTRUDES SOCO AND HEIRS OF
CONSOLACION SOCO,
Oppositors. |
G.R. No.
179859 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BERSAMIN, ABAD,** and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: August
9, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Basilio Santiago (Basilio) contracted three marriages—the
first to Bibiana Lopez, the second to Irene Santiago, and the third to Cecilia
Lomotan. Basilio and his first wife bore two offsprings, Irene
and Marta, the mother of herein oppositors Felimon, Leonila, Consolacion,
Ananias, Urbano, and Gertrudes, all surnamed Soco.
Basilio and his second
wife had six offsprings, Tomas, Cipriano, Ricardo, respondents Zoilo and
Felicidad, and petitioner Ma. Pilar, all surnamed
Basilio and his third
wife bore three children, Eugenia herein petitioner Clemente, and
Cleotilde, all surnamed
After Basilio died testate on
The will contained the following provisions, among
others:
4. Ang mga ari-arian ko na
nasasaysay sa itaas ay INIWAN, IPINAGKAKALOOB, IBINIBIGAY, at IPINAMAMANA ko sa
aking mga nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng
x x x x
c)
ang aking anak na si Ma. Pilar ang magpapalakad at mamamahala ng balutan na
nasa
d) Sa pamamahala ng bigasan, pagawaan ng pagkain ng hayop at lupa’t bahay sa Maynila, ang lahat ng solar sa danay ng daang Malolos-Paombong na nasa Malolos, Bulacan, kasali at kasama ang palaisdaan na nasa likuran niyon, ay ililipat sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente; nguni’t ang kita ng palaisdaan ay siyang gagamitin nila sa lahat at anomang kailangang gugol, maging majora o roperacion [sic], sa lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c);
e) Ang lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod x x x.
f) Ang bigasan, mga makina at pagawaan ng pagkain ng hayop ay ipinamamana ko sa aking asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo, Cipriano, Felicidad, Eugenia, Clemente, at Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Ngunit, sa loob ng dalawampong (20) taon mula sa araw ng aking kamatayan, hindi nila papartihin ito at pamamahalaan ito ni Clemente at ang maghahawak ng salaping kikitain ay si Ma. Pilar na siyang magpaparte. Ang papartihin lamang ay ang kita ng mga iyon matapos na ang gugol na kakailanganin niyon, bilang reparacion, pagpapalit o pagpapalaki ay maawas na. Ninais ko ang ganito sa aking pagmamahal sa kanila at pagaaring ibinubuhay ko sa kanila lahat, bukod sa yaon ay sa kanila ding kapakinabangan at kabutihan.
g) Ang lahat ng lupa, liban sa lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila, ay ipinapamana ko sa aking nasabing asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na Tomas, Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo, Cipriano, Felicidad, Eugenia, Clemente at Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Datapwa’t, gaya din ng mga bigasan, makina at gawaan ng pagkain ng hayop, ito ay hindi papartihin sa loob ng dalawampong (20) taon mula sa aking pagpanaw, at pamamahalaan din nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente. Ang mapaparte lamang ay ang kita o ani ng nasabing mga pag-aari matapos bayaran ang buwis at/o patubig at iba pang mga gugol na kailangan. Si Ma. Pilar din ang hahawak ng ani o salaping manggagaling dito. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)[3]
The oppositors-children
of Marta, a daughter of Basilio and his first
wife, were, on their motion, allowed to intervene.[4]
After the
executrix-petitioner Ma. Pilar filed a “Final Accounting, Partition and
Distribution in Accordance with the Will,”[5]
the probate court approved the will by Order
of
The
oppositors thereafter filed a Complaint-in-Intervention[8]
with the probate court, alleging that Basilio’s second wife was not Irene but a certain Maria Arellano with whom he
had no child; and that Basilio’s will violates Articles 979-981 of the Civil
Code.[9]
The probate court dismissed the Complaint-in-Intervention,
citing its previous approval of the “Final Accounting, Partition, and
Distribution in Accordance with the Will.”[10]
The oppositors-heirs of the first
marriage thereupon filed a complaint
for completion of legitime before
the Bulacan RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 562-M-90,[11]
against the heirs of the second and third marriages.
In their complaint, oppositors-heirs
of the first marriage essentially maintained that they were partially
preterited by Basilio’s will because their legitime was reduced.[12] They
thus prayed, inter alia, that an
inventory and appraisal of all the properties of Basilio be conducted and that Ma.
Pilar and Clemente be required to submit a fresh accounting of all the incomes
of the properties from the time of Basilio’s death up to the time of the filing
of Civil Case No. 562-M-90.[13]
RTC-Branch 17 decided Civil Case No.
562-M-90 (for completion of legitime) in favor of the oppositors-heirs of the first marriage.
On appeal (docketed as CA G.R. No. 45801), the Court of
Appeals, by Decision of January 25, 2002,[14] annulled the decision of RTC-Branch 17,
holding that the RTC Branch 17 dismissal of the Complaint-in-Intervention in SP
No. 1549-M and its August 14, 1978 Order approving the probate of the will
constitute res judicata with respect
to Civil Case No. 562-M-90.[15] Thus
the appellate court disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED.
The Decision in Civil Case No. 562-M-90 is hereby ANNULLED on the ground of res
judicata. Let the
Decree of Distribution of the Estate of Basilio
SO
ORDERED.[16] (emphasis in
the original; underscoring supplied)
Oppositors-heirs
of the first marriage challenged the
appellate court’s decision in CA G.R. No. 45801 by petition for review,
docketed as G.R. No. 155606, which this Court denied.[17] The denial became final and executory on
In the interregnum,
or on
x x x x the twenty (20) year period within which subject properties should be under administration of [Ma.]
Pilar
Consequently, [Ma.] Pilar
x x x x
Said [Ma.] Pilar
x x x x[20]
Respondents prayed that petitioners
be ordered:
1)
To surrender the above-enumerated titles
presently in their names to [the] Honorable Court and to transfer the same in the names of the designated
legatees in the Last Will and Testament, to wit:
1) asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na
2) Tomas
3) Zoilo
4) Ma. Pilar
5) Ricardo
6) Cipriano
7) Felicidad
8) Eugenia
9) Clemente at
10) Cleotilde
(all
surnamed
2)
To peacefully surrender possession and
administration of subject properties, including any and all improvements
thereon, to said legatees.
3)
To render an accounting of their administration
of said properties and other properties of the testator under their
administration, from death of testator Basilio Santiago on
Opposing the motion, petitioners
argued that with the approval of the Final Accounting, Partition and
Distribution in Accordance with the Will, and with the subsequent issuance of
certificates of title covering the properties involved, the case had long since
been closed and terminated.[22]
The probate court, finding that the
properties in question would be transferred to petitioners Ma. Pilar and
Clemente for purposes of administration only, granted the motion, by Order of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for
Termination of Administration, for Accounting, and for Transfer of Titles in
the Names of the Legatees dated
a.)
To surrender the above-enumerated titles
presently in their names to this Honorable Court and to transfer the same in
the names of the designated legatees in the Last Will and Testament, to wit:
1.) asawa, Cecilia Lomotan at mga anak
na 2.) Tomas 3). Zoilo 4.) Ma. Pilar 5.) Ricardo 6.) Cipriano 7.) Felicidad 8.)
Eugenia 9.) Clemente and 10.) Cleotilde all named
b.)
To
peacefully surrender possession and administration of subject properties
including any and all improvements thereon, to said legatees; and
c.)
To
render an accounting of their administration of subject properties, including
any and all improvements thereon, to said legatees; and
d.)
To submit
an accounting of their administration of the above-mentioned estate of the
testator or all the above said lots including the rice mill, animal feeds
factory, and all improvements thereon from
e.)
To
submit a proposed Project of Partition, indicating how the parties may actually
partition or adjudicate all the above said properties including the properties
already in the name of all the said legatees xxx.
x x x x.
Further, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan are
hereby DIRECTED to cancel and
consider as no force and effects Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-249177 (RT-46294) [Lot No. 786], T-249175
(RT-46295) [Lot No. 837], T-249174 (RT-46296) [
Moreover, the Register of Deeds of Manila is
hereby DIRECTED to cancel and
consider as no force and effect Transfer Certificate of Title No. 131044 [Lot
No. 8-C] in the names of Ma. Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago and to issue
new ones in lieu thereof in the names of the Heirs of Bibiana Lopez, the Heirs
of Irene Santiago, and the Heirs of Cecilia Lomotan.
The Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by
Filemon, Leonila, Ma. Concepcion, Ananias, Urbano and Gertrudes, all surnamed
Soco, dated
Respecting
petitioners’ argument that the case had long been closed and terminated, the
trial court held:
x x
x x [I]t is clear from the Last Will and Testament that subject properties
cannot actually be partitioned until after 20 years from the death of the
testator Basilio Santiago x x x x. It
is, therefore, clear that something more has to be done after the approval of
said Final Accounting, Partition, and Distribution. The testator Basilio Santiago died on
The principle of res judicata does not
apply in the present probate proceeding which is continuing in character, and
terminates only after and until the final distribution or settlement of the
whole estate of the deceased in accordance with the provision of the will of
the testator. The Order dated
August 14, 1978 refers only to the accounting, partition, and distribution of
the estate of the deceased for the period covering from the date of the filing
of the petition for probate on December 27, 1973 up to August 14, 1978. And in the said
Petitioners,
together with the oppositors, filed a motion for reconsideration,[26]
which the probate court denied, drawing them to appeal to the Court of Appeals
which docketed it as CA G.R. No. 83094.
The
Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the probate court,[27] hence,
the petition[28] which raises
the following grounds:
I.
“CAN THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSE ITSELF”
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT BINDING
ITSELF WITH ITS PREVIOUS DECISION INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES AND SAME
PROPERTIES;
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
RTC AS IT AGREED WITH THE RTC THAT THIS CASE IS NOT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA;
C. IN C.A.-G.R. NO. 45801, THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS RES JUDICATA; IN C.A.-G.R. CV NO. 83094, THERE
WAS NO RES JUDICATA.
II.
“GRANTING THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ALL
THE COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION TO REVERSE ITSELF, STILL THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RTC’S ORDER TO TRANSFER THE
The
petition lacks merit.
Petitioners’
argument that the decision of the appellate court in the earlier CA-G.R. NO.
45801 (upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 155606) constitutes res judicata to the subsequent CA G.R.
No. 83094 (the subject of the present petition for review) fails.
Res judicata has two aspects, which are embodied
in Sections 47 (b) and 47 (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[30] The first, known as “bar by prior judgment,” proscribes the
prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action
already settled in a prior action.[31]
The second, known as “conclusiveness of judgment,” ordains that issues actually
and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future
case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[32]
Both
aspects of res judicata, however, do
not find application in the present case.
The final judgment regarding oppositors’ complaint on the reduction of
their legitime in CA-G.R. NO. 45801 does not dent the present petition, which
solely tackles the propriety of the termination of administration, accounting
and transfer of titles in the names of the legatees-heirs of the second and third marriages. There is
clearly no similarity of claim, demand or cause of action between the present
petition and G.R. No. 155606.
While as
between the two cases there is identity of parties, “conclusiveness of judgment” cannot likewise be
invoked. Again, the judgment in G.R. No.
155606 would only serve as an estoppel as regards the issue on oppositors’
supposed preterition and reduction of legitime, which issue is not even a subject,
or at the very least even invoked, in the present petition.
What is
clear is that petitioners can invoke res
judicata insofar as the judgment in G.R. No. 155606 is concerned against the oppositors only. The records reveal, however, that the oppositors
did not appeal the decision of the appellate court in this case and were only
impleaded pro forma parties.
Apparently,
petitioners emphasize on the directive of the appellate court in CA G.R. No. 45801
that the decree of distribution of the estate of Basilio should remain
undisturbed. But this directive goes
only so far as to prohibit the interference of the oppositors in the
distribution of Basilio’s estate and does not pertain to respondents’ supervening right to demand the termination
of administration, accounting and transfer of titles in their names.
Thus, the Order of
Finally,
petitioners object to the inclusion of the house and lot in Manila, covered by
TCT No. 131044, among those to be transferred to the legatees-heirs as it would
contravene the testator’s intent that no one is to own the same.
The Court
is not persuaded. It is clear from
Basilio’s will that he intended the house and lot in Manila to be transferred
in petitioners’ names for administration purposes only, and that the property
be owned by the heirs in common, thus:
e) Ang lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod sa medaling salita, ang bahay at lupang ito’y walang magmamay-ari bagkus ay gagamitin habang panahon ng sinomang magnanais sa aking kaapuapuhan na tumuklas ng karunungan sa paaralan sa Maynila at katabing mga lunsod x x x x[33] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
But the
condition set by the decedent on the property’s indivisibility is subject to a
statutory limitation. On this point, the
Court agrees with the ruling of the appellate court, viz:
For this Court to sustain without qualification, [petitioners]’s contention, is to go against the provisions of law, particularly Articles 494, 870, and 1083 of the Civil Code, which provide that the prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership can only last for twenty (20) years x x x x
x x x x
x x x x Although the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it would be contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code x x x x[34]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional
member per Special Order No. 875 dated
** Designated
as Additional Member, per Special Order No. 843 (
[1] As narrated in the Last Will and Testament of Basilio Santiago; Vide: Joint Record on Appeal, p. 12.
[2] Then the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
[3] Joint Record on Appeal, pp. 15-17.
[4] Records, pp. 89.
[5]
[6]
[7] CA rollo, p. 228.
[8] Records, pp. 271-275.
[9] Article 979: Legitimate children and their descendants succeed to the parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from different marriages.
An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child.
Article 980: The children of the deceased shall always inherit, from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.
Article 981: Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are dead, survive, the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by right of representation.
[10] Records, p. 380.
[11] Rollo, p. 302.
[12] Records, p. 421.
[13]
[14] Penned by Justice Candido Rivera with the concurrence of Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Juan Q. Enriquez.
[15] Rollo, pp. 304-305.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Records, pp. 390-396.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] CA rollo, pp. 221-239, Decision of
[28] Rollo, pp. 34-60.
[29]
[30] Sec.
47. Effect of judgments or final orders.-The effect of a judgment or
final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) x x x x
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
[31] Chris Garments Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 167426, January 12, 2009, 576 SCRA 13, 21 citing Oropeza Marketing Corp. v. Allied Bank, G.R. No. 129788, 393 SCRA 278, 287 (2002).
[32]
[33] Joint Record on Appeal, p. 16.
[34] CA rollo, pp. 234-235.