SECOND DIVISION
|
EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, Petitioner, - versus - SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE Respondents. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x SEBASTIAN G. AGTARAP, Petitioner, - versus - EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, JOSEPH
AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 177099 G.R. No. 177192 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: June 8,
2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before us are the
consolidated petitions for review on certiorari
of petitioners Sebastian G. Agtarap (Sebastian)[1]
and Eduardo G. Agtarap (Eduardo),[2]
assailing the Decision dated November 21, 2006[3]
and the Resolution dated March 27, 2007[4]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 73916.
The antecedent facts and proceedings
On September 15, 1994, Eduardo filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 114,
The petition alleged that
Joaquin died intestate on November 21, 1964 in P26,000.00
per month since April 1994.
Eduardo further alleged
that there was an imperative need to appoint him as special administrator to
take possession and charge of the estate assets and their civil fruits, pending
the appointment of a regular administrator.
In addition, he prayed that an order be issued (a) confirming and
declaring the named compulsory heirs of Joaquin who would be entitled to
participate in the estate; (b) apportioning and allocating unto the named heirs
their aliquot shares in the estate in accordance with law; and (c) entitling
the distributees the right to receive and enter into possession those parts of
the estate individually awarded to them.
On September 26, 1994,
the RTC issued an order setting the petition for initial hearing and directing
Eduardo to cause its publication.
On December 28, 1994,
Sebastian filed his comment, generally admitting the allegations in the petition,
and conceding to the appointment of Eduardo as special administrator.
Joseph, Gloria, and
Teresa filed their answer/opposition.
They alleged that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal
partnership of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucias death in April 1924,
they became the pro indiviso owners
of the subject properties. They said
that their residence was built with the exclusive money of their late father
Jose, and the expenses of the extensions to the house were shouldered by Gloria
and Teresa, while the restaurant (Manongs Restaurant) was built with the
exclusive money of Joseph and his business partner. They opposed the appointment of Eduardo as
administrator on the following grounds: (1) he is not physically and mentally
fit to do so; (2) his interest in the lots is minimal; and (3) he does not
possess the desire to earn. They claimed
that the best interests of the estate dictate that Joseph be appointed as
special or regular administrator.
On February 16, 1995, the
RTC issued a resolution appointing Eduardo as regular administrator of
Joaquins estate. Consequently, it
issued him letters of administration.
On September 16, 1995,
Abelardo Dagoro filed an answer in intervention, alleging that Mercedes is
survived not only by her daughter Cecile, but also by him as her husband. He also averred that there is a need to
appoint a special administrator to the estate, but claimed that Eduardo is not
the person best qualified for the task.
After the parties were
given the opportunity to be heard and to submit their respective proposed
projects of partition, the RTC, on October 23, 2000, issued an Order of
Partition,[8]
with the following disposition
In the light of the filing by the
heirs of their respective proposed projects of partition and the payment of
inheritance taxes due the estate as early as 1965, and there being no claim in
Court against the estate of the deceased, the estate of JOAQUIN AGTARAP is now
consequently ripe for distribution among the heirs minus the surviving spouse
Caridad Garcia who died on August 25, 1999.
Considering that the bulk of the
estate property were acquired during the existence of the second marriage as
shown by TCT No. (38254) and TCT No. (38255) which showed on its face that
decedent was married to Caridad Garcia, which fact oppositors failed to
contradict by evidence other than their negative allegations, the greater part
of the estate is perforce accounted by the second marriage and the compulsory
heirs thereunder.
The Administrator, Eduardo Agtarap
rendered a true and just accounting of his administration from his date of
assumption up to the year ending December 31, 1996 per Financial and Accounting
Report dated June 2, 1997 which was approved by the Court. The accounting report included the income
earned and received for the period and the expenses incurred in the
administration, sustenance and allowance of the widow. In accordance with said Financial and
Accounting Report which was duly approved by this Court in its Resolution dated
July 28, 1998 the deceased JOAQUIN AGTARAP left real properties consisting of
the following:
I LAND:
Two lots and two buildings with
one garage quarter located at
TCT NO. LOT NO. AREA/SQ.M. ZONAL VALUE AMOUNT
38254 745-B-1 1,335 sq. m. P5,000.00 P6,675,000.00
38255
745-B-2 1,331 sq. m. P5,000.00 P6,655,000.00
TOTAL-------------------------------------------------------------P13,330,000.00
II BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS:
BUILDING I (P350,000.00
BUILDING II (
Building Improvements
-------------------------------------- 97,500.00
Restaurant
------------------------------------------------------ 80,000.00
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------- P847,500.00
TOTAL NET WORTH
----------------------------------------- P14,177,500.00
WHEREFORE,
the net assets of the estate of the late JOAQUIN AGTARAP with a total value of P14,177,500.00,
together with whatever interest from bank deposits and all other incomes or
increments thereof accruing after the Accounting Report of December 31, 1996,
after deducting therefrom the compensation of the administrator and other
expenses allowed by the Court, are hereby ordered distributed as follows:
TOTAL ESTATE P14,177,500.00
CARIDAD AGTARAP of the estate
as her conjugal share P7,088,750.00, the other half of P7,088,750.00
to be divided among the compulsory heirs as follows:
1) JOSE (deceased) - P1,181,548.30
2) MILAGROS (deceased) - P1,181,548.30
3) MERCEDES (deceased) - P1,181,548.30
4) SEBASTIAN - P1,181,548.30
5) EDUARDO - P1,181,548.30
6) CARIDAD - P1,181,548.30
The
share of Milagros Agtarap as compulsory heir in the amount of P1,181,548.30
and who died in 1996 will go to Teresa Agtarap and Joseph Agtarap, Walter de
Santos and half brothers Eduardo and Sebastian Agtarap in equal proportions.
TERESA
AGTARAP - P236,291.66
JOSEPH
AGTARAP - P236,291.66
WALTER
DE P236,291.66
SEBASTIAN
AGTARAP - P236,291.66
EDUARDO
AGTARAP - P236,291.66
Jose
Agtarap died in 1967. His compulsory
heirs are as follows:
COMPULSORY HEIRS:
1) GLORIA (deceased) represented
by Walter de Santos
- P295,364.57
2) JOSEPH AGTARAP - P295,364.57
3) TERESA AGTARAP - P295,364.57
4) PRISCILLA AGTARAP - P295,364.57
Hence,
Priscilla Agtarap will inherit P295,364.57.
Adding
their share from Milagros Agtarap, the following heirs of the first marriage
stand to receive the total amount of:
HEIRS OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE:
1) JOSEPH AGTARAP - P236,291.66 share from Milagros
Agtarap
P295,364.57 as
compulsory heir of
P531,656.23 Jose Agtarap
2) TERESA AGTARAP - P236,291.66 share from Milagros
Agtarap
P295,364.57 as
compulsory heir of
P531,656.23 Jose Agtarap
3) WALTER DE SANTOS - P236,291.66 share from Milagros
Agtarap
P295,364.57
as compulsory heir of
P531,656.23
Jose Agtarap
HEIRS
OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE:
a)
CARIDAD AGTARAP - died on
August 25, 1999
P7,088,750.00 - as conjugal share
P1,181,458.30 - as compulsory heir
Total of P8,270,208.30
b)
SEBASTIAN AGTARAP - P1,181,458.38
as compulsory heir
P
236,291.66 share from Milagros
c)
EDUARDO AGTARAP - P1,181,458.38
as compulsory heir
P
236,291.66 share from Milagros
d) MERCEDES - as represented by Abelardo Dagoro
as the
surviving
spouse of a compulsory heir
P1,181,458.38
REMAINING HEIRS OF CARIDAD AGTARAP:
1) SEBASTIAN AGTARAP
2) EDUARDO AGTARAP
MERCEDES AGTARAP (Predeceased
Caridad Agtarap)
In sum, Sebastian Agtarap and
Eduardo Agtarap stand to inherit:
SEBASTIAN
P4,135,104.10 share from
Caridad Garcia
P1,181,458.30 as compulsory heir
P 236,291.66 share from Milagros
P5,522,854.06
EDUARDO P4,135,104.10
share from Caridad Garcia
P1,181,458.30 as compulsory heir
P 236,291.66 share from Milagros
P5,522,854.06
SO
ORDERED.[9]
Eduardo, Sebastian, and
oppositors Joseph and Teresa filed their respective motions for
reconsideration.
On August 27, 2001, the
RTC issued a resolution[10]
denying the motions for reconsideration of Eduardo and Sebastian, and granting
that of Joseph and Teresa. It also
declared that the real estate properties belonged to the conjugal partnership
of Joaquin and Lucia. It also directed
the modification of the October 23, 2000 Order of Partition to reflect the
correct sharing of the heirs. However,
before the RTC could issue a new order of partition, Eduardo and Sebastian both
appealed to the CA.
On November 21, 2006, the
CA rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeals are DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolution dated August 27, 2001
is AFFIRMED and pursuant thereto,
the subject properties (Lot No. 745-B-1 [TCT No. 38254] and Lot No. 745-B-2
[TCT No. 38255]) and the estate of the late Joaquin Agtarap are hereby
partitioned as follows:
The two (2) properties, together
with their improvements, embraced by TCT No. 38254 and TCT No. 38255,
respectively, are first to be distributed among the following:
Lucia Mendietta -
of the property. But since she is
deceased, her share shall be inherited by Joaquin, Jesus, Milagros and Jose in
equal shares.
Joaquin Agtarap -
of the property and of the other half of the property which pertains to Lucia
Mendiettas share.
Jesus Agtarap - of Lucia Mendiettas share. But since he is already deceased (and died
without issue), his inheritance shall, in turn, be acquired by Joaquin Agtarap.
Milagros Agtarap -
of Lucia Mendiettas share. But since
she died in 1996 without issue, 5/8 of her inheritance shall be inherited by
Gloria (represented by her husband Walter de Santos and her daughter Samantha),
Joseph Agtarap and Teresa Agtarap, (in representation of Milagros brother Jose
Agtarap) and 1/8 each shall be inherited by Mercedes (represented by her
husband Abelardo Dagoro and her daughter Cecile), Sebastian Eduardo, all surnamed Agtarap.
Jose Agtarap -
of Lucia Mendiettas share. But since he
died in 1967, his inheritance shall be acquired by his wife Priscilla, and
children Gloria (represented by her husband Walter de Santos and her daughter
Samantha), Joseph Agtarap and Teresa in equal shares.
Then,
Joaquin Agtaraps estate, comprising three-fourths (3/4) of the subject
properties and its improvements, shall be distributed as follows:
Caridad Garcia - 1/6
of the estate. But since she died in
1999, her share shall be inherited by her children namely Mercedes Agtarap
(represented by her husband Abelardo Dagoro and her daughter Cecilia),
Sebastian Agtarap and Eduardo Agtarap in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares.
Milagros Agtarap - 1/6
of the estate. But since she died in
1996 without issue, 5/8 of her inheritance shall be inherited by Gloria (represented
by her husband Walter de Santos and her daughter Samantha), Joseph Agtarap and
Teresa Agtarap, (in representation of Milagros brother Jose Agtarap) and 1/8
each shall be inherited by Mercedes (represented by her husband Abelardo Dagoro
and her daughter Cecile), Sebastian and Eduardo, all surnamed Agtarap.
Jose Agtarap - 1/6
of the estate. But since he died in
1967, his inheritance shall be acquired by his wife Priscilla, and children
Gloria (represented by her husband Walter de Santos and her daughter Samantha),
Joseph Agtarap and Teresa Agtarap in equal shares.
Mercedes Agtarap - 1/6
of the estate. But since she died in
1984, her inheritance shall be acquired by her husband Abelardo Dagoro and her
daughter Cecile in equal shares.
Sebastian Agtarap - 1/6
of the estate.
Eduardo Agtarap - 1/6
of the estate.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Aggrieved, Sebastian and
Eduardo filed their respective motions for reconsideration.
In its Resolution dated
March 27, 2007, the CA denied both motions.
Hence, these petitions ascribing to the appellate court the following
errors:
G.R. No. 177192
1. The Court of Appeals erred
in not considering the aforementioned important facts[12]
which alter its Decision;
2. The
Court of Appeals erred in not considering the necessity of hearing the issue of
legitimacy of respondents as heirs;
3. The
Court of Appeals erred in allowing violation of the law and in not applying the
doctrines of collateral attack, estoppel, and res judicata.[13]
G.R. No. 177099
THE
COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER TWELFTH DIVISION) DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER
THE ESTATE OF MILAGROS G. AGTARAP AND ERRED IN DISTRIBUTING HER INHERITANCE
FROM THE ESTATE OF JOAQUIN AGTARAP NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF HER LAST
WILL AND TESTAMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENCE OF TESTATE
PROCEEDINGS OVER INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER
TWELFTH DIVISION) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE DECISION APPEALED FROM FOR LACK OF
MERIT AND IN AFFIRMING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 27, 2001 OF THE
As regards his first and
second assignments of error, Sebastian contends that Joseph and Teresa failed
to establish by competent evidence that they are the legitimate heirs of their
father Jose, and thus of their grandfather Joaquin. He draws attention to the certificate of
title (TCT No. 8026) they submitted, stating that the wife of their father Jose
is Presentacion Garcia, while they claim that their mother is Priscilla. He avers that the marriage contracts proffered
by Joseph and Teresa do not qualify as the best evidence of Joses marriage
with Priscilla, inasmuch as they were not authenticated and formally offered in
evidence. Sebastian also asseverates that he actually questioned the legitimacy
of Joseph and Teresa as heirs of Joaquin in his motion to exclude them as heirs,
and in his reply to their opposition to the said motion. He further claims that the failure of
Abelardo Dagoro and Walter de Santos to oppose his motion to exclude them as
heirs had the effect of admitting the allegations therein. He points out that his motion was denied by
the RTC without a hearing.
With respect to his third
assigned error, Sebastian maintains that the certificates of title of real
estate properties subject of the controversy are in the name of Joaquin
Agtarap, married to Caridad Garcia, and as such are conclusive proof of their
ownership thereof, and thus, they are not subject to collateral attack, but
should be threshed out in a separate proceeding for that purpose. He likewise argues that estoppel applies
against the children of the first marriage, since none of them registered any
objection to the issuance of the TCTs in the name of Caridad and Joaquin only. He avers that the estate must have already
been settled in light of the payment of the estate and inheritance tax by
Milagros, Joseph, and Teresa, resulting to the issuance of TCT No. 8925 in
Milagros name and of TCT No. 8026 in the names of Milagros and Jose. He also alleges that res judicata is applicable as the court order directing the
deletion of the name of Lucia, and replacing it with the name of Caridad, in
the TCTs had long become final and executory.
In his own petition, with
respect to his first assignment of error, Eduardo alleges that the CA
erroneously settled, together with the settlement of the estate of Joaquin, the
estates of Lucia, Jesus, Jose, Mercedes, Gloria, and Milagros, in contravention
of the principle of settling only one estate in one proceeding. He particularly questions the distribution of
the estate of Milagros in the intestate proceedings despite the fact that a
proceeding was conducted in another court for the probate of the will of
Milagros, bequeathing all to Eduardo whatever share that she would receive from
Joaquins estate. He states that this
violated the rule on precedence of testate over intestate proceedings.
Anent his second
assignment of error, Eduardo contends that the CA gravely erred when it
affirmed that the bulk of the realties subject of this case belong to the first
marriage of Joaquin to Lucia, notwithstanding that the certificates of title
were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap casado con (married to) Caridad Garcia. According to him, the RTC, acting as an
intestate court with limited jurisdiction, was not vested with the power and
authority to determine questions of ownership, which properly belongs to
another court with general jurisdiction.
The Courts Ruling
As to Sebastians and Eduardos common issue on the
ownership of the subject real properties, we hold that the RTC, as an intestate
court, had jurisdiction to resolve the same.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial
court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only to matters
having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of
deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of
ownership that arise during the proceedings.[15] The patent rationale for this rule is that
such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction.[16] As held in several cases,[17]
a probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or
intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a
part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by
virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to
that of the deceased and his estate. All
that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether
or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to be
administered by the administrator. If
there is no dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then the parties,
the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary
action before a court exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination
of the conflicting claims of title.
However, this general
rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and convenience.
First, the probate court
may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding the
question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of
property without prejudice to the final determination of ownership in a
separate action.[18] Second, if the interested parties are all
heirs to the estate, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the
parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the
rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent
to resolve issues on ownership.[19] Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or
collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the
inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.[20]
We hold that the general
rule does not apply to the instant case considering that the parties are all
heirs of Joaquin and that no rights of third parties will be impaired by the
resolution of the ownership issue. More
importantly, the determination of whether the subject properties are conjugal
is but collateral to the probate courts jurisdiction to settle the estate of
Joaquin.
It should be remembered
that when Eduardo filed his verified petition for judicial settlement of
Joaquins estate, he alleged that the subject properties were owned by Joaquin
and Caridad since the
TCTs state that the lots were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap,
married to Caridad Garcia. He also
admitted in his petition that Joaquin, prior to contracting marriage with
Caridad, contracted a first marriage with Lucia. Oppositors to the petition, Joseph and Teresa,
however, were able to present proof before the RTC that TCT Nos. 38254 and
38255 were derived from a mother title, TCT No. 5239, dated March 17, 1920, in
the name of FRANCISCO VICTOR BARNES Y
JOAQUIN AGTARAP, el primero casado con Emilia Muscat, y el Segundo con Lucia
Garcia Mendietta (FRANCISCO VICTOR BARNES y JOAQUIN AGTARAP, the first married to Emilia Muscat, and the
second married to Lucia Garcia Mendietta).[21] When TCT No. 5239 was divided between
Francisco Barnes and Joaquin Agtarap, TCT No. 10864, in the name of Joaquin Agtarap,
married to Lucia Garcia Mendietta, was issued for a parcel of land, identified
as Lot No. 745 of the Cadastral Survey of Pasay, Cadastral Case No. 23,
G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 1368, consisting of 8,872 square meters. This same lot was covered by TCT No. 5577
(32184)[22]
issued on April 23, 1937, also in the name of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Lucia
Garcia Mendietta.
The findings of the RTC and the CA
show that Lucia died on April 24, 1924, and subsequently, on February 9, 1926,
Joaquin married Caridad. It is worthy to
note that TCT No. 5577 (32184) contained an annotation, which reads
Ap-4966 NOTA: Se ha enmendado el presente
certificado de titulo, tal como aparece, tanchando las palabras con Lucia
Garcia Mendiet[t]a y poniendo en su lugar, entre lineas y en tinta encarnada,
las palabras en segundas nupcias con Caridad Garcia, en complimiento de un
orden de fecha 28 de abril de 1937, dictada por el Hon. Sixto de la Costa, juez
del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Rizal, en el expediente cadastal No. 23,
G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 1368; copia de cual orden has sido presentada con el
No. 4966
Thus, per the order dated April 28,
1937 of Hon. Sixto de la Costa, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, the phrase con Lucia Garcia
Mendiet[t]a was crossed out and replaced by en segundas nuptias con Caridad Garcia, referring to the second
marriage of Joaquin to Caridad. It
cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that prior to the replacement of Caridads name
in TCT No. 32184, Lucia, upon her demise, already left, as her estate, one-half
(1/2) conjugal share in TCT No. 32184.
Lucias share in the property
covered by the said TCT was carried over to the properties covered by the
certificates of title derivative of TCT No. 32184, now TCT Nos. 38254 and
38255. And as found by both the RTC and
the CA, Lucia was survived by her compulsory heirs Joaquin, Jesus, Milagros,
and Jose.
Section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of
Court provides that when the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband
or the wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
liquidated, and the debts thereof paid; in the testate or intestate proceedings
of the deceased spouse, and if both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership
shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. Thus, the RTC had jurisdiction to determine
whether the properties are conjugal as it had to liquidate the conjugal
partnership to determine the estate of the decedent. In fact, should Joseph and
Teresa institute a settlement proceeding for the intestate estate of Lucia, the
same should be consolidated with the settlement proceedings of Joaquin, being
Lucias spouse.[24] Accordingly, the CA correctly distributed the
estate of Lucia, with respect to the properties covered by TCT Nos. 38254 and
38255 subject of this case, to her compulsory heirs.
Therefore,
in light of the foregoing evidence, as correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the
claim of Sebastian and Eduardo that TCT Nos. 38254 and 38255 conclusively show
that the owners of the properties covered therein were Joaquin and Caridad by
virtue of the registration in the name of Joaquin Agtarap casado con (married to) Caridad Garcia, deserves scant
consideration. This cannot be said to be
a collateral attack on the said TCTs. Indeed,
simple possession of a certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a
holders true ownership of property.[25] A certificate of title under the
Neither
can Sebastians claim that Joaquins estate could have already been settled in
1965 after the payment of the inheritance tax be upheld. Payment of the inheritance tax, per se, does not settle the estate of a
deceased person. As provided in Section
1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court
SECTION 1. When order for distribution of residue made. -- When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive share to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.
Thus, an estate is settled and
distributed among the heirs only after the payment of the debts of the estate,
funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and
inheritance tax. The records of these
cases do not show that these were complied with in 1965.
As
regards the issue raised by Sebastian on the legitimacy of Joseph and Teresa,
suffice it to say that both the RTC and the CA found them to be the legitimate
children of Jose. The RTC found that
Sebastian did not present clear and convincing evidence to support his
averments in his motion to exclude them as heirs of Joaquin, aside from his
negative allegations. The RTC also noted
the fact of Joseph and Teresa being the children of Jose was never questioned
by Sebastian and Eduardo, and the latter two even admitted this in their
petitions, as well as in the stipulation of facts in the August 21, 1995
hearing.[29] Furthermore, the CA affirmed this finding of
fact in its November 21, 2006 Decision.[30]
Also,
Sebastians insistence that Abelardo Dagoro and Walter de Santos are not heirs
to the estate of Joaquin cannot be sustained.
Per its October 23, 2000 Order of Partition, the RTC found that Gloria
Agtarap de Santos died on May 4, 1995, and was later substituted in the
proceedings below by her husband Walter de Santos. Gloria begot a daughter with Walter de
Santos, Georgina Samantha de Santos. The
RTC likewise noted that, on September 16, 1995, Abelardo Dagoro filed a motion
for leave of court to intervene, alleging that he is the surviving spouse of
Mercedes Agtarap and the father of Cecilia Agtarap Dagoro, and his answer in
intervention. The RTC later granted the
motion, thereby admitting his answer on October 18, 1995.[31] The CA also noted that, during the hearing of
the motion to intervene on October 18, 1995, Sebastian and Eduardo did not
interpose any objection when the intervention was submitted to the RTC for
resolution.[32]
Indeed, this Court is not a trier of
facts, and there appears no compelling reason to hold that both courts erred in
ruling that Joseph, Teresa, Walter de Santos, and Abelardo Dagoro rightfully
participated in the estate of Joaquin. It
was incumbent upon Sebastian to present competent evidence to refute his and
Eduardos admissions that Joseph and Teresa were heirs of Jose, and thus
rightful heirs of Joaquin, and to timely object to the participation of Walter
de Santos and Abelardo Dagoro.
Unfortunately, Sebastian failed to do so. Nevertheless, Walter de Santos and Abelardo
Dagoro had the right to participate in the estate in representation of the Joaquins
compulsory heirs, Gloria and Mercedes, respectively.[33]
This Court also differs from
Eduardos asseveration that the CA erred in settling, together with Joaquins
estate, the respective estates of Lucia, Jesus, Jose, Mercedes, and Gloria. A perusal of the November 21, 2006 CA
Decision would readily show that the disposition of the properties related only
to the settlement of the estate of Joaquin.
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, as cited above,
the RTC was specifically granted jurisdiction to determine who are the lawful heirs
of Joaquin, as well as their respective shares after the payment of the
obligations of the estate, as enumerated in the said provision. The inclusion of Lucia, Jesus, Jose,
Mercedes, and Gloria in the distribution of the shares was merely a necessary
consequence of the settlement of Joaquins estate, they being his legal heirs.
However,
we agree with Eduardos position that the CA erred in distributing Joaquins
estate pertinent to the share allotted in favor of Milagros. Eduardo was able to show that a separate
proceeding was instituted for the probate of the will allegedly executed by
Milagros before the RTC, Branch 108,
It
is also worthy to mention that Sebastian died on January 15, 2010, per his
Certificate of Death.[35] He is survived by his wife Teresita B.
Agtarap (Teresita) and his children Joaquin Julian B. Agtarap (Joaquin Julian)
and Ana Ma. Agtarap Panlilio (Ana Ma.).
Henceforth,
in light of the foregoing, the assailed November 21, 2006 Decision and the
March 27, 2007 Resolution of the CA should be affirmed with modifications such
that the share of Milagros shall not yet be distributed until after the final
determination of the probate of her purported will, and that Sebastian shall be
represented by his compulsory heirs.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177192
is DENIED for lack of merit, while
the petition in G.R. No. 177099 is PARTIALLY
GRANTED, such that the Decision
dated November 21, 2006 and the Resolution dated March 27, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS: that the share awarded in favor of Milagros
Agtarap shall not be distributed until the final determination of the probate
of her will, and that petitioner Sebastian G. Agtarap, in view of his demise on
January 15, 2010, shall be represented by his wife Teresita B. Agtarap and his
children Joaquin Julian B. Agtarap and Ana Ma. Agtarap Panlilio.
These
cases are hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 114,
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 177192), pp. 3-15.
[2] Rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 44-83.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; rollo (G.R. No. 177192), pp. 16-37; rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 85-106.
[4]
[5] Also, Lucia Garcia Mendietta.
[6] Also, Gloria Agtarap-de
[7] Also, Maria Teresa Agtarap-Viria.
[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 417-433.
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 177192), pp. 33-36; (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 30-33.
[12] Sebastian claims that the CA ignored the following facts:
1. Sebastians reply, dated October 1, 1996, questioning the legitimacy of oppositors Joseph and Teresa Agtarap and intervenor Abelardo Dagoro as heirs;
2. Sebastians motion, dated January 3, 1997, to exclude Joseph, Teresa, and Abelardo Dagoro as heirs;
3. Sebastians reply to the opposition to the motion to exclude, with a copy of TCT No. 8026 in the name of Milagros and Jose Agtarap, showing that the latters wife is Presentacion and not Priscilla as claimed by Joseph and Teresa;
4. The Order, dated October 23, 2000, denying Sebastians motion to exclude for his failure to present clear and convincing evidence on his allegations, and without a hearing conducted on the legitimacy issue;
5. The marriage contracts of Jose Agtarap, submitted by Joseph and Teresa, which are not admissible in evidence;
6. The brief belatedly filed by Joseph and Teresa was a reply brief; and
7. The failure of Abelardo Dagoro and Walter de Santos to oppose the motion to exclude, which operated as an implied admission of the allegations therein.
[13] Rollo (G.R. No. 177192), p. 6.
[14] Rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 57-58.
[15] Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947, September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 647; Jimenez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75773, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA 367; Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42108, December 29, 1989, 180 SCRA 635.
[16] Heirs of Oscar R. Reyes v. Reyes, G.R. No. 139587, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 541.
[17] Sanchez
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15; Baybayan
v. Aquino, No. L-42678, April 9, 1987, 149 SCRA 186; Morales v. Court of First Instance of
[18] Coca v. Pizarras Vda. de Pangilinan, G.R. No. L-27082, January 31, 1978, 171 Phil. 246, 252; Lachenal v. Salas, L-42257, June 14, 1976, 71 SCRA 262, 266.
[19] Coca v. Pizarras Vda. de Pangilinan, supra; Pascual v. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 (1942); Alvarez v. Espiritu, L-18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892; Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227; Morans Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 473.
[20] Regalado, F.D. Remedial Law Compendium. Vol. II, Eighth Revised Edition (2000), p. 11.
[21] Rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 389-390.
[22]
[23]
[24] Bernardo, et al. v. CA, et al., L-18148,
Feb. 28, 1963, cited in Regalado, F.D. Remedial Law Compendium. Vol. II, Eighth
Revised Edition (2000), p. 9.
[25] Bejoc v. Cabreros, G.R. No. 145849, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 78, 87.
[26] Joaquino v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004, 434 SCRA 260, 273.
[27] Jocson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55322, February 16, 1989, 170 SCRA 333, 345.
[28] Magallon v. Montejo, G.R. No. L-73733, December 16, 1986, 146 SCRA 282, 292.
[29] October 23, 2000 Order of Partition and August 27, 2001 Resolution, rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 422 and 437, respectively.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] CIVIL CODE, Art. 970.
Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited.
[34] Rollo (G.R. No. 177099), pp. 137-165.
[35]