MARABILLES vs. QUITO G.R. No.L-10408.
October 18, 1956
Topic/Doctrine: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent
FACTS:
Defendants, instead of answering the complaint, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds (1)
that Plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue, (2) that the complaint states no cause of action, and (3) that the action had prescribed. Defendants attached to their motion as Annex A Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1065 issued in the name of one Guadalupe Saralde on March 31, 1941 and Original Certificate of Title No. 1018 as Annex B issued in the name of Patricio Marabiles on February 19, 1954. This is a homestead patent granted under Act No. 2874. Plaintiffs filed a written opposition to the motion, to which Defendants replied, and thereafter the court issued on November 8, 1954 an order sustaining the motion. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint with costs against the Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs appealed from this order to the Court of Appeals, the case was certified to us on the ground that the questions raised are purely of law. One of the grounds on which the lower court dismissed the complaint is that Plaintiffs do not have legal capacity to sue because it appears that the title of the land was issued in the name of Patricio Marabiles who already died and the complaint does not allege that Severina Marabiles and her child who now appears as Plaintiffs had been duly declared as his heirs to entitle them to bring the action. The court is of the impression that judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may have legal capacity to bring the action to recover a property belonging to the deceased.
ISSUE:
Whether or not judicial declaration of heirship is necessary to assert the right of heirs to the property.
HELD:
The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been judicially declared to be so, if duly proven, is well settled in this jurisdiction. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest, and as such he can deal with it in precisely the same way in which the deceased could have dealt, subject only to the limitations which by law or by contract may be imposed upon the deceased himself.
FERNANDEZ, ELAINE JOY A LLB III-B ADRIANO vs. OBLEADA
G.R. No. L-39938 August 12, 1933
Topic/Doctrine: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent
FACTS:
The petitioner, Carmen Adriano, is the deceased Mariano Lopez's surviving mother whom, under his will, he has instituted his heiress entitled to receive two thirds of his estate. After the deceased Mariano Lopez's will had been admitted to probate and the corresponding committee on claims and appraisal appointed, the herein respondents, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano, presented before said committee their claim consisting in a credit amounting to P4,750 alleged to be the unpaid balance of a promissory note for P5,000 signed by the deceased Mariano Lopez and his wife, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, the herein respondent. Inasmuch as their claim was disallowed by the aforementioned committee on claims and appraisal, the creditor-claimants, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano, appealed from the committee's advance resolution and filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila the corresponding action against Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased, Mariano Lopez, for the recovery of the said sum of P4,750 representing the unpaid balance of the promissory note for P5,000, signed by the deceased Mariano Lopez and his wife Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, one of the herein respondents. The promissory note in question was reproduced by the creditor-claimants in their complaint which was registered as civil case No. 44327. The defendant, Natalia Arevalo Vda.de Lopez, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased, Mariano Lopez, filed an answer denying generally and specifically the acts alleged in the complaint. The petitioner, Carmen Adriano, as heiress, instituted by the deceased Mariano Lopez under his will, filed a motion in the court praying that she be permitted to intervene in the aforementioned civil case No. 44327, alleging that she had a legal interest in the case; that promissory note upon which the alleged creditor-claimants, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano, base their claim is fictitious; that the said promissory note is without consideration, and that it was obtained through fraud, in connivance with the defendant, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner herein, being a heiress instituted by the deceased, Mariano Lopez, can intervene in the case, there being in fact a judicial administratrix to present the testamentary estate.
HELD:
Heirs; right to intervene in an action involving inheritance. — The heirs have the right to intervene in an action involving some of the property of the haereditas jacens of a decedent when they believe that the acts of the judicial administrator
are prejudicial to their interest.
Effect of Judicial Settlement- Hence, even before there has been a judicial declaration of heirship, it is well established that an heir has a right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been judicially declared to be so. This is logical because of the principle that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of his heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest.
FACTS:
Crescenciano Cuevas submitted for probate the last will and testament of her deceased natural father, Crescenciano Abesamis, which bequeathed three parcels of land, one share of stock in the "Gallera de Peñaranda" of a par value of P100, and two carabaos worth P100 to Concordia Cuevas (alias Concordia Abesamis), Francisco Abesamis, Perpetua Abesamis, Isaias Abesamis and Pedro Abesamis in the manner and under the conditions stated therein. However, Pedro Abesamis and twenty-five others entered their opposition to the distribution of the properties described in the will and had commenced an action for the partition of said properties. The will was admitted to probate and Concordia Cuevas was appointed executrix with a bond of P1,000. Pedro Abesamis and the other oppositors did institute civil case No. 4816 against the estate of Crescenciano Abesamis, Concordia Nuevas, Francisco Abesamis and Isaias Abesamis for the partition, alleging that said properties belonged, in the first instance, to Anacleto Mercado, their common causante, who entrusted them to Crescenciano Abesamis with the understanding that they were not to be subdivided as long as the minor children of her other deceased son, Teodorico Abesamis, were living with the Crescenciano. A judgment was rendered adjudicating seven-eights (7/8) of the properties in favor of the plaintiffs and the other one-eight (1/8) for the defendants. The court ordered the commissioners of partition to declare as sole heiress Concordia Cuevas to the exclusion of Francisco and Isaias Abesamis.lawphil.net Concordia Cuevas presented to the probate court a partition plan adjudicating the three lots and the two carabaos in favor of the legatees mentioned in the will. This was rejected by the court for the reason
in civil case No. 4816. The executrix submitted an amended inventory and later another project of partition distributing the properties of the estate in accordance with the terms of the will, which were objected by the defendants, because these included their legitimate shares under the decision in civil case No. 4816. The opposition was upheld by the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in not holding that the decision in civil case No. 4816 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, declaring that the estate of Crescenciano Abesamis is entitled only to one-eight (1/8) of the property described in the will, is a nullity and can not bind the estate of Crescenciano Abesamis.
HELD: Yes.The herein executrix-appellant was pronounced by the sole heiress of the deceased. As said defendants were declared in default and are, to be sure, bound by the decision in that case, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot now be permitted to assail its virtuality not to regard it as totally ineffectual against the testate estate. In the absence of a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate, there is no necessity of a previous declaration of status and the heir or heirs can sue and be sued in that capacity.