Heirs of Velasquez, namely ANASTACIA VELASQUEZ, SOFIA VELASQUEZ, ELISEO VELASQUEZ, JOSE

VELASQUEZ, CORAZON VELASQUEZ, LEONORA VELASQUEZ, and NIEVES VELASQUEZ, petitioners vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF ANATALIA DE GUZMAN, namely: SANTIAGO MENESES, ANDRES
MENESES, FELICIDAD MENESES, and APOLONIO MENESES, respondents.

G.R. No. 126996. February 15, 2000

TOPIC: Definition Donation Propter Nuptias
PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

FACTS:

Sometime in 1945 and 1947 - Spouses Leoncia de Guzman and Cornelio Aquino died intestate
and were childless. Leoncia de Guzman was survived by her sisters Anatalia de Guzman
(mother of Petitioner) and Tranquilina de Guzman (grandmother of Respondent)

1989 - The Menesses(R) filed a complaint for annulment, partition and damages against The
Heirs of Velasquez(P) for the latters refusal to partition the conjugal properties of the Spouses
Aquino. They pray for the:
1. Order of partition of the properties in equal shares and;
2. to order the Ps to render an accounting of the produce of the land in question from
the time defendants forcibly took possession until partition shall have been effected.
3. R alleged that:

Before Leoncia de Guzman died, she called for a conference, which had
been attended by Cesario Velasquez, Anatalia De Guzman and petitioners
Santiago Meneses and Tranquilina de Guzman, wherein Leoncia told
Anatalia, Tranquilina and Cesario that the documents of donation and
partition which she and her husband earlier executed were not signed by
them as it was not their intention to give away all the properties to Cesario
because Anatalia who is one of her sisters had several children to support.
Cesario then promised to divide the properties equally and to give the
plaintiffs one-half (1/2) thereof;

that they are entitled to of each of all the properties in question being the
children of Anatalia.

BUT Ps forcibly took possession of all the properties and despite Rs repeated demands for
partition, Ps refused.

P counter-claimed that:

1. During the lifetime of spouses Aquino, they had already disposed of their properties
in favor of petitioners predecessors-in-interest, Cesario and Camila de Guzman and
petitioners Anastacia and Jose Velasquez; thatthere was no conference happened;
and
2. that the instant case is already barred by res judicata since there had been three
previous cases involving the same parties, subject matter and cause of action which
were all dismissed.

RULING OF TC: (1992) - ruled in favour of Rs. The Court found:

1. Santiago Meneses and his testimony were credible.
2. He is 80 years old testified spontaneously in a clear, straight forward and convincing
manner. Santiago said there was indeed a conference and that he came across an
affidavit of Cesario Velasquez notarized by Atty. Elpidio Barrozo stating that he is an
adopted son of Spouses Aquino which, is however, not supported by evidence (a
court order).
3. Spouses Aquino who were childless, therefore, had Anatalia and Tranquilina as their
legal heirs notwithstanding the claims of donacion propter nuptias and conveyance
to Cesario, Camila, Anastacia and Jose.
4. In addition, Rs failed to prove their allegations that the Spouses Aquino disposed of
their properties during their lifetime. Petitioner Eliseo Velasquez is a lawyer and his
co-defendant brothers are retired government officials. On the other hand, the
respondents are simple, innocent country folks who have not obtained substantial
level of education.
5. Ps manipulated the transfer unto themselves all the properties of Spouses Aquino;
thus, depriving the respondents their shares in the inheritance, to their prejudice and
damage.

CA RULING: (1995) - CA affirmed decision.

1. CA rejected the defense of res judicata which was never pleaded nor raised earlier,
and for that reason was deemed waived.
2. Dismissed the claim of prescription as an action for partition is imprescriptible.
3. As regards the previous transfers executed in favor of P, the court affirmed the trial
courts finding that the transfers were repudiated before the death of Leoncia.

(1996) - MR was denied.

ISSUE: WON private respondents were the legal heirs of Spouses Aquino?
HELD: NO
Petitioners:
(1) The instant case is barred by res judicata.
(2) Santiago Meneses failed to prove the nullity of the Deeds of Conveyance and Deeds of Donation
executed by the Spouses Aquino.
(3) If there was no nullity of the said deeds, private respondents were not the legal heirs of Spouses
Aquino.
(4) Partition is the proper action in this case.
Respondents:
(1) The issue of res judicata has been sufficiently discussed and considered and the TC opted to inquire
into their legitimate grievance and came up with a judicious determination of the case on the merits.
(2) and (3) no answer.
(4) No, the court correctly ruled that the instant action for partition is proper.
SC RULING:
(1) Contrary to CAs decision that the defense of res judicata was never pleaded nor raised earlier, and for
that reason was deemed waived, the records show that it was raised in the petitioners Amended Answer
filed before the trial court. On this ground alone, the trial court should have already dismissed this case.
However, SC chose to resolve the case, disregarding procedural issues for the dispense of substantial
justice.
(2) TRUE. No evidence to support factual findings on Santiago Meneses claims of holding of conference
and Cesarios adoption papers.
(3) TRUE.