Hebron v.

Loyola
G.R. No. 168960, July, 2010

Del Castillo, J. / kmd

SUBJECT MATTER: Parental Authority & Custody of Children; Effects of PA over the child’s property.
CASE SUMMARY:
In this case, Encarnacion was the administrator of 2 parcels of land which they inherited from
their deceased parents. As administrator, she shared the fruits of the said properties to her 6 other
children. When Encarnacion died, her daughter, Hebron, assumed the administration of the said property.
However, she withheld the shares of Encarnacion’s sibling. A petition for partition was filed by the heirs
of the 5 deceased siblings and Candida (only living sibling) with the RTC. RTC ruled in favor of the
Loyolas. Hebron appealed the decision to the CA contending that Candida and the heirs of Conrado
(Conrado is Encarnacions’ brother) already relinquished their shares as payment of the financial support
extended to them by Hebron’s mother. This however was denied by Candida and the heirs of Conrado.
CA affirmed RTC judgment. SC also affirmed CA judgment because Hebron failed to prove the alleged
relinquishment of shares. The SC also ruled that the wife of Conrado, as guardian of their minor children,
does not have the power to relinquish the shares of her minor children. Her role as guardian covers only
matters of administration and not power of disposition.
DOCTRINES:
The powers given to the mother by the laws as the natural guardian covers only matters of
administration and cannot include the power of disposition. To dispose of such property, she must first
seek court approval.
The defendant, not only the plaintiff, also has a burden of proof—the plaintiffs have the duty to
establish their claims, and, it is the defendants who have the duty to establish their defenses.
FACTS:
 Remigia Baylon owned lot A while Januario Loyola owned lot B.
 Remigia is married to Januario.
 They had 7 childred: Conrado Jose, Benjamin, Candida, Soledad, Criseta and Encarnacion, all
surnamed Loyola.
 Administration of lots A & B was entrusted to Encarnacion. All the heirs of Remigia and Januario
received their shares in the fruits of the subject properties during Encarnacion’s administration.
 However, Encarnacion died on September 15, 1969 so the administration of the subject properties
was assumed by Encarnacion’s daughter, Amelia Bautista-Hebron (petitioner).
 Hebron started withholding the shares of Candida and the heirs of Conrado.
 On November 4, 1990, partition of the subject properties was formally demanded.
o Candida was the only one living among the 7 children of Januario and Remigia.
o The rest were survived and represented by their respective descendants and children.
 Because of petitioner’s failure to heed their formal demand, respondents (heirs of deceased
children of R & J) filed a complaint for partition and damages with the RTC-Cavite.
o Petitioner argued that Candida and the heir of Conrado have already relinquished their
shares in consideration of the financial support given to them by her mother,
Encarnacion.
o Candida and heirs of Conrado maintained that they had repaid that financial support
when they worked without pay at Encarnacion’s rice mill and household.
  RTC rendered decision in favor of the Loyolas on June 22, 1999.
o It granted the partition of the subject properties among all 7 sets of plaintiffs in 7 equal
parts.
 Petitioner (Hebron) appealed the decision to the CA.
 CA modified RTC decision, from “7 sets of plaintiffs” to “7 sets of heirs”, because the former
suggested the exclusion of Hebron from the partition.
o CA also found that the petitioner was not able to prove the existence of the waiver or
relinquishment of their shares by Candida and the heirs of Conrado.
o CA affirmed the rest of RTC decision in toto.
 CA denied subsequent MR filed by petitioner.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the CA erred in affirming RTC decision that the burden of proof was shifted to Hebron and
that the latter failed to substantiate her claim with preponderance of evidence. (NO)
2. WON the CA erred in affirming RTC decision that a spouse present cannot relinquish the shares
in the parcels of land if it will deprive minor children of their hereditary rights. (NO)
HOLDING:
1. No, the CA did not commit an error in affirming that the burden was on petitioner to establish her
affirmative defense of waiver or sale of the shares of Candida and the heirs of Conrado.

Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, Sec. 1: Burden of Proof.

—Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

It is clear that the defendant, not only the plaintiff, also has a burden of proof. The plaintiffs have
the duty to establish their claims. And, it is the defendants who have the duty to establish their defenses.

In this case, petitioner’s defense was that Candida and heirs of Conrado waived or sold their
shares in the subject properties which was denied by the respondents. The burden of proving this defense
is on the petitioner.

2. No, the CA did not commit an error in affirming RTC decision that a spouse present cannot relinquish
the shares in the parcels of land if it will deprive minor children of their hereditary rights.

In this case, the minor children of Conrado inherited by representation in their properties of their
grandparents Remigia and Januario. These children, not their mother Victorina, were the co-owners of the
inherited properties. Their mother had not authority or acted beyond her powers in conveying, if the
petitioner’s allegation is true, to the petitioner’s mother (Encarnacion) the undivided share of her minor
children.

The power given to her by the laws as the natural guardian covers only matters of administration
and cannot include the power of disposition.

Petition is DENIED. CA decision & resolution are AFFIRMED.