G.R. No.

145982

September 13, 2004

FRANK N. LIU, deceased, substituted by his surviving spouse Diana Liu, and children, namely: Walter, Milton, Frank, Jr., Henry and Jockson, all surnamed Liu, Rebecca Liu Shui and Pearl Liu Rodriguez, petitioners, vs. ALFREDO LOY, JR., TERESITA A. LOY and ESTATE OF JOSE VAO, respondents. The Loys seek a reconsideration of the Decision dated 3 July 2003 of this Court declaring void the deeds of sale of Lot Nos. 5 and 6 executed by Teodoro Vao in favor of Alfredo Loy, Jr. and Teresita Loy. We held that Lot Nos. 5 and 6 belong to Frank Liu 1 since the probate court approved his deeds of sale in accordance with Section 8,2 Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. The deeds of sale of the Loys lacked a valid probate court approval. As a result, we ordered the Estate of Jose Vao to reimburse the Loys the amounts they paid for Lot Nos. 5 and 6, with interest at 6% annually from 4 June 1976, the date of filing of the complaint, until finality of the decision, and 12% annually thereafter until full payment. The Court heard the parties on oral arguments on 10 March 2004 and granted them time to submit their memoranda. Frank Liu filed his memorandum on 29 March 2004 while the Loys filed their memorandum on 25 March 2004 by registered mail. The issues that the Loys raise in their motion for reconsideration are not new. The Court already considered and discussed extensively these issues in the assailed Decision. We find no compelling reason to reconsider the assailed Decision. The Loys insist that the transaction between Teodoro Vao and Benito Liu, the predecessor-in-interest of Frank Liu, is a contract to sell. In contrast, the transactions between Teodoro Vao and Alfredo Loy, Jr. and Teresita A. Loy were contracts of sale. According to the Loys, the contract to sell did not transfer ownership of Lot Nos. 5 and 6 to Benito Liu or Frank Liu because it was only a promise to sell subject to the full payment of the consideration. On the other hand, the contracts of sale in favor of the Loys transferred ownership, as the conveyances were absolute.3 As we held in our Decision, a prior contract to sell made by the decedent during his lifetime prevails over a subsequent contract of sale made by the administrator without probate court approval. It is immaterial if the prior contract is a mere contract to sell and does not immediately convey ownership. Frank Lius contract to sell became valid and effective upon its execution and bound the estate to convey the property upon full payment of the consideration. It is apparent from Teodoro Vaos letter4 dated 16 October 1954 that the reason why Frank Liu stopped further payments on the lots, leaving a balance of P1,000, was because Teodoro Vao could not yet transfer the titles to Benito Liu, the predecessor-in-interest of Frank Liu. It would appear that Frank Liu and Teodoro Vao lost contact with each other thereafter and it was only on 25 January 1964 that Frank Liu wrote Teodoro Vao informing the latter that he was ready to pay the balance of the purchase price of the lots. Teodoro Vao did not reply to Frank Lius letter. On 22 April 1966, Benito Liu sold to Frank Liu the lots, including Lot Nos. 5 and 6, which Benito Liu purchased from Teodoro Vao on 13 January 1950. Frank Liu sent three letters dated 21 March 1968, 7 June 1968 and 29 July 1968 to Teodoro Vao reiterating his request for the execution of the deed of sale covering the lots in his favor but to no avail. On 19 August 1968, Teodoro Vao sold Lot No. 6 to Teresita Loy and on 16 December 1969, he sold Lot No. 5 to Alfredo Loy, Jr. The sales to the Loys were made after Frank Liu offered to pay the balance of the purchase price of the lots and after he repeatedly requested for the execution of the deeds of sale in his favor. The sale of the lots by Teodoro Vao to Benito Liu was valid. The sale was made by Teodoro Vao on 13 January 1950 in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Jose Vao. The sale to Benito Liu was made during the lifetime of Jose Vao, not after the death of Jose Vao who died on 28 January 1950.5 The power of attorney executed by Jose Vao in favor of Teodoro Vao remained valid during the lifetime of Jose Vao. In his letter dated 16 October 1954, Teodoro Vao stated that on 30 June 1954, the Supreme Court allowed the probate of the will of Jose Vao. Teodoro Vao likewise mentioned in the letter that in July 1954, the Supreme Court held that all the sales made by Teodoro Vao of the properties of his father were legal. 6 Thus, Benito Lius deed of sale in favor of Frank Liu covering the lots sold to him by Teodoro Vao constitutes a valid charge or claim against the estate of Jose Vao. The Loys reiterate their contention that Teodoro Vao, as administrator and sole heir to the properties, can sell the lots to them since the rights of an heir are transmitted from the moment of death of the testator. Although a property under estate proceedings cannot be sold without judicial approval, the Loys allege that in their case, the probate court later approved the sales to them, thereby ratifying the sales.7 Well-settled is the rule that an administrator needs court approval to sell estate property, otherwise the sale is void. 8 Court approval of the sale of estate property is clearly required under Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates the instances when the court may allow the sale or encumbrance of estate property. Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court even provides for the regulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber estate property.9 More importantly, Section 9110 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) and Section 8811 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) specifically require court approval for any sale of registered land by an executor or administrator.

The laws, Rules of Court, jurisprudence and regulations explicitly require court approval before any sale of estate property by an executor or administrator can take effect. The purpose of requiring court approval is to protect creditors. In this case, Frank Liu is a creditor, and he is the person the law seeks to protect. The orders of the probate court dated 19 and 23 March 1976 approving the contracts of the Loys are void. The orders did not ratify the sales because there was already a prior order of the probate court dated 24 February 1976 approving the sale of Lot Nos. 5 and 6 to Frank Liu. Hence, the probate court had already lost jurisdiction over Lot Nos. 5 and 6 since the lots no longer formed part of the Estate of Jose Vao. In fact, the administratrix of the estate filed a motion for reconsideration of the orders of the probate court approving the contracts of the Loys because she already executed a deed of sale covering Lot Nos. 5 and 6 in favor of Frank Liu. The Loys impliedly admitted that their contracts of sale dated 19 August 1968 and 16 December 1969 were ineffective when they belatedly asked in 1976 for court approval of the sales. If the Loys believed that their deeds of sale in 1968 and 1969 were valid, they would not have asked for court approval in 1976. By asking for court approval, they necessarily admitted that without court approval, the sale to them was ineffectual. The Loys are not buyers and registrants in good faith considering that they bought from a seller who was not a registered owner. Teodoro Vao signed both contracts of sale but the titles to the lots sold were in the name of "Estate of Jose Vao." And since the titles to Lot Nos. 5 and 6 were in name of "Estate of Jose Vao," the Loys were on notice that court approval was needed for the sale of estate property. The ex-parte motion for the court approval of the sales filed by the Loys some seven or eight years after the sales transaction reveals a less than honest actuation, prompting the administratrix to object to the courts approval. WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-68053 May 7, 1990 LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APELLATE COURT and JESUS YANES, ESTELITA YANES, ANTONIO YANES, ROSARIO YANES, and ILUMINADO YANES, respondents. This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the decision of the Fourth Civil Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated August 31, 1983 in AC-G.R. CV No. 56626 entitled "Jesus Yanes et al. v. Dr. Rodolfo Siason et al." affirming the decision dated July 8, 1974 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental insofar as it ordered the petitioners to pay jointly and severally the private respondents the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental and reversing the subject decision insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees, respectively and (b) the resolution of said appellate court dated May 30, 1984, denying the motion for reconsideration of its decision. The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B which were originally known as Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental. Lot 773, with an area of 156,549 square meters, was registered in the name of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-4858 (8804) issued on October 9, 1917 by the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros (Exh. A). Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private respondents, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufino who died in 1962 while the other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived by her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib. 1 It is not clear why the latter is not included as a party in this case. Aniceto left his children Lots 773 and 823. Teodora cultivated only three hectares of Lot 823 as she could not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around twenty-four hectares. The record does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions of the lots but it is established that Rufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a result of the outbreak of World War II. According to Estelita, from the "Japanese time up to peace time", they did not visit the parcels of land in question but "after liberation", when her brother went there to get their share of the sugar produced therein, he was informed that Fortunato Santiago, Fuentebella (Puentevella) and Alvarez were in possession of Lot 773. 2 It is on record that on May 19, 1938, Fortunato D. Santiago was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. RF 2694 (29797) covering Lot 773-A with an area of 37,818 square meters. 3 TCT No. RF 2694 describes Lot 773-A as a portion of Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia and as originally registered under OCT No. 8804.

The bigger portion of Lot 773 with an area of 118,831 square meters was also registered in the name of Fortunato D. Santiago on September 6, 1938 Under TCT No. RT-2695 (28192 ). 4 Said transfer certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that Lot 773-B was originally registered under OCT No. 8804. On May 30, 1955, Santiago sold Lots 773-A and 773-B to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. in consideration of the sum of P7,000.00. Consequently, on February 20, 1956, TCT Nos. T-19291 and T-19292 were issued in Fuentebella's name. 6
5

After Fuentebella's death and during the settlement of his estate, the administratrix thereof (Arsenia R. Vda. de Fuentebella, his wife) filed in Special Proceedings No. 4373 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a motion requesting authority to sell Lots 773A and 773-B. 7 By virtue of a court order granting said motion, 8 on March 24, 1958, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella sold said lots for P6,000.00 to Rosendo Alvarez. 9 Hence, on April 1, 1958 TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 covering Lots 773-A and 773-B were respectively issued to Rosendo Alvarez. 10 Two years later or on May 26, 1960, Teodora Yanes and the children of her brother Rufino, namely, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a complaint against Fortunato Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of the ownership and possession of Lots 773 and 823. They also prayed that an accounting of the produce of the land from 1944 up to the filing of the complaint be made by the defendants, that after court approval of said accounting, the share or money equivalent due the plaintiffs be delivered to them, and that defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs P500.00 as damages in the form of attorney's fees. 11 During the pendency in court of said case or on November 13, 1961, Alvarez sold Lots 773-A, 773-B and another lot for P25,000.00 to Dr. Rodolfo Siason. 12 Accordingly, TCT Nos. 30919 and 30920 were issued to Siason, 13 who thereafter, declared the two lots in his name for assessment purposes. 14 Meanwhile, on November 6, 1962, Jesus Yanes, in his own behalf and in behalf of the other plaintiffs, and assisted by their counsel, filed a manifestation in Civil Case No. 5022 stating that the therein plaintiffs "renounce, forfeit and quitclaims (sic) any claim, monetary or otherwise, against the defendant Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella in connection with the above-entitled case." 15 On October 11, 1963, a decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in Civil Case No. 5022, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered, ordering the defendant Rosendo Alvarez to reconvey to the plaintiffs lots Nos. 773 and 823 of the Cadastral Survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, now covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 in the name of said defendant, and thereafter to deliver the possession of said lots to the plaintiffs. No special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. 16 It will be noted that the above-mentioned manifestation of Jesus Yanes was not mentioned in the aforesaid decision. However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to Lot 773. In his return of service dated October 20, 1965, the sheriff stated that he discovered that Lot 773 had been subdivided into Lots 773-A and 773-B; that they were "in the name" of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that Lot 773 could not be delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was "not a party per writ of execution." 17 The execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 having met a hindrance, herein private respondents (the Yaneses) filed on July 31, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullity of TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 issued to Rosendo Alvarez. 18 Thereafter, the court required Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering Lots 773 and 823. Expectedly, Siason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased Lots 773-A, 773-B and 658, not Lots 773 and 823, "in good faith and for a valuable consideration without any knowledge of any lien or encumbrances against said properties"; that the decision in the cadastral proceeding 19 could not be enforced against him as he was not a party thereto; and that the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 could neither be enforced against him not only because he was not a party-litigant therein but also because it had long become final and executory. 20 Finding said manifestation to be well-founded, the cadastral court, in its order of September 4, 1965, nullified its previous order requiring Siason to surrender the certificates of title mentioned therein. 21 In 1968, the Yaneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. 5022. Siason opposed it. 22 In its order of September 28, 1968 in Civil Case No. 5022, the lower court, noting that the Yaneses had instituted another action for the recovery of the land in question, ruled that at the judgment therein could not be enforced against Siason as he was not a party in the case. 23 The action filed by the Yaneses on February 21, 1968 was for recovery of real property with damages. 24 Named defendants therein were Dr. Rodolfo Siason, Laura Alvarez, Flora Alvarez, Raymundo Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. The

Yaneses prayed for the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-19291 and 19292 issued to Siason (sic) for being null and void; the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of the Yaneses "in accordance with the sheriffs return of service dated October 20, 1965;" Siason's delivery of possession of Lot 773 to the Yaneses; and if, delivery thereof could not be effected, or, if the issuance of a new title could not be made, that the Alvarez and Siason jointly and severally pay the Yaneses the sum of P45,000.00. They also prayed that Siason render an accounting of the fruits of Lot 773 from November 13, 1961 until the filing of the complaint; and that the defendants jointly and severally pay the Yaneses moral damages of P20,000.00 and exemplary damages of P10,000.00 plus attorney's fees of P4, 000.00. 25 In his answer to the complaint, Siason alleged that the validity of his titles to Lots 773-A and 773-B, having been passed upon by the court in its order of September 4, 1965, had become res judicata and the Yaneses were estopped from questioning said order. 26 On their part, the Alvarez stated in their answer that the Yaneses' cause of action had been "barred by res judicata, statute of limitation and estoppel." 27 In its decision of July 8, 1974, the lower court found that Rodolfo Siason, who purchased the properties in question thru an agent as he was then in Mexico pursuing further medical studies, was a buyer in good faith for a valuable consideration. Although the Yaneses were negligent in their failure to place a notice of lis pendens "before the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental in order to protect their rights over the property in question" in Civil Case No. 5022, equity demanded that they recover the actual value of the land because the sale thereof executed between Alvarez and Siason was without court approval. 28 The dispositive portion of the decision states: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, judgment is hereby rendered in the following manner: A. The case against the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason and the Register of Deeds are (sic) hereby dismmissed, B. The defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez being the legitimate children of the deceased Rosendo Alvarez are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre, Negros Occidental; the sum of P2,000.00 as actual damages suffered by the plaintiff; the sum of P5,000.00 representing moral damages and the sum of P2.000 as attorney's fees, all with legal rate of interest from date of the filing of this complaint up to final payment. C. The cross-claim filed by the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason against the defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez is hereby dismissed. D. Defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez are hereby ordered to pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED. 29 The Alvarez appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which in its decision of August 31, 1983 30 affirmed the lower court's decision "insofar as it ordered defendants-appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees, respectively." 31 The dispositive portion of said decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered defendants-appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs- appellees the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees, respectively. No costs. SO ORDERED. 32 Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants motion for reconsideration, said appellate court denied the same. Hence, the instant petition. ln their memorandum petitioners raised the following issues: 1. Whethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had been timely and properly invoked and raised by the petitioners in the lower court. 2. Whether or not the cause and/or causes of action of the private respondents, if ever there are any, as alleged in their complaint dated February 21, 1968 which has been docketed in the trial court as Civil Case No. 8474 supra, are forever barred by statute of limitation and/or prescription of action and estoppel. 3. Whether or not the late Rosendo Alvarez, a defendant in Civil Case No. 5022, supra and father of the petitioners become a privy and/or party to the waiver (Exhibit 4-defendant Siason) in Civil Case No. 8474, supra where the private respondents had unqualifiedly and absolutely waived, renounced and quitclaimed all their alleged rights and interests, if ever there is any, on Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre as appearing in their written

manifestation dated November 6, 1962 (Exhibits "4" Siason) which had not been controverted or even impliedly or indirectly denied by them. 4. Whether or not the liability or liabilities of Rosendo Alvarez arising from the sale of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre to Dr. Rodolfo Siason, if ever there is any, could be legally passed or transmitted by operations (sic) of law to the petitioners without violation of law and due process . 33 The petition is devoid of merit. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, it is powerless and for that matter so is the Supreme Court, to review the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 ordering Alvarez to reconvey the lots in dispute to herein private respondents. Said decision had long become final and executory and with the possible exception of Dr. Siason, who was not a party to said case, the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 is the law of the case between the parties thereto. It ended when Alvarez or his heirs failed to appeal the decision against them. 34 Thus, it is axiomatic that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. 35 As consistently ruled by this Court, every litigation must come to an end. Access to the court is guaranteed. But there must be a limit to it. Once a litigant's right has been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to return for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigation were to be allowed, unscrupulous litigations will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice. 36 There is no dispute that the rights of the Yaneses to the properties in question have been finally adjudicated in Civil Case No. 5022. As found by the lower court, from the uncontroverted evidence presented, the Yaneses have been illegally deprived of ownership and possession of the lots in question. 37 In fact, Civil Case No. 8474 now under review, arose from the failure to execute Civil Case No. 5022, as subject lots can no longer be reconveyed to private respondents Yaneses, the same having been sold during the pendency of the case by the petitioners' father to Dr. Siason who did not know about the controversy, there being no lis pendens annotated on the titles. Hence, it was also settled beyond question that Dr. Siason is a purchaser in good faith. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not annul the sale executed by Alvarez in favor of Dr. Siason on November 11, 1961 but in fact sustained it. The trial court ordered the heirs of Rosendo Alvarez who lost in Civil Case No. 5022 to pay the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) the amount of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of the subdivided lots in dispute. It did not order defendant Siason to pay said amount. 38 As to the propriety of the present case, it has long been established that the sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. 39 "It is one thing to protect an innocent third party; it is entirely a different matter and one devoid of justification if deceit would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator to enjoy the fruits of his nefarious decided As clearly revealed by the undeviating line of decisions coming from this Court, such an undesirable eventuality is precisely sought to be guarded against." 40 The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having been finally adjudicated in Civil Case No. 5022 in favor of private respondents, it cannot now be reopened in the instant case on the pretext that the defenses of prescription and estoppel have not been properly considered by the lower court. Petitioners could have appealed in the former case but they did not. They have therefore foreclosed their rights, if any, and they cannot now be heard to complain in another case in order to defeat the enforcement of a judgment which has longing become final and executory. Petitioners further contend that the liability arising from the sale of Lots No. 773-A and 773-B made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death. Such contention is untenable for it overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the general transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. Thus, the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state: Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death. Art. 1311. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent. As explained by this Court through Associate Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the case of Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. 41

The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs or distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive. Under our law, therefore. the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. The rule is a consequence of the progressive "depersonalization" of patrimonial rights and duties that, as observed by Victorio Polacco has characterized the history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation from person to person, the obligation has evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony with the persons occupying only a representative position, barring those rare cases where the obligation is strictly personal, i.e., is contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of its performance by a specific person and by no other. xxx xxx xxx Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father's hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the payment of the debts of the estate. 42 It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance. With this clarification and considering petitioners' admission that there are other properties left by the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount adjudged in favor of private respondents, we see no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, subject to the clarification herein above stated, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-60174 February 16, 1983 EDUARDO FELIPE, HERMOGENA V. FELIPE AND VICENTE V. FELIPE, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALDON, NAMELY: GIMENA ALMOSARA, SOFIA ALDON, SALVADOR ALDON, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in 1936. The spouses bought several pieces of land sometime between 1948 and 1950. In 1960-62, the lands were divided into three lots, 1370, 1371 and 1415 of the San Jacinto Public Land Subdivision, San Jacinto, Masbate. In 1951, Gimena Almosara sold the lots to the spouses Eduardo Felipe and Hermogena V. Felipe. The sale was made without the consent of her husband, Maximo. On April 26, 1976, the heirs of Maximo Aldon, namely his widow Gimena and their children Sofia and Salvador Aldon, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Masbate against the Felipes. The complaint which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2372 alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of Lots 1370, 1371 and 1415; that they had orally mortgaged the same to the defendants; and an offer to redeem the mortgage had been refused so they filed the complaint in order to recover the three parcels of land. The defendants asserted that they had acquired the lots from the plaintiffs by purchase and subsequent delivery to them. The trial court sustained the claim of the defendants and rendered the following judgment: a. declaring the defendants to be the lawful owners of the property subject of the present litigation; b. declaring the complaint in the present action to be without merit and is therefore hereby ordered dismissed; c. ordering the plaintiffs to pay to the defendants the amount of P2,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which rendered the following judgment:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby RENDERED, ordering the defendants-appellees to surrender the lots in question as well as the plaintiffs'appellants' muniments of title thereof to said plaintiffs-appellants, to make an accounting of the produce derived from the lands including expenses incurred since 1951, and to solidarity turn over to the plaintiffs-appellants the NET monetary value of the profits, after deducting the sum of P1,800.00. No attorney's fees nor moral damages are awarded for lack of any legal justification therefor. No. costs. The ratio of the judgment is stated in the following paragraphs of the decision penned by Justice Edgardo L. Paras with the concurrence of Justices Venicio Escolin and Mariano A. Zosa: One of the principal issues in the case involves the nature of the aforementioned conveyance or transaction, with appellants claiming the same to be an oral contract of mortgage or antichresis, the redemption of which could be done anytime upon repayment of the P1,800.00 involved (incidentally the only thing written about the transaction is the aforementioned receipt re the P1,800). Upon the other hand, appellees claim that the transaction was one of sale, accordingly, redemption was improper. The appellees claim that plaintiffs never conveyed the property because of a loan or mortgage or antichresis and that what really transpired was the execution of a contract of sale thru a private document designated as a 'Deed of Purchase and Sale' (Exhibit 1), the execution having been made by Gimena Almosara in favor of appellee Hermogena V. Felipe. After a study of this case, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to recover the ownership of the lots in question. We so hold because although Exh. 1 concerning the sale made in 1951 of the disputed lots is, in Our opinion, not a forgery the fact is that the sale made by Gimena Almosara is invalid, having been executed without the needed consent of her husband, the lots being conjugal. Appellees' argument that this was an issue not raised in the pleadings is baseless, considering the fact that the complaint alleges that the parcels 'were purchased by plaintiff Gimena Almosara and her late husband Maximo Aldon' (the lots having been purchased during the existence of the marriage, the same are presumed conjugal) and inferentially, by force of law, could not, be disposed of by a wife without her husband's consent. The defendants are now the appellants in this petition for review. They invoke several grounds in seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals. One of the grounds is factual in nature; petitioners claim that "respondent Court of Appeals has found as a fact that the 'Deed of Purchase and Sale' executed by respondent Gimena Almosara is not a forgery and therefore its authenticity and due execution is already beyond question." We cannot consider this ground because as a rule only questions of law are reviewed in proceedings under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court subject to well-defined exceptions not present in the instant case. The legal ground which deserves attention is the legal effect of a sale of lands belonging to the conjugal partnership made by the wife without the consent of the husband. It is useful at this point to re-state some elementary rules: The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. (Art. 165, Civil Code.) Subject to certain exceptions, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent. (Art. 166, Idem.) And the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent, except in cases provided by law. (Art. 172, Idem.) In the instant case, Gimena, the wife, sold lands belonging to the conjugal partnership without the consent of the husband and the sale is not covered by the phrase "except in cases provided by law." The Court of Appeals described the sale as "invalid" - a term which is imprecise when used in relation to contracts because the Civil Code uses specific names in designating defective contracts, namely: rescissible (Arts. 1380 et seq.), voidable (Arts. 1390 et seq.), unenforceable (Arts. 1403, et seq.), and void or inexistent (Arts. 1409 et seq.) The sale made by Gimena is certainly a defective contract but of what category? The answer: it is a voidable contract. According to Art. 1390 of the Civil Code, among the voidable contracts are "[T]hose where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to the contract." (Par. 1.) In the instant case-Gimena had no capacity to give consent to the contract of sale. The capacity to give consent belonged not even to the husband alone but to both spouses. The view that the contract made by Gimena is a voidable contract is supported by the legal provision that contracts entered by the husband without the consent of the wife when such consent is required, are annullable at her instance during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned. (Art. 173, Civil Code.) Gimena's contract is not rescissible for in such contract all the essential elements are untainted but Gimena's consent was tainted. Neither can the contract be classified as unenforceable because it does not fit any of those described in Art. 1403 of the Civil Code. And finally, the contract cannot be void or inexistent because it is not one of those mentioned in Art. 1409 of the Civil Code. By process of elimination, it must perforce be a voidable contract. The voidable contract of Gimena was subject to annulment by her husband only during the marriage because he was the victim who had an interest in the contract. Gimena, who was the party responsible for the defect, could not ask for its annulment. Their children

could not likewise seek the annulment of the contract while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an inchoate right to the lands sold. The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation of Gimena. What she could not do during the marriage, she could not do thereafter. The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is different. After the death of Maximo they acquired the right to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary rights in their father's share in the lands. The father's share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3) thereof, one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow. The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 1951. It was only in 1976 when the respondents filed action to recover the lands. In the meantime, Maximo Aldon died. Two questions come to mind, namely: (1) Have the petitioners acquired the lands by acquisitive prescription? (2) Is the right of action of Sofia and Salvador Aldon barred by the statute of limitations? Anent the first question, We quote with approval the following statement of the Court of Appeals: We would like to state further that appellees [petitioners herein] could not have acquired ownership of the lots by prescription in view of what we regard as their bad faith. This bad faith is revealed by testimony to the effect that defendant-appellee Vicente V. Felipe (son of appellees Eduardo Felipe and Hermogena V. Felipe) attempted in December 1970 to have Gimena Almosara sign a ready-made document purporting to self the disputed lots to the appellees. This actuation clearly indicated that the appellees knew the lots did not still belong to them, otherwise, why were they interested in a document of sale in their favor? Again why did Vicente V. Felipe tell Gimena that the purpose of the document was to obtain Gimena's consent to the construction of an irrigation pump on the lots in question? The only possible reason for purporting to obtain such consent is that the appellees knew the lots were not theirs. Why was there an attempted improvement (the irrigation tank) only in 1970? Why was the declaration of property made only in 1974? Why were no attempts made to obtain the husband's signature, despite the fact that Gimena and Hermogena were close relatives? An these indicate the bad faith of the appellees. Now then, even if we were to consider appellees' possession in bad faith as a possession in the concept of owners, this possession at the earliest started in 1951, hence the period for extraordinary prescription (30 years) had not yet lapsed when the present action was instituted on April 26, 1976. As to the second question, the children's cause of action accrued from the death of their father in 1959 and they had thirty (30) years to institute it (Art. 1141, Civil Code.) They filed action in 1976 which is well within the period. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified. Judgment is entered awarding to Sofia and Salvador Aldon their shares of the lands as stated in the body of this decision; and the petitioners as possessors in bad faith shall make an accounting of the fruits corresponding to the share aforementioned from 1959 and solidarity pay their value to Sofia and Salvador Aldon; costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 89783 February 19, 1992 MARIANO B. LOCSIN, JULIAN J. LOCSIN, JOSE B. LOCSIN, AUREA B. LOCSIN, MATILDE L. CORDERO, SALVADOR B. LOCSIN and MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE JAUCIAN, FLORENTINO JAUCIAN, MERCEDES JAUCIAN ARBOLEDA, HEIRS OF JOSEFINA J. BORJA, HEIRS OF EDUARDO JAUCIAN and HEIRS OF VICENTE JAUCIAN, respondents. Reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-11186 affirming with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Albay in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7152 entitled "Jose Jaucian, et al. v. Mariano B. Locsin, et al.," an action for recovery of real property with damages is sought. in these proceedings initiated by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition was initially denied due course and dismissed by this Court. It was however reinstated upon a second motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners, and the respondents were required to comment thereon. The petition was thereafter given due course and the parties were directed to submit their memorandums. These, together with the evidence, having been carefully considered, the Court now decides the case. First, the facts as the Court sees them in light of the evidence on record:

The late Getulio Locsin had three children named Mariano, Julian and Magdalena, all surnamed Locsin. He owned extensive residential and agricultural properties in the provinces of Albay and Sorsogon. After his death, his estate was divided among his three (3) children as follows: (a) the coconut lands of some 700 hectares in Bual, Pilar, Sorsogon, were adjudicated to his daughter, Magdalena Locsin; (b) 106 hectares of coconut lands were given to Julian Locsin, father of the petitioners Julian, Mariano, Jose, Salvador, Matilde, and Aurea, all surnamed Locsin; (c) more than forty (40) hectares of coconut lands in Bogtong, eighteen (18) hectares of riceland in Daraga, and the residential lots in Daraga, Albay and in Legazpi City went to his son Mariano, which Mariano brought into his marriage to Catalina Jaucian in 1908. Catalina, for her part, brought into the marriage untitled properties which she had inherited from her parents, Balbino Jaucian and Simona Anson. These were augmented by other properties acquired by the spouses in the course of their union, 1 which however was not blessed with children. Eventually, the properties of Mariano and Catalina were brought under the Torrens System. Those that Mariano inherited from his father, Getulio Locsin, were surveyed cadastrally and registered in the name of "Mariano Locsin, married to Catalina Jaucian.'' 2 Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting his wife, Catalina, as the sole and universal heir of all his properties. 3 The will was drawn up by his wife's nephew and trusted legal adviser, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. Attorney Lorayes disclosed that the spouses being childless, they had agreed that their properties, after both of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of the family, i.e., Mariano's properties would go to his "Locsin relatives" (i.e., brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces), and those of Catalina to her "Jaucian relatives." 4 Don Mariano Locsin died of cancer on September 14, 1948 after a lingering illness. In due time, his will was probated in Special Proceedings No. 138, CFI of Albay without any opposition from both sides of the family. As directed in his will, Doa Catalina was appointed executrix of his estate. Her lawyer in the probate proceeding was Attorney Lorayes. In the inventory of her husband's estate 5 which she submitted to the probate court for approval, 6 Catalina declared that "all items mentioned from Nos. 1 to 33 are the private properties of the deceased and form part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse, while items Nos. 34 to 42 are conjugal." 7 Among her own and Don Mariano's relatives, Doa Catalina was closest to her nephew, Attorney Salvador Lorayes, her nieces, Elena Jaucian, Maria Lorayes-Cornelio and Maria Olbes-Velasco, and the husbands of the last two: Hostilio Cornelio and Fernando Velasco. 8 Her trust in Hostilio Cornelio was such that she made him custodian of all the titles of her properties; and before she disposed of any of them, she unfailingly consulted her lawyer-nephew, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. It was Atty. Lorayes who prepared the legal documents and, more often than not, the witnesses to the transactions were her niece Elena Jaucian, Maria Lorayes-Cornelio, Maria Olbes-Velasco, or their husbands. Her niece, Elena Jaucian, was her life-long companion in her house. Don Mariano relied on Doa Catalina to carry out the terms of their compact, hence, nine (9) years after his death, as if in obedience to his voice from the grave, and fully cognizant that she was also advancing in years, Doa Catalina began transferring, by sale, donation or assignment, Don Mariano's as well as her own, properties to their respective nephews and nieces. She made the following sales and donation of properties which she had received from her husband's estate, to his Locsin nephews and nieces: EXHIBIT DATE PARTICULARS AREA/SQ.M. PRICE WITNESSES 23 Jan. 26, 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale in 962 P 481 favor of Mariano Locsin 1-JRL Apr. 7, 1966 Deed of Sale in favor of 430,203 P 20,000 Jose R. Locsin 1-JJL Mar. 22, 1967 Deed of Sale in favor of 5,000 P 1,000 Hostilio Cornello Julian Locsin (Lot 2020) Helen M. Jaucian 1 Nov. 29, 1974 Deed of Donation in 26,509 favor Aurea Locsin, Matilde L. Cordero and Salvador Locsin 2 Feb. 4, 1975 Deed of Donation in 34,045 favor Aurea Locsin, Matilde L. Cordero and Salvador Locsin

3 Sept. 9, 1975 Deed of Donation in (Lot 2059) favor Aurea Locsin, Matilde L. Cordero and Salvador Locsin 4 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,424 Hostilio Cornelio favor of Aurea B. Locsin Fernando Velasco 5 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,456 P 5,750 Hostilio Cornelio favor of Aurea B. Locsin Elena Jaucian 6 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,237 P 5,720 - ditto favor of Aurea B. Locsin 7 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,404 P 4,050 - ditto favor of Aurea B. Locsin 15 Nov. 26, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 261 P 4,930 - ditto Aurea Locsin 16 Oct. 17, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 533 P 2,000 Delfina Anson Aurea Locsin M. Acabado 17 Nov. 26, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 373 P 1,000 Leonor Satuito Aurea Locsin Mariano B. Locsin 19 Sept. 1, 1975 Conditional Donation in 1,130 P 3,000 - ditto favor of Mariano Locsin 1-MVRJ Dec. 29, 1972 Deed of Reconveyance 1,5110.66 P 1,000 Delfina Anson in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Antonio Illegible Rosario whose maternal grandfather was Getulio Locsin 2-MVRJ June 30, 1973 Deed of Reconveyance 319.34 P 500 Antonio Illegible in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Salvador Nical Rosario but the rentals from bigger portion of Lot 2155 leased to Filoil Refinery were assigned to Maria Jaucian Lorayes Cornelio Of her own properties, Doa Catalina conveyed the following to her own nephews and nieces and others: EXHIBIT DATE PARTICULARS AREA/SQ.M. PRICE 2-JJL July 16, 1964 Deed of Sale in favor 5,000 P 1,000 Vicente Jaucian (lot 2020) (6,825 sqm. when resurveyed) 24 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale 100 P 1,000 in favor of Francisco M. Maquiniana 26 July 15, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 130 P 1,300 favor of Francisco Maquiniana 27 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 100 P 1,000 favor of Ireneo Mamia

28 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 75 P 750 favor of Zenaida Buiza 29 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500 favor of Felisa Morjella 30 Apr. 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 31 P 1,000 favor of Inocentes Motocinos 31 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500 favor of Casimiro Mondevil 32 Mar. 1, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 112 P 1,200 favor of Juan Saballa 25 Dec. 28, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 250 P 2,500 of Rogelio Marticio Doa Catalina died on July 6, 1977. Four years before her death, she had made a will on October 22, 1973 affirming and ratifying the transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her husband's, and her own, relatives. After the reading of her will, all the relatives agreed that there was no need to submit it to the court for probate because the properties devised to them under the will had already been conveyed to them by the deceased when she was still alive, except some legacies which the executor of her will or estate, Attorney Salvador Lorayes, proceeded to distribute. In 1989, or six (6) years after Doa Catalina's demise, some of her Jaucian nephews and nieces who had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her estate, filed action in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City (Branch VIII, Civil Case No. 7152) to recover the properties which she had conveyed to the Locsins during her lifetime, alleging that the conveyances were inofficious, without consideration, and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession. Those who were closest to Doa Catalina did not join the action. After the trial, judgment was rendered on July 8, l985 in favor of the plaintiffs (Jaucian), and against the Locsin defendants, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants: (1) declaring the, plaintiffs, except the heirs of Josefina J. Borja and Eduardo Jaucian, who withdrew, the rightful heirs and entitled to the entire estate, in equal portions, of Catalina Jaucian Vda. de Locsin, being the nearest collateral heirs by right of representation of Juan and Gregorio, both surnamed Jaucian, and full-blood brothers of Catalina; (2) declaring the deeds of sale, donations, reconveyance and exchange and all other instruments conveying any part of the estate of Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin including, but not limited to those in the inventory of known properties (Annex B of the complaint) as null and void ab-initio; (3) ordering the Register of Deeds of Albay and/or Legazpi City to cancel all certificates of title and other transfers of the real properties, subject of this case, in the name of defendants, and derivatives therefrom, and issue new ones to the plaintiffs; (4) ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to reconvey ownership and possession of all such properties to the plaintiffs, together with all muniments of title properly endorsed and delivered, and all the fruits and incomes received by the defendants from the estate of Catalina, with legal interest from the filing of this action; and where reconveyance and delivery cannot be effected for reasons that might have intervened and prevent the same, defendants shall pay for the value of such properties, fruits and incomes received by them, also with legal interest from the filing, of this case (5) ordering each of the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the further sum of P20,000.00 each as moral damages; and (6) ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs attorney's fees and litigation expenses, in the amount of P30,000.00 without prejudice to any contract between plaintiffs and counsel. Costs against the defendants. 9

The Locsins appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. CV-11186) which rendered its now appealed judgment on March 14, 1989, affirming the trial court's decision. The petition has merit and should be granted. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents, nephews and nieces of Doa Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed of more than ten (10) years before her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditary estate, i.e., "the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession." 10 The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such time. 11 Property which Doa Catalina had transferred or conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may lay claim. Had she died intestate, only the property that remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were, one and all, treated as donations, the right arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs. 12 There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part of Doa Catalina, in transferring the properties she had received from her late husband to his nephews and nieces, an intent to circumvent the law in violation of the private respondents' rights to her succession. Said respondents are not her compulsory heirs, and it is not pretended that she had any such, hence there were no legitimes that could conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her property during her lifetime. All that the respondents had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of even her entire estate subject only to the limitation set forth in Art. 750, Civil Code which, even if it were breached, the respondents may not invoke: Art. 750. The donation may comprehend all the present property of the donor or part thereof, provided he reserves, in full ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for the support of himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor. Without such reservation, the donation shall be reduced on petition of any person affected. (634a) The lower court capitalized on the fact that Doa Catalina was already 90 years old when she died on July 6, 1977. It insinuated that because of her advanced years she may have been imposed upon, or unduly influenced and morally pressured by her husband's nephews and nieces (the petitioners) to transfer to them the properties which she had inherited from Don Mariano's estate. The records do not support that conjecture. For as early as 1957, or twenty-eight (28) years before her death, Doa Catalina had already begun transferring to her Locsin nephews and nieces the properties which she received from Don Mariano. She sold a 962-sq.m. lot on January 26, 1957 to his nephew and namesake Mariano Locsin II. 13 On April 7, 1966, or 19 years before she passed away, she also sold a 43 hectare land to another Locsin nephew, Jose R. Locsin. 14 The next year, or on March 22, 1967, she sold a 5,000-sq.m. portion of Lot 2020 to Julian Locsin. 15 On March 27, 1967, Lot 2020 16 was partitioned by and among Doa Catalina, Julian Locsin, Vicente Jaucian and Agapito Lorete. 17 At least Vicente Jaucian, among the other respondents in this case, is estopped from assailing the genuineness and due execution of the sale of portions of Lot 2020 to himself, Julian Locsin, and Agapito Lorete, and the partition agreement that he (Vicente) concluded with the other co-owners of Lot 2020. Among Doa, Catalina's last transactions before she died in 1977 were the sales of property which she made in favor of Aurea Locsin and Mariano Locsin in 1975. 18 There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that Doa Catalina was mentally incompetent when she made those dispositions. Indeed, how can any such suggestion be made in light of the fact that even as she was transferring properties to the Locsins, she was also contemporaneously disposing of her other properties in favor of the Jaucians? She sold to her nephew, Vicente Jaucian, on July 16, 1964 (21 years before her death) one-half (or 5,000 sq.m.) of Lot 2020. Three years later, or on March 22, 1967, she sold another 5000 sq.m. of the same lot to Julian Locsin. 19 From 1972 to 1973 she made several other transfers of her properties to her relatives and other persons, namely: Francisco Maquiniana, Ireneo Mamia, Zenaida Buiza, Feliza Morjella, Inocentes Motocinos, Casimiro Mondevil, Juan Saballa and Rogelio Marticio. 20 None of those transactions was impugned by the private respondents. In 1975, or two years before her death, Doa Catalina sold some lots not only to Don Mariano's niece, Aurea Locsin, and his nephew, Mariano Locsin II, 21 but also to her niece, Mercedes Jaucian Arboleda. 22 If she was competent to make that conveyance to Mercedes, how can there be any doubt that she was equally competent to transfer her other pieces of property to Aurea and Mariano II? The trial court's belief that Don Mariano Locsin bequeathed his entire estate to his wife, from a "consciousness of its real origin" which carries the implication that said estate consisted of properties which his wife had inherited from her parents, flies in the teeth of Doa Catalina's admission in her inventory of that estate, that "items 1 to 33 are the private properties of the deceased (Don Mariano) and forms (sic) part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse, while items 34 to 42 are conjugal properties, acquired during the marriage." She would have known better than anyone else whether the listing included any of her paraphernal

property so it is safe to assume that none was in fact included. The inventory was signed by her under oath, and was approved by the probate court in Special Proceeding No. 138 of the Court of First Instance of Albay. It was prepared with the assistance of her own nephew and counsel, Atty. Salvador Lorayes, who surely would not have prepared a false inventory that would have been prejudicial to his aunt's interest and to his own, since he stood to inherit from her eventually. This Court finds no reason to disbelieve Attorney Lorayes' testimony that before Don Mariano died, he and his wife (Doa Catalina), being childless, had agreed that their respective properties should eventually revert to their respective lineal relatives. As the trusted legal adviser of the spouses and a full-blood nephew of Doa Catalina, he would not have spun a tale out of thin air that would also prejudice his own interest. Little significance, it seems, has been attached to the fact that among Doa Catalina's nephews and nieces, those closest to her: (a) her lawyer-nephew Attorney Salvador Lorayes; (b) her niece and companion Elena Jaucian: (c) her nieces Maria Olbes-Velasco and Maria Lorayes-Cornelio and their respective husbands, Fernando Velasco and Hostilio Cornelio, did not join the suit to annul and undo the dispositions of property which she made in favor of the Locsins, although it would have been to their advantage to do so. Their desistance persuasively demonstrates that Doa Catalina acted as a completely free agent when she made the conveyances in favor of the petitioners. In fact, considering their closeness to Doa Catalina it would have been well-nigh impossible for the petitioners to employ "fraud, undue pressure, and subtle manipulations" on her to make her sell or donate her properties to them. Doa Catalina's niece, Elena Jaucian, daughter of her brother, Eduardo Jaucian, lived with her in her house. Her nephew-in-law, Hostilio Cornelio, was the custodian of the titles of her properties. The sales and donations which she signed in favor of the petitioners were prepared by her trusted legal adviser and nephew, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. The (1) deed of donation dated November 19, 1974 23 in favor of Aurea Locsin, (2) another deed of donation dated February 4, 1975 24 in favor of Matilde Cordero, and (3) still another deed dated September 9, 1975 25 in favor of Salvador Lorayes, were all witnessed by Hostilio Cornelio (who is married to Doa Catalina's niece, Maria Lorayes) and Fernando Velasco who is married to another niece, Maria Olbes. 26 The sales which she made in favor of Aurea Locsin on July 15, 1974 27 were witnessed by Hostilio Cornelio and Elena Jaucian. Given those circumstances, said transactions could not have been anything but free and voluntary acts on her part. Apart from the foregoing considerations, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing this action for annulment and reconveyance on the ground of prescription. Commenced decades after the transactions had been consummated, and six (6) years after Doa Catalina's death, it prescribed four (4) years after the subject transactions were recorded in the Registry of Property, 28 whether considered an action based on fraud, or one to redress an injury to the rights of the plaintiffs. The private respondents may not feign ignorance of said transactions because the registration of the deeds was constructive notice thereof to them and the whole world.
29

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision dated March 14, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 11186 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondents' complaint for annulment of contracts and reconveyance of properties in Civil Case No. 7152 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch VIII of Legazpi City, is DISMISSED, with costs against the private respondents, plaintiffs therein. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 129008

January 13, 2004

TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. EVANGELISTA assisted by her husband ZALDY EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO ORFINADA, and ROWENA O. UNGOS, assisted by her husband BEDA UNGOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA, LOURDES P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO ORFINADA, NANCY P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO JAMES P. ORFINADA, CHRISTOPHER P. ORFINADA and ANGELO P. ORFINADA, respondents. Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate pending the appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case. This Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to set aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42053 dated January 31, 1997, as well as its Resolution2 dated March 26, 1997, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will in Angeles City leaving several personal and real properties located in Angeles City, Dagupan City and Kalookan City.3 He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he married on July 11, 1960 and with whom he had seven children who are the herein respondents, namely: Lourdes P. Orfinada, Alfonso "Clyde" P. Orfinada, Nancy P. Orfinada-Happenden, Alfonso James P. Orfinada, Christopher P. Orfinada, Alfonso Mike P. Orfinada (deceased) and Angelo P. Orfinada.4

Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent left in mourning his paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero, who became a part of his life when he entered into an extra-marital relationship with her during the subsistence of his marriage to Esperanza sometime in 1965, and co-petitioners Veronica5, Alberto and Rowena.6 On November 14, 1995, respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes Orfinada discovered that on June 29, 1995, petitioner Teodora Rioferio and her children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located in Dagupan City and that accordingly, the Registry of Deeds in Dagupan issued Certificates of Titles Nos. 63983, 63984 and 63985 in favor of petitioners Teodora Rioferio, Veronica Orfinada-Evangelista, Alberto Orfinada and Rowena Orfinada-Ungos. Respondents also found out that petitioners were able to obtain a loan of P700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of Mangaldan Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject of the extra-judicial settlement.7 On December 1, 1995, respondent Alfonso "Clyde" P. Orfinada III filed a Petition for Letters of Administration docketed as S.P. Case No. 5118 before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, praying that letters of administration encompassing the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.8 On December 4, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles with Nos. 63983, 63985 and 63984 and Other Related Documents with Damages against petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. and the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dagupan City.9 On February 5, 1996, petitioners filed their Answer to the aforesaid complaint interposing the defense that the property subject of the contested deed of extra-judicial settlement pertained to the properties originally belonging to the parents of Teodora Riofero 10 and that the titles thereof were delivered to her as an advance inheritance but the decedent had managed to register them in his name. 11 Petitioners also raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of the administration proceedings. 12 On April 29, 1996, petitioners filed a Motion to Set Affirmative Defenses for Hearing13 on the aforesaid ground. The lower court denied the motion in its Order14 dated June 27, 1996, on the ground that respondents, as heirs, are the real parties-ininterest especially in the absence of an administrator who is yet to be appointed in S.P. Case No. 5118. Petitioners moved for its reconsideration15 but the motion was likewise denied.16 This prompted petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals their Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed as CA G.R. S.P. No. 42053.17 Petitioners averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order which denied the dismissal of the case on the ground that the proper party to file the complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased is the estate of the decedent and not the respondents.18 The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision19 dated January 31, 1997, stating that it discerned no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the public respondent judge when he denied petitioners motion to set affirmative defenses for hearing in view of its discretionary nature. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners but it was denied.20 Hence, the petition before this Court. The issue presented by the petitioners before this Court is whether the heirs have legal standing to prosecute the rights belonging to the deceased subsequent to the commencement of the administration proceedings.21 Petitioners vehemently fault the lower court for denying their motion to set the case for preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense that the proper party to bring the action is the estate of the decedent and not the respondents. It must be stressed that the holding of a preliminary hearing on an affirmative defense lies in the discretion of the court. This is clear from the Rules of Court, thus: SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative defenses.- Any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, except improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense, and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.22 (Emphasis supplied.) Certainly, the incorporation of the word "may" in the provision is clearly indicative of the optional character of the preliminary hearing. The word denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.23 Subsequently, the electivity of the proceeding was firmed up beyond cavil by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the inclusion of the phrase "in the discretion of the Court", apart from the retention of the word "may" in Section 6,24 in Rule 16 thereof. Just as no blame of abuse of discretion can be laid on the lower courts doorstep for not hearing petitioners affirmative defense, it cannot likewise be faulted for recognizing the legal standing of the respondents as heirs to bring the suit. Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and obligations to

the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law.25 Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 326 and Section 2, Rule 8727 of the Rules of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young,28 this Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator. Thus: The above-quoted rules,29 while permitting an executor or administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the deceased. These rules are easily applicable to cases in which an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule categorically addresses the situation in which special proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or dissipated. Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;30 and (2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained of31 and he is made a party defendant.32 Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself. All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery of property of the estate during the pendency of administration proceedings has three exceptions, the third being when there is no appointed administrator such as in this case. As the appellate court did not commit an error of law in upholding the order of the lower court, recourse to this Court is not warranted. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.