Facts:
Flavio Zaragoza Cano was the registered owner of certain parcels of land situated at the Municipalities of Cabatuan, New Lucena and Sta. Barbara, Province of Iloilo. He had four children: Gloria, Zacariaz, Florentino and Alberta, all surnamed Zaragoza. He died without a will and was survived by his four children.
On December 28, 1981, private respondent Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Spouses Florentino and Erlinda, herein petitioners, for delivery of her inheritance share, consisting of Lots 943 and 871, and for payment of damages. Alberta claims that she is a natural born Filipino citizen and the youngest child of the late Flavio. She further alleged that her father, in his lifetime, partitioned the aforecited properties among his four children. The shares of her brothers and sister were given to them in advance by way of deed of sale, but without valid consideration, while her share, which consists of lots no. 871 and 943, was not conveyed by way of deed of sale then. She averred that because of her marriage, she became an American citizen and was prohibited to acquire lands in the Philippines except by hereditary succession. For this reason, no formal deed of conveyance was executed in her favor covering these lots during her father's lifetime.
Petitioners, in their Answer, admitted their affinity with private respondent and the allegations on the properties of their father. They, however, denied knowledge of an alleged distribution by way of deeds of sale to them by their father. They said that lot 871 is still registered in their father's name, while lot 943 was sold by him to them for a valuable consideration. They denied knowledge of the alleged intention of their father to convey the cited lots to Alberta, much more, the reason for his failure to do so because she became an American citizen. They denied that there was partitioning of the estate of their father during his lifetime.
The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo promulgated its decision, adjudicating Lot 871 to Alberta as appertaining her share in his estate and ordering defendants to vacate its premises and deliver immediately the portion occupied by them to herein plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim against defendants over Lot 943 is dismissed as well as claims for damages interposed against each other.
The RTC found that Flavio partitioned his properties during his lifetime among his three children by deeds of sales; that the conveyance of Lot 943 to petitioners was part of his plan to distribute his properties among his children during his lifetime; and that he intended Lot 871 to be the share of private respondent.
Court of Appeals reversed the decision appealed from, insofar as defendant-appellants, spouses Florentino Zaragoza and Erlinda E. Zaragoza, were adjudged owner of Lot 943. In all other respects, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. It noted the admission by petitioner in his letter, that their father had given them their inheritance. Further, public respondent found that the alleged sale of lot 943 in favor of petitioner Florentino was fictitious and void. The signature of Don Flavio in the said document was markedly different from his other signatures appearing in other documents.
Issue:
(1) whether the partition inter vivos by Flavio Zaragoza Cano of his properties, which include Lots 871 and 943, is valid
(2) whether the validity of the Deed of Sale and consequently, TCT over Lot 943 registered in the name of the petitioners, can be a valid subject matter of the entire proceeding for the delivery of inheritance share.
Held:
1. Yes. A partition inter vivos may be done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code is clear on this.The legitime of compulsory heirs is determined after collation.
Unfortunately, collation can not be done in this case where the original petition for delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory heirs.
In the case, both the trial court and the public respondent found that during the lifetime of Flavio, he already partitioned and distributed his properties among his three children, excepting private respondent, through deeds of sale. A deed of sale was not executed in favor of private respondent because she had become an American citizen and the Constitution prohibited a sale in her favor. Petitioner admitted Lots 871 and 943 were inheritance shares of the private respondent.
2. No. The petition is a collateral attack. It is not allowed by Sec. 48 of the Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, which provides:
Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subjectto collateral attack. It can not be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise, all security in registered titles would be lost. The issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento