Wrong distribution

This is the case of Rudy whose civil status as a child in relation to his real father and mother is not known. While still a boy, he was “sold” to the couple Linda and Pete by a woman who introduced herself as “Mila”. Pete and Linda took care and treated Rudy as their own child after their own paralytic son died at the age of 12. The couple sent him to school until he became a dental technician helping in the clinic of Pete who was a dentist. During their marriage, the couple acquired a titled land with a two-story building thereon. Rudy lived with Pete and Linda until both became old and disabled.

When Pete died on July 20, 1982, Rudy took care of Linda. Seven years later, as Linda was getting weaker and weaker because of old age, Rudy and Linda executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dividing and allocating unto them the said land and two-story building with southwestern portion going to Linda and northeastern portion to Rudy. On the same day Linda also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of her portion in favor of Rudy.

On Sept. 21, 1994, after Linda’s death the nephews and nieces of Pete learned about the transactions involving the property. So they filed an action against Rudy in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare the Deeds of Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. They alleged that said deeds were simulated and fictitious and that Rudy had no right to inherit since he was not a legitimate or a legally adopted child of the late spouses.

The RTC ruled in their favor and declared the Deeds of Extrajudicial Partition and Absolute Sale null and void ordering Rudy to re-convey the lot and building of the late spouses to them.  Was the RTC correct?

The RTC is only partly correct. The property in this case is admittedly the conjugal property of Pete and Linda. Thus when Pete died intestate in 1982, his estate consisted solely of 1/2 of the conjugal property and the other half belonged to Linda. Pursuant to Article 1001 of the Civil Code, Linda the widow of Pete should also inherit Pete’s 1/2 share in the conjugal property together with Pete’s nephews and nieces. In effect, Linda will get her 1/2 conjugal share as surviving spouse and 1/2 of the remaining 1/2 conjugal share of Pete as heir of Pete’s estate, or a total of 3/4 pro indiviso share in the property.

Thus even with the annulment of the extrajudicial partition, the nephews and nieces will not have the exclusive right to the land and building. Only 1/4 of the property will go to them. The deed of partition is nullified only in so far as the share of Rudy is concerned. But the Deed of Sale in favor of Rudy executed by Linda is valid insofar as her 3/4 share is concerned. So 1/4 of the property belongs to the nephews and nieces, and 3/4 to Rudy as co-owner. (Fernandez et. al. vs. Fernandez et. al. G.R. 143256, August 28, 2001).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]