21 Vita Versus Montano

Vita v. Montano, G.R. No.
L-50553 February 19, 1991

MEDIALDEA, J.:
The pertinent facts are as follows:
A complaint was filed before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Laguna by
plaintiff-appellant Nazario Vita, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the estate of deceased
Edilberto Vita, seeking to recover from defendants-appellants Soledad Montanano, Estanislao
Jovellano and Estebana Jovellano the possession of three (3) parcels of land located in Barrio
Talangan, Nagcarlan, Laguna and their annual yield since January, 1962 in the amount of P1,100.00
a year. Nazario Vita claims that during the lifetime of Edilberto Vita, he was the owner and
possessor of these three (3) parcels of land xxx and he was enjoying the fruits therefrom. When he
died on January 23, 1962, Montano et al, through stealth and strategy, took possession of the
above-stated parcels of land and gathered the fruits therefrom. Notwithstanding demands from
Nazario Vita, Montano et al refused to surrender the possession of these parcels of land. xxx
In their answer xxx Montano et al deny that the three (3) parcels of land belong to the estate of
Edilberto Vita. Instead, they claim that the two parcels of land xxx belong to Soledad Montanano as
these were conveyed to her by Isidra Montanano (her aunt and wife of Edilberto Vita) and Edilberto
Vita in a document signed and executed by them on November 22, 1938 and ratified by one Mr.
Matienzo, a Notary Public from Nagcarlan, Laguna. However, all copies of said document were lost
during the last war. The parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1253 is owned in common by
Soledad Montanano, her brother Jose and sisters Elena and Alodia. It originally belonged to
Francisca Asilo, deceased sister of their grandmother, Micaela Asilo. Its ownership was transferred
to them under the arrangement sanctioned by Edilberto Vita himself wherein all the proceeds from
the yearly harvests therefrom shall be spent for the yearly masses to be held for the souls of
Francisca Asilo and Isidra Montanano. This being the case, Nazario Vita is now estopped from
instituting this action. Montano et al claim also that Edilberto Vita could not have inherited these
parcels of land from Isidra Montanano as the latter's estate has never been the subject of a
judicial or extra-judicial proceeding. The erroneous inclusion of these parcels of land in the
inventory of the estate of Edilberto Vita in Special Proceedings No. SC-136 of the Court of First
Instance of Laguna does not make them actually a part of his estate. There is no fixed income from
these parcels of land because since 1962, plaintiff-appellant, with unknown persons, has been
gathering whatever crops that may be taken therefrom. xxx
Replying to Montano et als' answer, Vita claims that Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita never
executed any document on November 22, 1938 and if they had, it was thereafter repudiated,
canceled and destroyed, for which reason, the three (3) parcels of land remained in the possession
of Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita; that upon the death on September 25, 1957 of Isidra
Montanano, who left neither descendants nor ascendants, her surviving spouse Edilberto Vita
succeeded her and took immediate possession of her estate; and that from the time defendantsappellants took possession of these parcels of land, they have continuously gathered the fruits
therefrom.
In a petition dated August 20, 1966, Jose, Elena and Alodia Montanano sought leave of court to
intervene in this case. In the order of the trial court dated April 12, 1967, the amended answer dated
September 10, 1966, which intervenors-appellants filed jointly with Soledad Montanano, was
admitted as their answer-in-intervention. Incorporated therein is a counterclaim that Soledad, Jose,
Elena and Alodia Montanano are the co-owners of some properties enumerated (pp. 43-44, Record
on Appeal):
.
They alleged therein that they acquired ownership of the three (3) parcels of land mentioned in the
complaint, which are in the possession of Soledad Montanano, and the other parcels of land
mentioned in their counterclaim, which are in the possession of plaintiff-appellant, by virtue of a
donation mortis causa executed by Isidra Montanano on November 22, 1938 or by a donation
executed by her on December 20, 1940 which was confirmed by Edilberto Vita. They pray that these
parcels of land be adjudicated to them in the manner set forth in their counterclaim; that plaintiffappellant be ordered to account for the harvests from these parcels of land from the time he took
possession; and that they be awarded damages corresponding to their litigation expenses.
In his reply dated July 4, 1967, plaintiff-appellant denied all the allegations contained in the answerin-intervention and reiterated that there was no such donation executed by Isidra Montanano. If such
donation were really executed, she was forced to do so at a time when she was not mentally in a
position to execute and sign freely said document.
On September 15, 1973, the trial court rendered judgment adverse to all parties, the dispositive
portion of which reads (p. 52, Record on Appeal):
Considering that the plaintiff has not shown by preponderating evidence that the three (3)
parcels of land covered in the complaint belong to the estate of Edilberto Vita and it
appearing likewise that the defendants and intervenors have not shown that the parcels of
land covered in the counterclaim were validly donated to them and that they have legally
accepted the donation made by Isidra Montanano, the complaint filed by the plaintiff and the
counterclaim filed by the intervenors are hereby DISMISSED. THIS IS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS (SIC) IN COURT FOR
THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ISIDRA
MONTANANO, INCLUDING THAT OF HER SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF THE
PROPERTIES DONATED TO HER DURING HER MARRIAGE WITH EDILBERTO VITA
WHICH IS CONSIDERED PART OF THEIR CONJUGAL PROPERTIES. No assessment is
hereby made with respect to the damages sustained by the parties as they offset each other,
if any.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT A SEPARATE PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR THE PROPER
DISPOSITION OF THE ESTATE OF THEDECEASED ISIDRA MONTANANO IS NEEDED?
RULING:
NO.
IN THIS CONNECTION, CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING, IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO FILE A SEPARATE PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE
ESTATE OF ISIDRA MONTANANO. UNDER RULE 73, SECTION 2 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
IF BOTH SPOUSES HAVE DIED, THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE LIQUIDATED IN
THE TESTATE OR INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS OF EITHER. In the present case, therefore, the
conjugal partnership of Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita should be liquidated in the
testate proceedings of the latter.

21 Vita Versus Montano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 Vita Versus Montano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 Vita Versus Montano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vita v. Montano, G.R. No.

L-50553 February 19, 1991

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.