Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 418 views

    41 Rebusquillo V Galvez DIMLA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Dimla
    1) Avelina signed an affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale claiming to be the sole heir of her parents' property. However, she had siblings so was not the sole heir. 2) The trial court invalidated the documents, finding Avelina was not the sole heir as required. The Court of Appeals reversed. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding an affidavit of self-adjudication is only valid if the signer is the sole heir, which Avelina was not. Since heirship was already determined, a special proceeding was not necessary. The documents were void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    41 Rebusquillo V Galvez DIMLA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Dimla
    418 views3 pages
    1) Avelina signed an affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale claiming to be the sole heir of her parents' property. However, she had siblings so was not the sole heir. 2) The trial court invalidated the documents, finding Avelina was not the sole heir as required. The Court of Appeals reversed. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding an affidavit of self-adjudication is only valid if the signer is the sole heir, which Avelina was not. Since heirship was already determined, a special proceeding was not necessary. The documents were void.

    Original Description:

    CAR

    Original Title

    41 Rebusquillo v Galvez DIMLA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Avelina signed an affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale claiming to be the sole heir of her parents' property. However, she had siblings so was not the sole heir. 2) The trial court invalidated the documents, finding Avelina was not the sole heir as required. The Court of Appeals reversed. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding an affidavit of self-adjudication is only valid if the signer is the sole heir, which Avelina was not. Since heirship was already determined, a special proceeding was not necessary. The documents were void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    418 views3 pages

    41 Rebusquillo V Galvez DIMLA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Dimla
    1) Avelina signed an affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale claiming to be the sole heir of her parents' property. However, she had siblings so was not the sole heir. 2) The trial court invalidated the documents, finding Avelina was not the sole heir as required. The Court of Appeals reversed. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding an affidavit of self-adjudication is only valid if the signer is the sole heir, which Avelina was not. Since heirship was already determined, a special proceeding was not necessary. The documents were void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    [ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.

    TANTUICO ] 1

    REBUSQUILLO v. GUALVEZ • On his death, Eulalio left behind an untitled parcel of land in Legazpi
    G.R. No. 204029 June 4, 2014 City

    • In 2001, Avelina was supposedly made to sign two (2) documents by


    Velasco, Jr J her daughter Emelinda Rebusquillo-Gualvez (Emelinda) and her son-
    in-law Domingo Gualvez (Domingo), respondents in this case, on the
    TOPIC: Distinction Between Civil Action and Special Proceeding and pretext that the documents were needed to facilitate the titling of
    Summary Settlement of Estates the lot.

    • It was only in 2003, so petitioners claim, that Avelina realized that


    DOCTRINE: what she signed was an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and a Deed of
    An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, Absolute Sale in favor of respondents.
    when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any
    purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy • Petitioner then filed an action to annul the two documents before
    binds the parties to their real agreement. (Art. 1346, NCC) the RTC.

    As pointed out by the trial court, an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only • In the respondents’ answer, they admitted the execution of the
    proper when the affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. The second affidavit and deed, but they argued that it was with the consent of
    sentence of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that self all the heirs of Eulalio and Victoria, and that such was agreed to be
    -adjudication is only warranted when there is only one heir. done to facilitate the titling of the property.

    FACTS: • Avelina Abarientos-Rebusquillo with the knowledge and consent of


    the other heirs signed and executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
    • Petitioners Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo (Avelina) and Salvador and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of [respondents] Gualvez. In
    Orosco (Salvador) filed a Complaint for annulment and revocation of fact, [petitioner] Avelina Rebusquillo was given an advance sum of
    an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated December 4, 2001 and a FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00) by [respondent] spouses and
    Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 6, 2002 before the court a all the delinquent taxes paid by [respondents].
    quo.
    • The RTC rendered its Decision dated January 20, 2009 annulling the
    • In it, petitioners alleged that Avelina was one of the children of Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale
    Eulalio Abarientos (Eulalio) and Victoria Villareal (Victoria). executed by Avelina on the grounds that (1) with regard to the
    Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, she was not the sole heir of her
    • Eulalio died intestate on July 3, 1964, survived by his wife Victoria, parents and was not therefore solely entitled to their estate. CA
    six legitimate children, and one illegitimate child. His wife Victoria reversed.
    eventually died intestate on June 30, 1983.

    (GO2) 2018 - 2019


    ISSUE/S: defined during pre-trial
    Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication and the sale are valid
    • An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is
    the sole heir of the decedent. (Sec. 1, Rule 74, ROC). As admitted by
    HELD: respondents, Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as
    admitted by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of the co-heirs
    No. The petition is granted. Both the affidavit and the deed of sale are void. by right of representation of his mother. Without a doubt, Avelina
    had perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit that she is
    On the Issue between Civil Action and Specpro: the only daughter and sole heir of spouses Eulalio and Victoria. The
    falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the
    • It has indeed been ruled that the declaration of heirship must be inheritance left by her father invalid. 
    made in a special proceeding, not in an independent civil action.
    However, this Court had likewise held that recourse to • In light of the admission of respondents spouses Gualvez, it is with
    administration proceedings to determine who heirs are is more reason that a resort to special proceeding will be but an
    sanctioned only if there is a good and compelling reason for such unnecessary superfluity. Accordingly, the court a quo had properly
    recourse. rendered judgment on the validity of the Affidavit of Self-
    Adjudication executed by Avelina. As pointed out by the trial court,
    • Hence, the Court had allowed exceptions to the rule requiring an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is
    administration proceedings as when the parties in the civil case the sole heir of the decedent. The second sentence of Section 1,
    already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that self-adjudication
    and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it is only warranted when there is only one heir:
    defined during the pre-trial
    • Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. –– x
    • In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she x x If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire
    was the sole heir to Portugal’s estate, executed on February 15, estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of
    1988 the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second deeds. x x x (emphasis supplied)
    sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court.
    • In effect, Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer
    • Said rule is an exception to the general rule that when a person dies the absolute ownership of the subject property to respondents. As
    leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and the she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self-
    competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the  Adjudication is void, the subject property is still subject to partition.
    order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the subject
    or in case he did, he failed to name an executor therein. property but only an aliquot portion.

    • In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no • What she could have transferred to respondents was only the
    compelling reason to still subject Portugal’s estate to administration ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent from the
    proceedings since a determination of petitioners’ status as heirs admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina
    could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners, the trial court had no intention to transfer the ownership, of whatever extent,
    should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties over the property to respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale
    during the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it is nothing more than a simulated contract.
    [ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO ] 3

    • The failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to express the true intent
    and agreement of the contracting parties was clearly put in issue in
    the present case. Again, respondents themselves admit in their
    Answer that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of
    Absolute Sale were only executed to facilitate the titling of the
    property.

    • The RTC is, therefore, justified to apply the exceptions provided in


    the second paragraph of Sec. 9, Rule 130 to ascertain the true intent
    of the parties, which shall prevail over the letter of the document.
    That said, considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has been
    shown to be void for being absolutely simulated, petitioners are not
    precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the
    terms of the written agreement.1

    • WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated


    March 30, 2012 and the Resolution dated September 25, 2012 of
    the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93035 are hereby REVERSED
    and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 20, 2009 in Civil Case No.
    10407 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 4 in Legazpi City is
    REINSTATED.

    (GO2) 2018 - 2019

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy