Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Arrogante v. Deliarte Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    1) In 1978, Beethoven Deliarte's siblings agreed to sell and convey their rights and interests in Lot 472-A to Beethoven for P15,000, though their father Bernabe, who co-owned the lot, was still alive at the time. 2) In 1993, Beethoven's nephew Lordito Arrogante placed signs on the lot's fence claiming the lot was illegally acquired by Beethoven. 3) The court ruled that the 1978 private deed of sale was void under Article 1347 of the Civil Code as it was a contract entered upon a future inheritance while the succession was not yet open, and did not qualify as a

    Copyright:

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

    Arrogante v. Deliarte Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    1K views2 pages
    1) In 1978, Beethoven Deliarte's siblings agreed to sell and convey their rights and interests in Lot 472-A to Beethoven for P15,000, though their father Bernabe, who co-owned the lot, was still alive at the time. 2) In 1993, Beethoven's nephew Lordito Arrogante placed signs on the lot's fence claiming the lot was illegally acquired by Beethoven. 3) The court ruled that the 1978 private deed of sale was void under Article 1347 of the Civil Code as it was a contract entered upon a future inheritance while the succession was not yet open, and did not qualify as a

    Original Description:

    Wills and Succession

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1978, Beethoven Deliarte's siblings agreed to sell and convey their rights and interests in Lot 472-A to Beethoven for P15,000, though their father Bernabe, who co-owned the lot, was still alive at the time. 2) In 1993, Beethoven's nephew Lordito Arrogante placed signs on the lot's fence claiming the lot was illegally acquired by Beethoven. 3) The court ruled that the 1978 private deed of sale was void under Article 1347 of the Civil Code as it was a contract entered upon a future inheritance while the succession was not yet open, and did not qualify as a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Arrogante v. Deliarte Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nina Castillo
    1) In 1978, Beethoven Deliarte's siblings agreed to sell and convey their rights and interests in Lot 472-A to Beethoven for P15,000, though their father Bernabe, who co-owned the lot, was still alive at the time. 2) In 1993, Beethoven's nephew Lordito Arrogante placed signs on the lot's fence claiming the lot was illegally acquired by Beethoven. 3) The court ruled that the 1978 private deed of sale was void under Article 1347 of the Civil Code as it was a contract entered upon a future inheritance while the succession was not yet open, and did not qualify as a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Arrogante v.

    Deliarte
    528 scra 63
    (future inheritance)
    2007
    FACTS
    The lot in controversy, Lot No. 472-A, was originally conjugal property of the spouses Bernabe Deliarte,
    Sr. and Gregoria Placencia who had nine children, including herein respondent Beethoven Deliarte and
    petitioner Fe Deliarte Arrogante.
    The other petitioners, Lordito, Johnston, and Arme, Jr., all surnamed Arrogante, are the children of Fe
    ( nephews of Beethoven). Respondent Leonora Duenas is the wife of Beethoven.
    On 1978, the Deliarte siblings agreed to waive and convey in favor of Beethoven all their rights, interests,
    and claims to the subject lot in consideration of P15,000.00.
    Bernabe, the parties ailing father, died on November 7, 1980.
    From then on, respondent Beethoven occupied and possessed the subject lot openly, peacefully, and in
    the concept of owner. He exercised full ownership and control over the subject lot without any objection
    from all his siblings, or their heirs, until 1993 when the controversy arose. In fact, on March 26, 1986, all
    of Beethovens siblings, except Fe, signed a deed of confirmation of sale in favor of Beethoven to ratify the
    1978 private deed of sale.
    Sometime in August 1993, petitioner Lordito Arrogante installed placards on the fence erected by
    respondents, claiming that the subject lot was illegally acquired by the latter.
    Respondents filed an action for quieting of title and damages against the petitioners.
    Petitioners averred that Beethoven does not own the whole of the subject lot because Bernabe was still
    alive in 1978 when Beethovens siblings sold to him all their rights and claims to and interests in that
    lot. Thus, the siblings could sell only their respective inheritance from one-half of the subject lot,
    representing Gregorias share in the conjugal property.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the private deed of sale executed in 1978 is a valid conveyance of the entire lot 472-a to
    petitioner beethoven deliarte. - NO

    RULING
    Article 1347, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code characterizes a contract entered into upon future inheritance
    as void. The law applies when the following requisites concur:
    (1) the succession has not yet been opened;
    (2) the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and

    (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in
    nature.
    In this case, at the time the contract was entered into, succession to Bernabes estate had yet to be
    opened, and the object thereof, i.e., Bernabes share in the subject lot, formed part of his childrens
    inheritance, and the children merely had an inchoate hereditary right thereto.
    True, the prohibition on contracts respecting future inheritance admits of exceptions, as when a person
    partitions his estate by an act inter vivos under Article 1080 of the Civil Code. However, the private deed
    of sale does not purport to be a partition of Bernabes estate as would exempt it from the application of
    Article 1347. Nowhere in the said document does Bernabe separate, divide, and assign to his children his
    share in the subject lot effective only upon his death. Indeed, the document does not even bear the
    signature of Bernabe.
    Neither did the parties demonstrate that Bernabe undertook an oral partition of his estate. Although we
    have held on several occasions that an oral or parole partition is valid, our holdings thereon were confined
    to instances wherein the partition had actually been consummated, enforced, and recognized by the
    parties. Absent a showing of an overt act by Bernabe indicative of an unequivocal intent to partition his
    estate among his children, his knowledge and ostensible acquiescence to the private deed of sale does
    not equate to an oral partition by an act inter vivos. Besides, partition of property representing future
    inheritance cannot be made effective during the lifetime of its owner.
    Considering the foregoing, it follows that the 1986 deed of confirmation of sale which sought to ratify the
    1978 sale likewise suffers from the same infirmity. In short, the 1986 deed is also void.

    You might also like