Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Cua Vs Vargas

    Uploaded by

    Mildred Donaire Cañoneo-Clemenia
    The Supreme Court ruled that heirs are not bound by an extrajudicial settlement of an estate if they did not participate in or have notice of the settlement (Rule 74). In this case, four heirs did not sign two extrajudicial settlement documents regarding property division. The settlements were published after being executed, which does not constitute constructive notice. Heirs must have notice before a settlement is agreed upon, not after, in order to be bound by it. Since the respondents did not sign or have prior knowledge of the settlements, they are not bound by the property partitions therein.

    Copyright:

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

    Cua Vs Vargas

    Uploaded by

    Mildred Donaire Cañoneo-Clemenia
    100 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that heirs are not bound by an extrajudicial settlement of an estate if they did not participate in or have notice of the settlement (Rule 74). In this case, four heirs did not sign two extrajudicial settlement documents regarding property division. The settlements were published after being executed, which does not constitute constructive notice. Heirs must have notice before a settlement is agreed upon, not after, in order to be bound by it. Since the respondents did not sign or have prior knowledge of the settlements, they are not bound by the property partitions therein.

    Original Description:

    xxx

    Original Title

    Cua vs Vargas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that heirs are not bound by an extrajudicial settlement of an estate if they did not participate in or have notice of the settlement (Rule 74). In this case, four heirs did not sign two extrajudicial settlement documents regarding property division. The settlements were published after being executed, which does not constitute constructive notice. Heirs must have notice before a settlement is agreed upon, not after, in order to be bound by it. Since the respondents did not sign or have prior knowledge of the settlements, they are not bound by the property partitions therein.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views1 page

    Cua Vs Vargas

    Uploaded by

    Mildred Donaire Cañoneo-Clemenia
    The Supreme Court ruled that heirs are not bound by an extrajudicial settlement of an estate if they did not participate in or have notice of the settlement (Rule 74). In this case, four heirs did not sign two extrajudicial settlement documents regarding property division. The settlements were published after being executed, which does not constitute constructive notice. Heirs must have notice before a settlement is agreed upon, not after, in order to be bound by it. Since the respondents did not sign or have prior knowledge of the settlements, they are not bound by the property partitions therein.

    Copyright:

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

    CUA vs VARGAS

    G.R. No. 156536 October 31, 2006


    RULE 74 - SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
    Facts:
    Paulina Vargas heirs, executed a notarized Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs, adjudicating unto
    themselves the lot in question at bar, each one of them getting a share of 11 square meters. However,
    four of the heirs, did not signed the document. The said Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was
    published in the Catanduanes Tribune for three consecutive weeks. Subsequently thereafter, another
    Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was again executed by and among the same heirs over
    the same property and also with the same sharings. A total of fifty-five (55) square meters, which is the
    combined share of those who signed the document, were sold to the herein petitioner, Joseph Cua.
    Later on, Gloria Vargas, one of those heirs who did not signed the said document, upon coming into her
    knowledge the execution of the said document, where she likewise claimed that she was unaware that
    an earlier Extrajudicial Settlement involving the same property has been published, tried to redeem the
    property thru a letter. However, the same was refused. It did not also reach an amicable settlement. The
    same then filed a case for annulment of Extra Judicial Settlement and Legal Redemption of the subject
    lot.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the heirs are deemed constructively notified and bound, regardless of their failure to
    participate therein, by an extrajudicial settlement and partition of estate when the extrajudicial
    settlement and partition has been duly published.
    Held:
    The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states,
    however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be
    bound thereby. It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement
    and/or partition is agreed and not after such an agreement has already been executed as what
    happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among
    heirs.
    The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no
    knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. The
    requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive
    heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. In this connection, the records of the present
    case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their
    existence only shortly before the filing of the present complaint. Following Rule 74, these extrajudicial
    settlements do not bind respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is
    invalid insofar as they are concerned.

    You might also like