Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    Sampilo Vs Court of Appeals (Digest Case)

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Kenneth lavapiz
    Teodoro Tolete died in 1945 leaving land to his wife Leoncia de Leon and nephews and nieces. In 1946, Leoncia executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance and subsequently sold the land. In 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted estate proceedings, claiming other heirs existed besides Leoncia. Sampilo and Salacop argued the claim was barred by the two year statute of limitations for objecting to an extrajudicial partition. However, the court held the statute did not apply because not all heirs participated in or had notice of the extrajudicial settlement.

    Copyright:

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

    Sampilo Vs Court of Appeals (Digest Case)

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Kenneth lavapiz
    236 views2 pages
    Teodoro Tolete died in 1945 leaving land to his wife Leoncia de Leon and nephews and nieces. In 1946, Leoncia executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance and subsequently sold the land. In 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted estate proceedings, claiming other heirs existed besides Leoncia. Sampilo and Salacop argued the claim was barred by the two year statute of limitations for objecting to an extrajudicial partition. However, the court held the statute did not apply because not all heirs participated in or had notice of the extrajudicial settlement.

    Original Title

    Sampilo vs Court of Appeals (digest case)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Teodoro Tolete died in 1945 leaving land to his wife Leoncia de Leon and nephews and nieces. In 1946, Leoncia executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance and subsequently sold the land. In 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted estate proceedings, claiming other heirs existed besides Leoncia. Sampilo and Salacop argued the claim was barred by the two year statute of limitations for objecting to an extrajudicial partition. However, the court held the statute did not apply because not all heirs participated in or had notice of the extrajudicial settlement.

    Copyright:

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

    Sampilo Vs Court of Appeals (Digest Case)

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Kenneth lavapiz
    Teodoro Tolete died in 1945 leaving land to his wife Leoncia de Leon and nephews and nieces. In 1946, Leoncia executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance and subsequently sold the land. In 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted estate proceedings, claiming other heirs existed besides Leoncia. Sampilo and Salacop argued the claim was barred by the two year statute of limitations for objecting to an extrajudicial partition. However, the court held the statute did not apply because not all heirs participated in or had notice of the extrajudicial settlement.

    Copyright:

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

    Sampilo vs Court of Appeals

    FACTS:

    Teodoro Tolete died intestate in January 1945. He left parcel of lands in


    San Miguel, Pangasinan.He left his heirs his wife (Leoncia de Leon) and
    nephews and nieces who are children of his deceased brothers and sisters.

    On July 25, 1946, His wife executed an affidavit of self-adjudicating


    saying that Teodoro had no children or dependents, neither ascendants or
    acknowledged natural children, neither brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces.

    The said affidavit was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
    Pangasisan then, his wife sold the property to Sampilo, then Sampilo
    sold it to Salacup and also registered with the same Office of the Register
    of Deeds.

    On March 1950, Felisa Sinopera instituted estate proceedings asking for letters
    of administration. She alleged that Teodoro’s wife, Leonicia de Leon has
    no right to execute the affidavit of self-adjudication for there are other
    heirs aside from her. That Salacup acquired no rights to the lands sold to him.

    Sampilo and Salacop alleged that the complaint states no cause of action; that
    if such cause exists the same is barred by the statute of limitations.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the right of action of the administratrix has prescribed


    and lapsed because the same was not brought within the period of two years as
    prescribed in Section 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court?

    HELD:

    No.

    The said rule applies only to persons who participated in the said
    proceedings and does not prejudice those who did not have the chance to
    participate.

    Following the case of Ramirez v .Gmur, the provisions of Section 4 of Rule


    74, barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition
    after the expiration of two years from such extra judicial partition, is
    applicable only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or
    had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, (2) when the
    provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that
    all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extra
    judicialsettlement or are represented by themselves or through guardians.

    In the case at bar fails to comply with both requirements because not all
    the heirs interested have participated in the extrajudicial settlement.

    You might also like