Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106401 - Case Digest

Doctrines:
 Partition inter vivos may be done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced.
 Collation cannot be done where the original petition for delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the compulsory
heirs—the petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding where all the
indispensable parties are present.
Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106401, September 29, 2000
QUISUMBING , J.:
FACTS:
 When Flavio Zaragoza Cano died intestate in December 1964, he was survived by his four children namely,
Gloria, Zacharias, Florentino and Alberta. On December 1981, respondent Alberta, the youngest of the four
children, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance for the delivery of her inheritance share, consisting
of Lots 943 and 871 against petitioners, Florentino and Erlinda. She claimed that although their father,
Flavio partitioned his properties among his four children, the shares of her brothers and sister were given to
them in advance by way of deed of sale, but without valid consideration, while her share, which consists of
lots No. 871 and 943, was not conveyed by way of deed of sale then. She averred that because of her
marriage, she became an American citizen and was prohibited to acquire lands in the Philippines except by
hereditary succession. For this reason, no formal deed of conveyance was executed in her favor covering
these lots during her father’s lifetime. Petitioners on the other hand denied that there was any partitioning
of the estate during his lifetime, and that Lots 871 was still owned by their father, while lot 943 was sold by
the latter to them for a valuable consideration.
 The Regional Trial Court in its decision adjudicated Lot 871 as Alberta’s inheritance share, while it dismissed
her complaint pertaining to Lot 943 against the Zaragoza spouse. This was on the grounds that Flavio
already partitioned his properties during his lifetime among his three children by deeds of sales; that the
conveyance of Lot 943 to petitioners was part of his plan to distribute his properties among his children
during his lifetime; and that he intended Lot 871 to be the share of private respondent. On appeal by both
parties, the Court of Appeals however affirmed the RTC’s decision that but declared that Lot 943 was also
not owned by the Zaragoza spouses. It gave weight to the evidence presented by respondent that Lots 871
and 943 were her inheritance share from their father. The CA also further found that the alleged sale of lot
943 in favor of petitioner Florentino was fictitious and void due to inconsistencies in his signature. Hence,
this petition for review.
 Petitioners argued that the adjudication of Lots 943 and 871 in favor of respondent as her inheritance share
had no legal basis because there was no will or document from their father to support the transfer. They
also admitted that though their father already partitioned his properties among his children thru deeds of
sale, however a deed of sale was not executed to respondent because she became an American citizen and
was prohibited by law to acquire said properties thru sale.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that respondent was entitled to the subject lots
as her inheritance shares from the estate of their deceased father?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court explained that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals already found that during
the lifetime of Flavio, he already partitioned and distributed his properties among his three children, excepting
private respondent, through deeds of sale. A deed of sale was not executed in favor of private respondent
because she had become an American citizen and the Constitution prohibited a sale in her favor. Petitioners in
fact admitted Lots 871 and 943 were inheritance shares of the private respondent. These are factual
determinations of the Court of Appeals, based on documentary and testimonial evidence. As a rule, therefore,
the Supreme Court is bound by findings of facts of the Court of Appeals.
The Court also held that the partition done during the lifetime of Flavio was valid. It is basic in the law of
succession that a partition inter vivos may be done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the
Civil Code is clear on this. The legitime of compulsory heirs is determined after collation, as provided for in
Article 1061: Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of
the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the
latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title in order that it may be computed in the determination of
the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. Unfortunately, collation cannot be done in this case
where the original petition for delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory heirs.
The petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding where all the
indispensable parties are present for the rightful determination of their respective legitime and if the legitimes
were prejudiced by the partitioning inter vivos.
As with the sale done in favor of petitioners, the Court held that said title once registered, with very few
exceptions, should not also not be impugned, altered, changed, modified enlarged or diminished, except in
some direct proceeding permitted by law, otherwise, all security in registered titles would be lost. Accordingly,
the petition by respondent to question the validity of the conveyance of Lot 943 in favor of petitioners, cannot
also be allowed under Sec. 48 of the Property Registration Decree since it cannot be subject to a collateral
attack.
Thus in view of the foregoing, the Court moved to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and also
dismissed the complaint for delivery of inheritance share filed by respondent in the Regional Trial Court, for
failure to implead indispensable parties, without prejudice to the institution of the proper proceedings.
Case Digest by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1

Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106401 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106401 - Case Digest

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

Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106401 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrines:

Case Digest by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1

You might also like