Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ZALDARRIAGA vs COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 FACTS: This is a case about the opposing claims over Hacienda Escolastica which belonged to the conjugal property of Pedro Zaldarriaga and Margarita Iforong who begot four sons during their marriage: Jesus, Jose, Manuel, and Julio. On May 17, 1919, Margarita died leaving one-half (1/2) or four-eighths (4/8) of the hacienda to her husband as his conjugal share, and one-eighths (1/8) share to each of her sons. Thereafter, Manuel and Julio died single and without issue. Their combined two-eighths (2/8) shares therefore passed by legal succession to their father, Pedro, who consequently became the owner of six-eighths (6/8) or three-fourths (3/4) share of the hacienda. In 1944, Jose died survived by his wife, Basilia and their seven children. Two years later, Jesus also died. He was survived by his wife Consuelo and their three children. Eventually, Pedro Zaldarriaga (the patriarch) also died but prior to his death, he executed a deed of definite sale conveying his (6/8) share in the hacienda to his grandchildren by Jesus. Basilia filed a petition thru Civil Case No. 2705 to invalidate the sale because it is prejudicial to their successional rights to the hacienda which entitled them to only (1/8) of the property since the seven-eighths (7/8) was already transferred to Jesus descendants. The Supreme Court on May 8, 1972 resolved the case denying Basilias contention without prejudice to whatever action not yet prescribed, that the children, if any, of the late Jose Zaldarriaga may have for the recovery of their share in the lands in question as part of estate of the now deceased Pedro Zaldarriaga (reservation clause). In 1973 Basilia and her children filed another case claiming three-eighths (3/8) or one-half () of Pedros six-eighths (6/8) share in the hacienda which was allegedly fictitiously conveyed to the children of Consuelo. They prayed that the deed of sale executed by Pedro be declared void ab initio. Plaintiffs also invoked the significance of the reservation clause of the Supreme Courts resolution in L -34557 which they believed defoliates the legal posture of the defendants. In their answer with counterclaim, the defendants alleged that the action was barred by res judicata (a matter already adjudicated/decided on May 8, 1972; thus, it cannot be raised again) and alleged prescription, lack of personality and no cause of action on the part of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE: Pedro allegedly conveyed through a deed of sale his 6/8 share in Hacienda Escolastica in favor of Jesus descendants in which the Supreme Court affirmed on May 8, 1972 along with a reservation clause. 1. Who owned Pedros 6/8 share of the hacienda upon his death? a. Pedro himself, in which case the property shall pass by intestacy to his descendants in accordance with the law on succession? or; b. The children of Jesus by virtue of the deed of sale in their favor?