Succession - #7

Alfonso vs. Sps. Andres (2010)

Facts:

Extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Marcelino Alfonso was conducted.

The deed of extrajudicial settlement was executed by Filomena Santos Vda. de Alfonso and Jose
Alfonso. It manifested their intention to partition the inherited property, delineating what portion of the
inherited property would belong to whom. The deed was not published.
After the extrajudicial settlement, Jose asked respondents to buy the subject property so that it could

be taken out from the bank to which it was mortgaged. The sale executed by Jose in favor of the
respondents was in a public document.
The petioners allege that there was lack of consent on the part of Jose. Jose was suffering from

partial paralysis and could no longer sign his name.

They likewise allege that publication of the deed of extrajudicial settlement is required before Jose

Alfonso could validly transfer the subject property.

Procedure:
Complaint for accion publiciana with damages filed by respondent spouses Henry and Liwanag

Andres against Noli Alfonso and spouses Reynaldo and Erlinda Fundialan before the RTC, San Mateo,
Rizal
RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, who are ordered: to

vacate the premises, to jointly and severally pay the sum [of] P100.00 as reasonable compensation for the
use of said premises commencing from 04 September 1995; and to jointly and severally pay attorney's fees
and cost of suit.
Petitioners appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal before it for failure of petitioners to file

their brief within the extended reglementary period.

Issue/s:
W/N the CA erred in dismissing the appeal before it for failure of petitioners to file their brief within

the extended reglementary period. (NO)

W/N there is merit in the case, which involves deprivation of the petitioners property rights

(NO)

Held/Ratio:

Technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving.
There is no showing of any public interest involved. Neither is there a showing that an injustice will
result due to the application of technical rules. Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to justify
petitioners' complacency in allowing months to pass by before exerting the required effort to find a
replacement lawyer. Poverty is not a justification for delaying a case.

Petitioners prays that technicalities be disregarded on the ground that the merits their case is strong.
The court is not convinced.
The Court previously upheld in Alejandrino v. CA, that the effectivity of a deed of extrajudicial
settlement that was neither notarized nor published.
The title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such
transmission is subject to the claims of administration and the property may be taken from the heirs for

the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the title,
upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs.
The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by Filomena Santos Vda. de Alfonso and Jose
evidences their intention to partition the inherited property. It delineated what portion of the
inherited property would belong to whom. The sale to respondents was made after the execution of
the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate.
The extrajudicial settlement of estate, even though not published, being deemed a partition of the
inherited property, Jose could validly transfer ownership over the specific portion of the property
that was assigned to him.
Jose did in fact sell to respondents the subject property. The deed of sale executed by Jose in
favor of the respondents being a public document, is entitled to full faith and credit in the
absence of competent evidence that its execution was tainted with defects and irregularities that
would warrant a declaration of nullity. Petitioners failed to prove any defect or irregularities in the
execution of the deed of sale.
Although Jose was suffering from partial paralysis, there is no showing that his mental
faculties were affected in such a way as to negate the existence of his valid consent to the
sale, as manifested by his thumbmark on the deed of sale.