Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Issue: W/N the status of the heirs of Donata Lardizabal who sold
the property to the respondents must first be established in a
special proceeding
Held: No
The pronouncements in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del
Rosario and in Reyes v. Enriquez that the petitioners
invoke do not find application in the present
controversy.
In both cases, this Court held that the declaration of
heirship can be made only in a special proceeding and
not in a civil action.
o
It must be noted that in Yaptinchay and
Enriquez, plaintiffs action for annulment of
title was anchored on their alleged status as
heirs of the original owner whereas in this
case, the respondents claim is rooted on a
sale transaction.
o
Respondents herein are enforcing their
rights as buyers in good faith and for
value of the subject land and not as heirs
of the original owner.
Part 4
Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late
Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the owners-claimants of
the Lot in controversy.
Petitioners executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the
estate of the deceased Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay.
They then discovered that a portion, if not all, of the
aforesaid properties were titled in the name of
respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development
Corporation ("Golden Bay"), prompting them to file a
complaint for annulment of Golden Bays TCT.
Respondent court dismissed the Complaint, as
amended by petitioners. Petitioners interposed a
Motion for Reconsideration but to no avail.
Undaunted, petitioners have come before this Court to
seek relief from respondent court's Orders under
attack. It is petitioners' submission that the respondent
court should have proceeded with the trial and
simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the
same case.
Held: No
Respondent court did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the questioned Order dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint of petitioners, as it
aptly ratiocinated and ruled:
Part 4
Issue: W/N the subject house and lot is the family home of the
deceased and his heirs, thus, not subject to partition for a period
of 10 years
Held: Yes
One significant innovation introduced by The Family
Code is the automatic constitution of the family home
from the time of its occupation as a family residence,
without need anymore for the judicial or extrajudicial
processes provided under the defunct Articles 224 to
251 of the Civil Code and Rule 106 of the Rules of
Court.
Furthermore, Articles 152 and 153 specifically extend
the scope of the family home not just to the dwelling
structure in which the family resides but also to the lot
on which it stands.
o
Thus, applying these concepts, the subject
house as well as the specific portion of the
subject land on which it stands are deemed
constituted as a family home by the deceased
and petitioner Vilma from the moment they
began occupying the same as a family
residence 20 years back.
It being settled that the subject house (and the subject
lot on which it stands) is the family home of the
deceased and his heirs, the same is shielded from
immediate partition under Article 159 of The Family
Code, viz:
Part 4
Part 4
Part 4
Issue: W/N the failure to state the number of pages of the will in
the attestation clause was fatal
Held: Yes
The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills,
particularly, Articles 805 and 809 of the Civil Code
provide:
ART. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must
be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator
himself or by the testator's name written by some
other person in his presence, and by his express
direction, and attested and subscribed by three or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write
his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will,
shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page
thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the
pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed
on the upper part of each page.
Part 4
Part 4
Part 4
MANUEL
A.
ECHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
vs.
DOZEN
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 192916 | October 11, 2010 (3D)
Facts:
Part 4
That
the
requirements
of
attestation
and
acknowledgment are embodied in two separate
provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806,
respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two
distinct acts that serve different purposes. An
acknowledgment is made by one executing a deed,
declaring before a competent officer or court that the
deed or act is his own. On the other hand, the
attestation of a will refers to the act of the instrumental
witnesses themselves who certify to the execution of
the instrument before them and to the manner of its
execution.