Marquez vs Court of Appeals

G.R. no. 125715 December 29, 1998

Facts:

During their lifetime, the spouses Rafael Marquez, Sr. and Felicidad
Marquez begot twelve children. Sometime in 1945, the spouses acquired a
parcel of land with a lot area of 161 square meters in San Juan Del Monte,
Rizal, more particularly described in TCT No. 47572, wherein they
constructed their conjugal home.

In 1952, Felicidad Marquez died intestate. Thirty years later or in 1982,

Rafael Marquez, Sr. executed an Affidavit of Adjudication vesting unto himself
sole ownership to the property described in TCT No. 47572. Consequently,
TCT No. 47572 was cancelled and TCT No. 33350 was issued in his name on
June 16, 1982. Thereafter, on December 29, 1983 Rafael Marquez, Sr.
executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos covering the land described in TCT
No. 33350 as well as the house constructed thereon to three of his children,
Rafael Jr. ,Alfredo; and Belen to the exclusion of his other children.
From 1983 to 1991, private respondents were in actual possession of the
land. However, when petitioners learned about the existence of TCT No.
47572 they immediately demanded that since they are also the children of
Rafael Marquez, Sr., they are entitled to their respective share over the land
in question. Unfortunately, efforts to settle the dispute proved unavailing
since private respondents ignored petitioners demands.

After due proceedings, the trial court on April 29, 1993, rendered its
decision in favour of the petitioners.

Private respondents, dissatisfied with the trial courts ruling, sought

recourse before the Court of Appeals. On April 29, 1996, the said court
reversed the trial courts finding

Issue:

1. Whether or not the affidavit of adjudication executed by Rafael

Marquez Sr. Was Valid.

2. Whether or not a constructive trust was created.

3. Whether or not the deed of donation executed Rafael Marquez,

Sr. Was valid

Held:

1. The affidavit of adjudication that was executed by Rafael Marquez Sr.

felicidad died intestate therefore her estate was to be divided in
accordance to intestate succession, the affidavit of adjudication
executed was invalid since he misrepresented, claiming that he is the
only surviving heir of deceased Felicidad even though their children
was still alive. Article 1456 states the following.

Article 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the

person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes.

Jennel Jiezde T. Capotulan LLB-3B

 2. Yes, a constructive trust was created since Rafael Marquez Sr,
misrepresented that he was the only heir.

3. Since there was an implied trust the donation is invalid in accordance

to article 736.

Article 736. Guardians and trustees cannot donate the property

entrusted to them

Heirs of Delgado vs Heirs of vda de Damian

G.R. NO. 155733 January 27, 2006

Facts:

Sometime in 1917 Guillermo Rustia was married to Josefa Delgada

wether there was an actual marriage or merely cohabitation was unknown.
Josefa Died on September 8,1972 and Guillermo in February 28, 1974 both of
them died without a will. However Guillermo and Josefa did have an
illegitimate child Guillermina Rustia which was formerly adopted on January
7, 1974 by Guillermo but was overtaken by his death on February 28, 1974.

On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, the daughter of Luis

Delgado half brother of Josefa, filed the original petition for letters of
administration of the intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa Delgado and
Guillermo Rustia" with the RTC of Manila, Branch 55. This petition was
opposed by the following: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely,
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz; (2) the heirs of
Guillermo Rustias late brother, Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun-
ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The opposition was grounded on the
theory that Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants were
barred under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative
Josefa Delgado

In November of 1975, Guillerma Rustia filed a motion to intervene in the

proceedings, claiming she was the only surviving descendant in the direct
line of Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of the oppositors
(respondents herein), the motion was granted.

On April 3, 1978, the original petition for letters of administration was

amended to state that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia
were never married but had merely lived together as husband and wife. On
the grounds that no marriage contract between the existed and from the
testimony of Elisa vda. de Anson who testified that there was no marriage
between the two.

On January 24, 1980, oppositors (respondents herein) filed a motion to

dismiss the petition in the RTC insofar as the estate of Guillermo Rustia was
concerned. The motion was denied on the ground that the interests of the
petitioners and the other claimants remained in issue and should be properly
threshed out upon submission of evidence.

On March 14, 1988, Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa substituted for her
sister, Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, who had died on May 18, 1987.

Jennel Jiezde T. Capotulan LLB-3B

On May 11, 1990, the RTC appointed Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa as
administratrix of both estates.

Issue

1. Whether or not there was a valid marriage between Guillermo Rustia

and Josefa Delgado;

2. Who the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Delgado are;

3. Who should be issued letters of administration.

Held:

1. In regards the marriage of Josefa and Guillermo, several

circumstances arise that a valid marriage between them existed,
Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. Their
family and friends knew them to be married. Their reputed status as
husband and wife was such that even the original petition for letters
of administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975
referred to them as "spouses."

The absence of the marriage contract although considered as a

primary evidence of marriage, the absence of such contract does
not necessarily mean that no marriage existed.

2. To determine who the rightful heirs of Josefa the issue of whether

her half brother Luis Delgado may inherit from her considering that
Josefa are both illegitimate children and are only related half blood
to one another, the court held that only illegitimate and legitimate
children are barred from inheriting from another if both children are
illegitimate then they may inherit reciprocally.

The court held that the only collateral relatives of Josefa Delgado
who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers
and sisters, or their children who were still alive at the time of her
death on September 8, 1972. They have a vested right to
participate in the inheritance.

This is because the current petitioners of the current case are

already nephews and grandnephews of the Josefa and under article
972 of the new civil code the right of representation in the collateral
line takes place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters,
with this in mind the decendants of luis Delgado may not inherit.

In regards to the heirs of Guillermo, the court held that the

claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, namely, intervenor
Guillerma Rustia and the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia
Rustia, are not lawful heirs of the decedent. This is because
Guillermas claim of voluntary recognition and continous claim as
illegitimate child of Guillermo fails to prove that she was recognized
by the deceased, latter cannot be heirs of Guillermo since they were
never legally adopted.Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if

Jennel Jiezde T. Capotulan LLB-3B

 there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or
surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire
estate of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of Guillermo
Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters, nieces
and nephews.

3. The court held that in the appointment of an administrator, the

principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be
appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the
appointment of co-administrators, especially in cases where justice
and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented
in the management of the estates, a situation which obtains here. It
is in this light that we see fit to appoint joint administrators, in the
persons of Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and a nominee of the
nephews and nieces of Guillermo Rustia. They are the next of kin of
the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia,
respectively.

Jennel Jiezde T. Capotulan LLB-3B

Jennel Jiezde T. Capotulan LLB-3B