JLT Agro v. Balansag
JLT Agro v. Balansag
BALANSAG AUTHOR:
TOPIC: Object certain; NOTES:
PONENTE:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Art. 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the object of a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible
may also be the object of contracts. No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. All services which are
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy may likewise be the object of a contract. (1271a)
FACTS:
Don Julian Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena and had two kids namely Josefa and Emilio.
After her death, he married Milagros Teves and they had four children namely: Maria Teves, Jose Teves, Milagros Teves and Pedro Teves.
The present controversy involves a parcel of land which was originally registered in the name of the conjugal partnership of Don Julian and Antonia.
When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition.
Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement. Section 13 of the compromise states that
13. That in the event of death of Julian L. Teves, the properties herein adjudicated to JosefaTevesEscao and Emilio B. Teves, (excluding the properties comprised as Hacienda MedallaMilagrosa
together with all its accessories and accessions) shall be understood as including not only their one-half share which they inherited from their mother but also the legitimes and other successional
rights which would correspond to them of the other half belonging to their father, Julian L.Teves. In other words, the properties now selected and adjudicated to Julian L. Teves (not including his
share in the Hacienda MedallaMilagrosa) shall exclusively be adjudicated to the wife in second marriage of Julian L. Teves and his four minor children.
Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed of Assignment of Assets in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. (petitioner) which transferred ownership over the lot in
favor of petitioner.
Don Julian died intestate. A TCT was issued in the name of JLT.
Milagros Donio and her children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate.
In the deed of partition, the lot was allotted to Milagros Donio and her two (2) children, Maria Evelyn and Jose Catalino.
Unaware that the subject lot was already registered in the name of JLT, respondents bought the lot from Milagros Donio.
When respondents discovered that the lot was already titled in the name of petitioner respondents, as vendees of the lot, filed a complaint before the RTC.
RTC: the direct adjudication of the properties listed in the Compromise Agreement was only in favor of Don Julian and his two children by the first marriage,
Josefa and Emilio hence the sale made by Don Julian in favor of petitioner is valid.
CA: the two children of Don Julian in the first marriage acquired full ownership and possession of the properties respectively adjudicated to them in the
CFI decision and Don Julian himself could no longer dispose of the same, including the lot; the adjudication in favor of the heirs of Don Julian from the
second marriage became automatically operative upon the approval of the Compromise Agreement, thereby vesting on them the right to validly dispose of
the lot in favor of respondents.
Petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in holding that future legitime can be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don
Julian.
ISSUE: Whether or not the future legitime can be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even future ones, which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract. The exception
is that no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is the partition intervivos referred to in Article
1080. The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid pursuant to Article 1347.
However, considering that it would become legally operative only upon the death of Don Julian, the right of his heirs from the second marriage to the
properties adjudicated to him under the compromise agreement was but a mere expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the property of their
father. Being the prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by its nature was inchoate. It had no attribute of property, and the interest to which it related
was at the time nonexistent and might never exist.
Evidently, at the time of the execution of the deed of assignment covering Lot No. 63 in favor of petitioner, Don Julian remained the owner of the property
since ownership over the subject lot would only pass to his heirs from the second marriage at the time of his death. Thus, as the owner of the subject lot,
Don Julian retained the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime. His right cannot be challenged by Milagros Donio and her children on the ground
that it had already been adjudicated to them by virtue of the compromise agreement.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):