Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • SPEC PRO A9 - PILAPIL vs. HEIRS OF BRIONES - G.R. No. 150175, February 5, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Jocelyn Yemyem Mantilla Veloso
    134 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over property between the heirs of Maximino Briones and the heirs of Donata Ortiz Briones. [1] Donata was Maximino's wife and was appointed administratrix of his estate after he died in 1952. [2] She subsequently registered the disputed properties in her own name. [3] Over 30 years later, in 1987, Maximino's heirs filed a case alleging that Donata fraudulently registered the properties. [4] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Donata's heirs, finding that the heirs failed to prove fraud and that the 1952 order declaring Donata as sole heir was valid.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    SPEC PRO A9 - PILAPIL vs. HEIRS OF BRIONES - G.R. No. 150175, February 5, 2007.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over property between the heirs of Maximino Briones and the heirs of Donata Ortiz Briones. [1] Donata was Maximino's wife and was appointed administratrix of his estate after he died in 1952. [2] She subsequently registered the disputed properties in her own name. [3] Over 30 years later, in 1987, Maximino's heirs filed a case alleging that Donata fraudulently registered the properties. [4] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Donata's heirs, finding that the heirs failed to prove fraud and that the 1952 order declaring Donata as sole heir was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    134 views2 pages

    SPEC PRO A9 - PILAPIL vs. HEIRS OF BRIONES - G.R. No. 150175, February 5, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Jocelyn Yemyem Mantilla Veloso
    This case involves a dispute over property between the heirs of Maximino Briones and the heirs of Donata Ortiz Briones. [1] Donata was Maximino's wife and was appointed administratrix of his estate after he died in 1952. [2] She subsequently registered the disputed properties in her own name. [3] Over 30 years later, in 1987, Maximino's heirs filed a case alleging that Donata fraudulently registered the properties. [4] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Donata's heirs, finding that the heirs failed to prove fraud and that the 1952 order declaring Donata as sole heir was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PILAPIL and HEIRS OF DONATA ORTIZ BRIONES vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES G.R. No.

    150175,
    February 5, 2007

    FACTS:

    Maximino was married to Donata but their union did not produce any children. When Maximino
    died on 1 May 1952, Donata instituted intestate proceedings to settle her husband’s estate. CFI issued
    Letters of Administration appointing Donata as the administratrix of Maximino’s estate. Subsequently,
    CFI issue an Order, dated 2 October 1952, awarding ownership of the aforementioned real properties to
    Donata.

    Donata died on 1 November 1977. Erlinda, one of Donata’s nieces, instituted with the RTC a
    petition for the administration of the intestate estate of Donata. Erlinda and her husband, Gregorio,
    were appointed by the RTC as administrators of Donata’s intestate estate.

    On 3 March 1987, the heirs of Maximino filed a Complaint with the RTC against the heirs of
    Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of real property. They alleged that
    Donata, as administratrix of the estate of Maximino, through fraud and misrepresentation, in breach of
    trust, and without the knowledge of the other heirs, succeeded in registering in her name the real
    properties belonging to the intestate estate of Maximino.

    After trial in due course, the RTC rendered its Decision, dated 8 April 1986, in favor of the heirs
    of Maximino. The heirs of Donata appealed the RTC Decision before the Court of Appeals but the latter
    court affirmed the decision. Unsatisfied the Decision of the Court of Appeals, the heirs of Donata
    elevated the case before the SC. SC reversed the decisions of CA and RTC and dismissed the Complaint
    for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of real property filed by the heirs of Maximino in
    Civil Case No. CEB-5794.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not a judgment awarding ownership of the properties included in the decedent’s
    estate to his surviving wife may be assailed on the ground of fraud after more than 30 years had lapse
    from the promulgation of the said judgment.

    HELD:

    The answer is in the negative. The heirs of Maximino failed to prove by clear and convincing
    evidence that Donata managed, through fraud, to have the real properties, belonging to the intestate
    estate of Maximino, registered in her name. In the absence of fraud, no implied trust was established
    between Donata and the heirs of Maximino under Article 1456 of the New Civil Code. Donata was able
    to register the real properties in her name, not through fraud or mistake, but pursuant to an Order,
    dated 2 October 1952, issued by the CFI in Special Proceedings No. 928-R. The CFI Order, presumed to
    be fairly and regularly issued, declared Donata as the sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of Maximino;
    hence, making Donata the singular owner of the entire estate of Maximino, including the real
    properties, and not merely a co-owner with the other heirs of her deceased husband.

    The CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, issued in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, effectively settled
    the intestate estate of Maximino by declaring Donata as the sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of her
    deceased husband. The issuance by the CFI of the said Order, as well as its conduct of the entire Special
    Proceedings No. 928-R, enjoy the presumption of validity pursuant to the Section 3(m) and (n) of Rule
    131 of the Revised Rules of Court, reproduced below –

    (m) That official duty has been regularly performed; (n) That a court, or judge acting as such,
    whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
    By reason of the foregoing provisions, this Court must presume, in the absence of any clear and
    convincing proof to the contrary, that the CFI in Special Proceedings No. 928-R had jurisdiction of the
    subject matter and the parties, and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect; and it could not
    give credence to the following statements made by the Court of Appeals in its Decision.

    While it is true that since the CFI was not informed that Maximino still had surviving siblings and
    so the court was not able to order that these siblings be given personal notices of the intestate
    proceedings, it should be borne in mind that the settlement of estate, whether testate or intestate, is
    a proceeding in rem, and that the publication in the newspapers of the filing of the application and of
    the date set for the hearing of the same, in the manner prescribed by law, is a notice to the whole
    world of the existence of the proceedings and of the hearing on the date and time indicated in the
    publication. The publication requirement of the notice in newspapers is precisely for the purpose of
    informing all interested parties in the estate of the deceased of the existence of the settlement
    proceedings, most especially those who were not named as heirs or creditors in the petition, regardless
    of whether such omission was voluntarily or involuntarily made.

    Veloso. Jocelyn M.

    You might also like