Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA

3B [WILLS] Digests
HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE, namely, Justa's father, Juan Arnaldo, were brothers.
ROSELYN URIARTE, MADRILYN and LOURDES Petitioners are thus grandchildren, the relatives within
URIARTE, and FELOMINA BUNIEL URIARTE, and the fifth degree of consanguinity, of Justa by her
HEIRS OF PRIMITIVA ARNALDO and HEIRS OF cousin Primitiva Arnaldo Uriarte.
GREGORIO ARNALDO, represented herein by
FELISA ARNALDO SULLANO and LUPECINO The other petitioners are the children of Primitiva
ARNALDO, petitioners, and those of her brother Gregorio. The children of
vs. Primitiva by Conrado Uriarte, aside from Pascasio,
COURT OF APPEALS and BENEDICTO ESTRADA, are Josefina, Gaudencio, Simplicio, Domingo and
respondents. Virgilio, all surnamed Uriarte. The children of Gregorio
January 22, 1998 Arnaldo, Primitiva's brother, by Julieta Ilogon, are
Jorencio, Enecia, Nicolas, Lupecino and Felisa.
G.R. No.: 116775 Ponente: J. MENDOZA
These other petitioners are thus grandchildren and
relatives within the fifth degree of consanguinity of
Related Article: Tickler:
Justa by her cousins Gregorio Arnaldo and Primitiva
Arnaldo.
Doctrine of the Case

Facts
A nephew is considered a collateral relative who
may inherit if no descendant, ascendant, or Private respondent Benedicto Estrada brought this
spouse survive the decedent. That private case in the Regional Trial Court for the partition of the
respondent is only a half-blood relative is land left by Justa Arnaldo-Sering. The land, consisting
immaterial. This alone does not disqualify him of 2.7 hectares, had been acquired by Justa as
from being his aunt's heir. As the Court of follows: 0.5 hectare by inheritance from her parents
Appeals correctly pointed out, "The determination Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil, and 2.2 hectares by
of whether the relationship is of the full or half purchase. Private respondent claimed to be the sole
blood is important only to determine the extent of surviving heir of Justa, on the ground that the latter
the share of the survivors." died without issue. He complained that Pascasio
Uriarte who, he claimed, worked the land as Justa's
Because of the conclusion we have thus reached, tenant, refused to give him (private respondent) his
the third and fourth grounds of the petition for share of the harvest. He contended that Pascasio
review must fail. had no right to the entire land of Justa but could claim
only one-half of the 0.5 hectare land which Justa had
inherited from her parents Juan Arnaldo and Ursula
Tubil.
Parties – Roles
Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and
The parties and their relationship to Justa
was substituted by his heirs. In their answer, the heirs
Arnaldo-Sering are as follows:
denied they were mere tenants of Justa but the
latter's heirs entitled to her entire land.
Private respondent Benedicto Estrada is the son of
Agatonica Arreza, whose parents were Pedro Arreza
They claimed that the entire land, subject of the case,
and Ursula Tubil. Upon the death of Pedro Arreza,
was originally owned by Ambrocio Arnaldo, their great
Ursula married Juan Arnaldo by whom she had
granduncle. It was allegedly bequeathed to Domingo
another daughter, the decedent Justa. Private
and Juan Arnaldo, Ambrocio's nephews, in a
respondent Benedicto Estrada is thus the nephew of
holographic will executed by Ambrocio in 1908.
Justa by her half sister Agatonica.
Domingo was to receive two-thirds of the land and
Juan, one-third. The heirs claimed that the land had
Petitioners, referred to in this case as the heirs of
always been in their possession and that in her
Pascasio Uriarte, are the widow and daughters of
lifetime Justa never asserted exclusive right over the
Pascasio Uriarte. Pascasio was one of the sons of
property but only received her share of the harvest
Primitiva Arnaldo and Conrado Uriarte. His mother,
from it. They alleged that private respondent did not
Primitiva Uriarte, was the daughter of Domingo
have any right to the property because he was not an
Arnaldo and Catalina Azarcon. Domingo Arnaldo and
Clarese Velasco
3B [WILLS] Digests
heir of Ambrocio Arnaldo, the original owner of the

property. The issue in this case is who among the
petitioners and the private respondent is entitled
RTC Ruling: to Justa's estate as her nearest relatives within
the meaning of Art. 962 of the Civil Code.
The trial court sustained petitioners' contention. In its
decision rendered on November 8, 1991 it ruled: Ruling
As earlier stated, the land of Ambrosio Arnaldo which As a preliminary matter, petitioners contend that the
he left to his two nephews, Domingo and Juan Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in
Arnaldo, was only .5481 hectares, divided as follows: holding that private respondent is the son of
two-thirds or 3,654 square meters to Domingo, and Agatonica Arreza, who was the half-sister of Justa
one-third or 1,827 square meters to Juan. The area Arnaldo. Petitioners are raising this issue only now. It
increased to 2.7588 hectares from .5481 hectares is well-settled, however, that questions not taken up
because the adjacent lot of about two hectares was during the trial of a case cannot be raised for the first
acquired by Justa Arnaldo Sering, daughter of Juan time on appeal. With more reason, therefore, should
Arnaldo, after the latter's death. The entire 2.7588 such a question be disallowed when raised for the
hectares was covered by tax declaration in the name first time on appeal to this Court.
of Justa Arnaldo Sering. The latter however died
intestate and without issue. Her nearest surviving It is noteworthy that, in their brief before the Court of
relatives are the children of her uncle Domingo Appeals, petitioners admitted that private respondent
Arnaldo, to whom her entire estate passed on after is Justa's nephew, his mother, Agatonica, being
her death by operation of law, to the exclusion of all Justa's half-sister. Apparently they are now
other relatives. Thus, the rights to the succession are questioning private respondent's filiation because, as
transmitted from the moment of the death of the explained by the Court of Appeals, private respondent
decedent (Art. 277, Civil Code) is the nearest relative of Justa and, therefore, the only
one entitled to her estate.
CA Ruling:
Indeed, given the fact that 0.5 hectares of the land in
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. Contrary question belonged to the conjugal partnership of
to the trial court's finding, the appellate court found Justa's parents, Justa was entitled to 0.125 hectares
that the 0.5 hectares had been acquired by Justa's of the half hectare land as her father's (Juan
parents, Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil, during their Arnaldo's) share in the conjugal property, while
marriage. As the nephew of Justa by her half-sister petitioners are entitled to the other 0.125 hectares. In
Agatonica, private respondent was held to be entitled addition, Justa inherited her mother's (Ursula Tubil's)
to share in the estate of Justa. In the dispositive share consisting of 0.25 hectares. Plus the 2.2
portion of its decision the appellate court ordered: hectares which belonged to her in her own right, Justa
owned a total of 2.575 or 2.58 hectares of the 2.7 —
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby hectare land. This 2.58-hectare land was inherited by
REVERSED and another is hereby entered — private respondent Benedicto Estrada as Justa's
nearest surviving relative.
Ordering the partition of the property described in the
second amended complaint in the following manner: As the Court of Appeals held:
According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every
(1) .2500 hectare as the share of defendants- inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes
intervenors, and the more distant ones, saving the right of
representation when it properly takes place.
(2) 2.58 hectare as the share of the plaintiff.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal
For this purpose, the court a quo is hereby directed to shares, subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with
proceed with the partition in accordance with the respect to relatives of the full and half blood, and of
procedure laid down in Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. Article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between
paternal and maternal lines.
Issue/s
Clarese Velasco
3B [WILLS] Digests
The manner of determining the proximity of

relationship are provided by Articles 963 — 966 of the
Civil Code
In this case, plaintiff is the son of Agatonica, the half-

sister of Justa. He is thus a third degree relative of
Justa.
On the other hand, defendants and intervenors are

the sons and daughters of Justa's cousin. They are
thus fifth degree relatives of Justa.
Applying the principle that the nearest excludes the

farthest, then plaintiff is the lawful heir of Justa. The
fact that his mother is only a half-sister of Justa is of
no moment.
Nevertheless, petitioners make much of the fact that

private respondent is not an Arnaldo, his mother
being Ursula's daughter not by Juan Arnaldo but by
Pedro Arreza. They claim that this being the case,
private respondent is not an heir of Justa and thus not
qualified to share in her estate.
Petitioners misappreciate the relationship between

Justa and private respondent. As already stated,
private respondent is the son of Justa's half-sister
Agatonica. He is therefore Justa's nephew. A nephew
is considered a collateral relative who may inherit if no
descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the
decedent. That private respondent is only a half-blood
relative is immaterial. This alone does not
disqualify him from being his aunt's heir. As the
Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, "The
determination of whether the relationship is of the
full or half blood is important only to determine
the extent of the share of the survivors."
Because of the conclusion we have thus reached, the

third and fourth grounds of the petition for review must
fail.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The

temporary restraining order issued by this Court
is LIFTED, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Clarese Velasco

Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3B [WILLS] Digests

Doctrine of the Case

heir of Ambrocio Arnaldo, the original owner of the

The manner of determining the proximity of

In this case, plaintiff is the son of Agatonica, the half-

On the other hand, defendants and intervenors are

Applying the principle that the nearest excludes the

Nevertheless, petitioners make much of the fact that

Petitioners misappreciate the relationship between

Because of the conclusion we have thus reached, the

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The

You might also like