379 - de Los Santos v. de La Cruz

De los Santos v.
De La Cruz
Order of and share in the intestate succession
GERTRUDES DE LOS SANTOS vs. MAXIMO DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. L-29192 February 22, 1971
In an intestate succession a grandniece of the deceased and not participate with a niece in the
inheritance, because the latter being a nearer relative, the more distant grandniece is excluded.
In the collateral line the right of representation does not obtain beyond sons and daughters of
the brothers and sisters.
FACTS
On May 21, 1965, Gertrudes de los Santos filed a complaint for specific performance against
Maximo de la Cruz, alleging that on August 24, 1963, she and several co-heirs, including the
defendant, executed an extrajudicial partition agreement over a certain portion of land with an
area of around 20,000 sq. m.; that the parties thereto had agreed to adjudicate three (3) lots to
the defendant, in addition to his corresponding share, on condition that the latter would
undertake the development and subdivision of the estate which was the subject matter of the
agreement, all expenses in connection therewith to be defrayed from the proceeds of the sale of
the aforementioned three (3) lots; that in spite of demands by the plaintiff, by the co-heirs, and
by the residents of the subdivision, the defendant refused to perform his aforesaid obligation
although he had already sold the aforesaid lots. The plaintiff prayed the court to order the
defendant to comply with his obligation under the extrajudicial partition agreement and to pay
the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs.
De La Cruz admitted the due execution of the extrajudicial partition agreement, but set up the
affirmative defenses that the plaintiff had no cause of action against him because the said
agreement was void with respect to her, for the reason that the plaintiff was not an heir of
Pelagia de la Cruz, deceased owner of the property, and was included in the extrajudicial
partition agreement by mistake; and that although he had disposed of the three lots adjudicated
to him, nevertheless the proceeds of the sale were not sufficient to develop and improve
properly the subdivided estate. The answer contained a counterclaim wherein the defendant
alleged that the plaintiff had likewise sold her share in the estate for P10,000.00, and that the
extrajudicial partition agreement being void insofar as the latter was concerned, he was entitled
to one-fourth (1/4) of the proceeds as his share by way of reversion.
The defendant prayed that the complaint be dismissed; that the extrajudicial partition agreement
be declared void with respect to the plaintiff; and, on his counterclaim, that the plaintiff be
ordered to pay him the sum of P2,500.00. Pelagia De La Cruz had a niece named Marciana
who is the mother of herein defendant, Maximo. Gertrudes, who is Pelagia’s grandniece, and
several co-heirs including Maximo, entered into an Extrajudicial Partition Agreement purposely
for the distribution of Pelagia’s estate.
They agreed to adjudicate three (3) lots to Maximo, in addition to his share, on condition that the
latter would undertake the development and subdivision of the estate which was the subject
matter of the agreement. Due to Maximo’s failure to comply with his obligation, Gertrudes filed a
complaint for specific performance. In Maximo’s answer, he stated that Gertrudes had no cause
of action against him because the said agreement was void with respect to her, for the reason
that she was not an heir of Pelagia and was included in the agreement by mistake.
ISSUE
Whether or not Gertrudes De Los Santos, a grandniece of the decedent, is an heir of the latter?
(NO)
Whether or not extrajudicial partition is void (YES)
RULING
(1) Plaintiff-appellee being a mere grandniece of Pelagia de la Cruz, she could not
inherit from the latter by right of representation. ART. 972. The right of representation takes
place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending. In the collateral line, it takes
place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.
Much less could plaintiff-appellee inherit in her own right. ART. 962. In every inheritance, the
relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation
when it properly takes place. In the present case, the relatives "nearest in degree" to Pelagia de
la Cruz are her nephews and nieces, one of whom is defendant-appellant. | Necessarily,
plaintiff-appellee, a grandniece is excluded by law from the inheritance. But what is the legal
effect of plaintiff-appellee's inclusion and participation in the extrajudicial partition agreement
insofar as her right to bring the present action is concerned? They did not confer upon her the
right to institute this action. The express purpose of the extrajudicial partition agreement, as
admitted by the parties in the stipulation of facts, was to divide the estate among the heirs of
Pelagia de la Cruz.
(2) The extrajudicial partition agreement being void with respect to plaintiff-appellee, she
may not be heard to assert estoppel against defendant-appellant. Estoppel cannot be
predicated on a void contract, or on acts which are prohibited by law or are against public policy.
No estoppel arises where the representation or conduct the party sought to be estopped is due
to ignorance founded upon a mistake. And which there is authority to the contrary, the weight of
authority is that the acts and declarations of a party based upon an innocent mistake as to his
legal rights will not estop him to assert the same, especially where every fact known to the party
sought to be estopped is equally well known to the party setting up the estoppel. unconditional
and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile.

379 - de Los Santos v. de La Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

379 - de Los Santos v. de La Cruz

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

379 - de Los Santos v. de La Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De los Santos v.

You might also like