When heirs are unlawfully deprived of inheritance
Written by Atty. Angelo M. Cabrera / Thy Will Be Done Tuesday, 26 June 2012 20:26
IT often happens. An heir is left out of the inheritance by the collusion of co-heirs who declare themselves to be the only surviving successors entitled to the inheritance in a deed of extrajudicial settlement or partition. Victims of this unlawful act usually involve nephews and nieces whose parent pre-deceased their grandparent. Upon the death of the grandparent, they are supposed to inherit, by right of representation, the share that would have gone to their deceased parent. But by the agreement of their uncles and aunties, they are left out. Intentions may be noble at the onset, like simplifying the estate-settlement process or managing the property for their minor nephews and nieces with the objective of eventually giving them their rightful share. But through time, these are forgotten and the nephews and nieces find themselves deprived of their inheritance.
Or, it may involve the first family of the deceased, who remarried and raised a second family. The second family then decides, upon death of the patriarch, to appropriate the inheritance among themselves to the exclusion of their stepsiblings and signs a document to this effect.
Another usual victim is an illegitimate child who, by law, is also entitled to a share in the inheritance, provided he is recognized as such by the putative parent. The legitimate children, wanting to confine the inheritance within the family, sign a legal document accordingly.
What happens when heirs are found to have deprived their co-heirs of their share by falsifying a document?
In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a woman and her children who falsified a document that deprived a co-heir of her share in the inheritance.
Maria was the daughter of the late Pedro by his marriage to Dalia. After Dalia died, Pedro married Nora, with whom he had five children.
In spite of a deed of extrajudicial partitionsigned by Maria and Nora as co-heirs, with Nora also acting as representative of her five minor children and where Maria was to get a portion of
1/2
When heirs are unlawfully deprived of inheritance
Written by Atty. Angelo M. Cabrera / Thy Will Be Done Tuesday, 26 June 2012 20:26
the property left behind by her father Pedro as her share in the inheritanceMaria discovered that her right over the parcel of land was never registered by Nora, contrary to the latters undertaking. Nora instead executed a deed of succession wherein shetogether with her children, who have since reached the age of majoritypartitioned and adjudicated unto themselves the property to the exclusion of Maria.
By virtue of the deed of succession, several new titles were issued under the names of Nora and her children. When Maria discovered this, she filed a criminal complaint against her stepmother and stepsiblings.
For their defense, Nora and her children denied having signed the deed of succession. Said denial was, however, rejected by the court for being unsubstantiated. They also claimed good faith in that that they had never intended to exclude Maria from the inheritance, proof of which was the deed of extrajudicial settlement that Maria and Nora signed, among other documents.
The trial court found Nora and her children guilty of falsification.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled that there can be no good faith on the part of Nora and her children since they knew of the untruthful character of statements contained in the deed of succession that they signed under oath. Two elements of the crime of falsification were committed by the inclusion in the subject deed of the clause that states, (w)hereas, the parties hereto are the only heirs of the decedent....
The Court said it could not subscribe to the petitioners claim of good faith because several documents prove that they knew of the untruthful character of their statement in the deed of succession. The petitioners alleged good faith is disputed by their prior confirmation and recognition of Marias right as an heir, because despite knowledge of said fact, they included in the deed a statement to the contrary. The wrongful intent to injure Maria is clear from their execution of the deed, showing a desire to appropriate only unto themselves the subject parcel of land. Maria was unduly deprived of what was due her not only under the provisions of the law on succession, but also under contracts that she had previously executed with the petitioners. (Based on GR No. 186030.March 21, 2012)
2/2
