1) Manuel Bautista inherited land from his father and denied participating in an extrajudicial partition of the land among the heirs of his first wife Juliana Nojadera.
2) The court held that the extrajudicial partition was void because the land belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista, not the estate of his deceased wife, and therefore could not be subject to an extrajudicial partition of her estate.
3) The partition also resulted in preterition of Manuel's daughter from his second marriage, evidencing bad faith.
1) Manuel Bautista inherited land from his father and denied participating in an extrajudicial partition of the land among the heirs of his first wife Juliana Nojadera.
2) The court held that the extrajudicial partition was void because the land belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista, not the estate of his deceased wife, and therefore could not be subject to an extrajudicial partition of her estate.
3) The partition also resulted in preterition of Manuel's daughter from his second marriage, evidencing bad faith.
1) Manuel Bautista inherited land from his father and denied participating in an extrajudicial partition of the land among the heirs of his first wife Juliana Nojadera.
2) The court held that the extrajudicial partition was void because the land belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista, not the estate of his deceased wife, and therefore could not be subject to an extrajudicial partition of her estate.
3) The partition also resulted in preterition of Manuel's daughter from his second marriage, evidencing bad faith.
1) Manuel Bautista inherited land from his father and denied participating in an extrajudicial partition of the land among the heirs of his first wife Juliana Nojadera.
2) The court held that the extrajudicial partition was void because the land belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista, not the estate of his deceased wife, and therefore could not be subject to an extrajudicial partition of her estate.
3) The partition also resulted in preterition of Manuel's daughter from his second marriage, evidencing bad faith.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
BAUTISTA VS.
JUSTICE AQUINO G.R. No. 79958. October 28, 1988
Facts: The lands in question were registered in the name of Manuel Bautista for which he inherited this land form his father, Mariano. This was the subject matter of an extrajudicial partition among the heirs of the late Juliana Nojadera, the first wife of Manuel Bautista. In the deed of extrajudicial partition, private respondents were signatories and Manuel’s signature was supposedly bound to appear in the deed. However, Manuel denied participation in the Extrajudicial Partition of Property. Subsequently, after Juliana’s death, Manuel and his second wife, Emiliana Tamayo married, and begot Evangeline Bautista. Meanwhile, the parties then submitted the questioned document (deed of extrajudicial partition) to the NBI for investigation. NBI concluded that the questioned document was authentic.
Petitioners instituted a civil action in the CFI Rizal to declare the deed of extrajudicial partition, deed of absolute sale TCT in question null and void.
Lower Courts CFI: Dismissed the action. CA: Affirmed the CFI decision.
ISSUE: Can the property of the surviving husband be the subject of an extrajudicial partition of the estate, of the deceased wife?
Held: NO. The petition is impressed with merit.
Even granting that the signature of Manuel Bautista in the questioned Extrajudicial Deed of Partition is genuine, an examination of the document based on admitted and proven facts renders the document fatally defective. The extrajudicial partition was supposed to be a partition without court intervention of the estate of the late Juliana Nojadera, first wife of Manuel Bautista, constituting the subject property.
However, the property subject matter of said extrajudicial partition does not belong to the estate of Juliana Nojadera. It is the exclusive property of Manuel Bautista who inherited the same from his father Mariano Bautista.
Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court an extrajudicial settlement of the Estate applies only to the estate left by the decedent who died without a will, and with no creditors, and the heirs are all of age or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives. If the property does not belong to the estate of the decedent certainly it cannot be the subject matter of an extrajudicial partition.
As the subject property does not belong to the estate of Juliana Nojadera, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, is void ab initio being contrary to law. Moreover, such extrajudicial partition cannot constitute a partition of the property during the lifetime of its owner, Manuel Bautista. Partition of future inheritance is prohibited by law. As said Extrajudicial Partition dated December 22, 1966, of property belonging exclusively to petitioner Manuel Bautista, is null and void ab initio it follows that all subsequent transactions involving the same property between and among the private respondents are also null and void.
ISSUE: 2: W/N there was preterition
HELD: YES.
The said partition also effectively resulted in the preterition of the right of Evangeline Bautista as a compulsory heir of Manuel Bautista, daughter of the latter by his second marriage. The court finds that her preterition was attended with bad faith hence the said partition must be rescinded.
ISSUE 3: W/N the action has prescribed
HELD: NO. Prescription cannot be invoked in this case as the petitioners' right to sue their co-owners for partition of the property is imprescriptible. And even assuming that the present action may prescribe as ruled by the respondent court, petitioners Emiliana Bautista and Evangeline Bautista who are not parties to the said instrument asserted that they discovered the same only soon before they filed the complaint in court. Certainly the action has not prescribed
Disposition: CA ruling set aside. Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated December 22, 1966, is null and void ab initio.
