FACTS: Pedro
acquired a lot. He sold this to Faustina. After the death of Faustina, her
heirs executed a notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of
Absolute Sale of the subject lot and it was conveyed to Alejandra. Alejandra
sold the land Deen, who in turn sold it to Atty. Deen. Upon Atty. Deen's death,
an extrajudicial settlement of estate, which did not include subject lot, was
executed by his heirs. Later they executed an Additional ExtraJudicial
Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale, which sold the land to Norberto who took
possession of and built a house on it. Norberto died without a will and was
succeeded by Lolita.
Josefina, who represented the Heirs Pedro, filed a
complaint for Clarification of Ownership of the subject lot against Lolita.
Later, Lolita sought to register her portion in subject lot but was denied by
the Register of Deeds, citing the need for a court order. Lolita then learned
that TCT No. T-96676 had been partially cancelled and TCT Nos. T-100181,
T-100182, T-100183, and T-100185 had been issued in the name of the Heirs of
Pedro Bas, represented by Josefina. Lolita filed a complaint before the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for the cancellation of the titles.
RTC ruled in favor of Lolita. Heirs of Pedro appealed to
the CA. The CA reversed the RTC Decision and dismissed the complaint. According
to the CA, Lolita must first be declared as the sole heir to the estate of
Norberto in a proper special proceeding
ISSUES: 1)
Whether or not petitioner should first be declared an heir of Norberto in order
to proceed with this case.
2) Whether or not it was proper for the CA to dismiss the
case based on a ground that has not been raised.
HELD: 1) No. The dispute in this case is not about
the heirship of petitioner to Norberto but the validity of the sale of the
property from Pedro to Faustina, from which followed a series of transfer
transactions that culminated in the sale of the property to Norberto. For with
Pedro's sale of the property, it follows that there would be no more ownership
or right to property that would have been transmitted to his heirs.
Furthermore, no judicial declaration of heirship is
necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of
the deceased. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person,
both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of
death of his predecessor in interest. There is no legal precept or established
rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding
their status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal
capacity, consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they
may maintain an action arising out of a right which belonged to their ancestor.
Moreover, the pronouncement in the Heirs of Yaptinchay that a declaration of
heirship must be made only in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil
action for reconveyance of property is not applicable in this case. Such ruling
is only applicable if the adverse parties were putative heirs to a decedent's
estate or parties to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement. Here,
the main issue is the annulment of title to property, which ultimately hinges
on the validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner does not claim
any filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against
the respondents. Rather, petitioner seeks to enforce her right over the
property which has been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of
respondents.
2) No. Rule 9,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, "defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Here,
respondents never raised their objection to petitioner's capacity to sue either
as an affirmative defense or in a motion to dismiss." Thus, CA should not
have dismissed the case based on such ground since it was deemed waived due to
the fact that it was not pleaded in either a motion to dismiss or answer.
Comments
Post a Comment