Plaintiff- ANGELA M.
BUTTE
Appellant
Defendant- MANUEL UY and SONS, INC
Appellee
Topic Inheritance and Succession-transfer of ownership over the property.
Doctrine Right of succession acquired upon the death of the decedent, and the heirs may exercise
such rights appurtenant thereto in accordance in law.
Facts Jose V. Ramirez, during his lifetime, was a co-owner of a house and lot located at Sta.
Cruz, Manila, issued in the name of the following co-owners:
1. Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez, 1/6;
2.Jose V. Ramirez, 1/6;
3. Jose E. Ramirez, 1/6;
4. Jose Ma. Ramirez, 1/6
5. Rita de Ramirez, 1/6; and
6. Belen T. Ramirez, 1/6
October 20, 1951-Jose V. Ramirez died. Subsequently, Special Proceeding was instituted
to settle his estate, that included the one-sixth (1/6) undivided share in the property. And
although his last will and testament, wherein he bequeathed his estate to his children and
grandchildren and one-third (1/3) of the free portion to Mrs. Angela M. Butte, hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff-appellant, has been admitted to probate, the estate proceedings are
still pending up to the present on account of the claims of creditors which exceed the assets
of the deceased. The Bank of the Philippine Islands was appointed judicial administrator.
December 9, 1958-Mrs. Marie Ramirez, one of the co-owners of the late Jose V. Ramirez in
the Sta. Cruz property, sold her undivided 1/6 share to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., for the sum
of P500,000.00. After the execution by her attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Elsa R. Chambers, of an
affidavit to the effect that formal notices of the sale had been sent to all possible
redemptioners, the deed of sale was duly registered and Transfer Certificate of Title was
cancelled in lieu of which a new one was issued in the name of the buyer and the other-co-
owners. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. sent a letter to the Bank of the Philippine Islands as judicial
administrator of the estate of the late Jose V. Ramirez informing it of the sale
January 15, 1959-Mrs. Angela M. Butte, thru Atty. Sobretodo, sent a letter and a PNB
cashier's check in the amount of P500,000.00 to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. offering to redeem
the 1/6 share sold by Mrs. Marie Ramirez. This tender having been refused, plaintiff on the
same day consigned the amount in court and filed the corresponding action for legal
redemption. Without prejudice to the determination by the court of the reasonable and fair
market value of the property sold which she alleged to be grossly excessive, Butte, prayed
for conveyance of the property.
May 13, 1959- trial court dismiss the petition on the ground that Butte has no right to
redeem and even if she has, it prescribed beyond the 30 day allowable period.
Issue W/N Butte has the right to redeem the 1/6 sold by Marie Ramirez?
Ruling Yes. ART. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death
of the decedent.
ART. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which
are not extinguished by his death.
In this case, Angela M. Butte is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption is clear. As
testamentary heir of the estate of J.V. Ramirez, she and her co-heirs acquired an interest in
the undivided one-sixth (1/6) share owned by her predecessor (causante) in the Santa Cruz
property, from the moment of the death of the co-owner, J.V. Ramirez. By law, the rights to
the succession of a deceased persons are transmitted to his heirs from the moment of his
death, and the right of succession includes all property rights and obligations that survive
the decedent. Therefore, she has the right to redeem the property as the co-owner as heir
of J.V Ramirez.
2nd Issue W/N the right to redemption has prescribed?
2nd Ruling No. Article 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that the thirty days for making the
redemption are to be counted from notice in writing by the vendor.
In this case, The date of receipt of the vendor's notice by the Administrator Bank (December
15) cannot be counted as determining the start of thirty days; for the Administrator of the
estate was not a proper redemptioner, since, as previously shown, the right to redeem the
share of Marie Garnier did not form part of the estate of Jose V. Ramirez.
G.R. No. L-15499 February 28, 1962
G.R. No. 162784 June 22, 2007
Petitioner NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
Responden SEGUNDA ALMEIDA, COURT OF APPEALS
t
Topic Inheritance and Succession
Doctrine Contract to sell does not extinguish by the death of the party. It shall be transmissible to the
heirs, unless the contract provides otherwise.
Facts June 28, 1959-the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) now NHA, awarded to Margarita
Herrera several portions of land in San Pedro, Laguna. Margarita Herrera had two children:
1. Beatriz Herrera-Mercado (the mother of private respondent) and
2. Francisca Herrera.
Beatriz Herrera-Mercado died before Margareta, and left heirs.
October 27, 1971-Margarita Herrera passed away.
August 22, 197-Francisca Herrera, the remaining child of the late Margarita Herrera executed
a Deed of Self-Adjudication claiming that she is the only remaining relative, being the sole
surviving daughter of the deceased. She also claimed to be the exclusive legal heir of the late
Margarita Herrera. The Deed of Self-Adjudication was based on a “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
dated October 7, 1960, allegedly executed by Margarita Herrera.
December 29, 1980-RTC granted the opposition filed by the heirs of Beatriz against the self-
adjudication document made by Francisca. And declared said document as null and void.
February 5, 1986-the NHA granted the application made by Francisca Herrera. To purchase
the said lots supported by a copy of the “Sinumpaang Salaysay" executed by her mother.
February 1, 1987-Francisca Herrera died. Her heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of
her estate which they submitted to the NHA in effect approved by the latter. The NHA
executed several deeds of sale in favor of the heirs of Francisca Herrera and titles were
issued in their favor. Thereafter, the heirs of Francisca Herrera directed Segunda Mercado-
Almeida to leave the premises that she was occupying.
February 8, 1988-Alemeida file a complaint for "Nullification of Government Lot's Award,"
with the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro.
She argued that, she has been an occupant in the said land for 40 years, and re-raised the
fact that Francisca Herrera's declaration of self-adjudication has been adjudged as a nullity
because the other heirs were disregarded.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Almeida and held that the “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
was not an assignment of rights but a disposition of property which shall take effect upon
death. It then held that the said document must first be submitted to probate before it can
transfer property. The CA affirmed. Both NHA and heirs of Herrera filed an appeal.
Argument of appellant NHA
NHA argued that the grant of purchase was rendered on meritorious ground. Such that,
Francisca Herrera applied to purchase the said lot and they find that she is qualified having no
disqualification.
Issue W/N the subject lot should be awarded to Francisca Herrera as the sole heir of
Margarita according to Sinumpaang salaysay?
Ruling No. Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and
obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
In this case, The death of Margarita Herrera does not extinguish her interest over the
property. Margarita Herrera had an existing Contract to Sell with NHA as the seller. Upon
Margarita Herrera's demise, this Contract to Sell was neither nullified nor revoked. This
Contract to Sell was an obligation on both parties—Margarita Herrera and NHA. Obligations
are transmissible. Margarita Herrera's obligation to pay became transmissible at the time of
her death either by will or by operation of law to her two Child or their surviving heirs.
Therefore, the obligation of Margarita Herrera should be transmitted by her heirs.
That the NHA should have considered the estate of the decedent as the next "person" likely to
stand in to fulfill the obligation to pay the rest of the purchase price.
G.R. No. 109972, April 29, 1996
Petitioner ZOSIMA VERDAD
Responden THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCORRO C. ROSALES et al.,
t
Topic Succession:
Doctrine
Facts
Issue
Ruling
G.R. No. L-4963 January 29, 1953
Petitioner MARIA USON
Responden MARIA DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCION NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA, DOMINADOR
t NEBREDA, AND FAUSTINO NEBREDA, Jr
Topic Inheritance and Succession
Doctrine Future inheritance cannot be subject of contract nor can it be renounce.
Retroactivity of law cannot be applied if it impairs prior vested rights
Facts Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who upon his death in 1945 left the
lands involved in this litigation. Faustino Nebreda left no other heir except his widow Maria
Uson.
Maria’s allegation
Illegal possession of property-Maria claims that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945, his
common-law wife Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said lands thus depriving her
of their possession and enjoyment
Del Rosario’s defense
Renunciation of right to inherit- that on February 21, 1931-Maria Uson and her husband,
the late Faustino Nebreda, executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as
husband and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria Uson was given a parcel of
land by way of alimony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other property that
may be left by her husband upon his death.
Rights acquired by retroactive application of law- Under the old civil code, illegitimate
children are not allowed to inherit, however, under the new Civil Code which became in force
in June, 1950-they are given the status and rights of natural children and are entitled to the
successional rights which the law accords to the latter (article 2264 and article 287, new Civil
Code), and because these successional rights were declared for the first time in the new
code, they shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to them
may have occurred under the prior legislation.
Deed of assignment- While Nebreda is bed ridden, Uson express her intention to assign
certain property to minor children to somewhat support them for the wrong she has done to
them
RTC decision
Granted the petition-ordered Del Rosario et. al. to return the property in possession to Maria
Uson. Hence, this appeal.
1st Issue W/N Uson relinquish her right to the future property of Nebreda?
1st Ruling No. For the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it
be renounced.
2nd Issue W/N Illegitimate child acquired the status of legitimate child after the effectivity of New
Civil code pursuant to article 2253?
2nd Ruling No. Article 2553 provides that, “if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it
shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise thereto may have
been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation, provided said new right does not
prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin."
In this case, the right of ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question became vested in
1945 upon the death of her late husband and this is so because of the imperative provision of
the law which commands that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of
death (Article 657, old Civil Code). The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of
the illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the impairment of
the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.
3rd Issue W/N the assignment of property by Uson is valid?
3rd Ruling No. Said assignment, if any, partakes of the nature of a donation of real property, inasmuch
as it involves no material consideration, and in order that it may be valid it shall be made in a
public document and must be accepted either in the same document or in a separate one
(Article 633, old Civil Code). Inasmuch as this essential formality has not been followed, it
results that the alleged assignment or donation has no valid effect.
G.R. No. L-44837 November 23, 1938
Petitioner SOCORRO LEDESMA and ANA QUITCO LEDESMA
Respondent CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.
Topic
Facts
Issue
Ruling
