Wills & Succession
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Civil Law – Wills & Succession Case Digests DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW LIST OF CASES Wills & Succession DKC Holdings vs. CA 329 SCRA 66 Genato v. Bayhon G.R. No. 172035 August 24, 2009 Litonjua vs. Montilla 90 Phil. 757 Ledesma vs. McLachlin 66 Phil. 547 Coronel vs. Court of Appeals 263 SCRA 15 Dela Merced v. Dela Merced G.R. No. 126707 February 25, 1999 Aruego vs. CA 254 SCRA 711 Lorenzo vs. Posadas 64 Phil. 353 Castaneda vs. Alemany 3 Phil. 426 In Re Will of Riosa 39 Phil 23 Enriquez vs. Abadia 95 SCRA 627 Miciano vs. Brimo 50 Phil. 867 Bellis vs. Bellis 20 SCRA 358 Baltazar vs. Laxa G.R. No. 174489 April 11, 2012 Bugnao vs. Ubag 14 Phil 163 Bagtas vs.Paguio 22 Phil. 227 Neyra vs. Neyra 76 Phil. 333 Acop vs. Piraso 52 Phil. 660 Bascara v. Javier G.R. No. 188069(805) June 17, 2015 Valmonte v. Ortega G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005 In Re Lopez G.R. No. 189984 November 12, 2012 Jaboneta vs. Gustilo 5 Phil. 541 Avera vs. Garcia 42 Phil. 145 Icasiano vs. Icasiano 11 SCRA 423 Cagro vs. Cagro 92 Phil. 1033 Nera vs. Rimandi 18 Phil. 450 Caneda vs. CA 222 SCRA 781 Cruz vs. Villasor 54 SCRA 31 Azuela v. Castillo April 12, 2006 Roxas de Jesus vs. De Jesus 134 SCRA 245 Labrador vs. CA 184 SCRA 170 Ajero vs. CA 236 SCRA 488 Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 Perez vs. Tolete 232 SCRA 722 Testate Estate of Bohanan 106 Phil 997 Aznar vs. Garcia 7 SCRA 95 Unson vs. Abella 43 Phil. 494 Testate Estate of Maloto 158 SCRA 451 Molo vs. Molo 90 Phil. 37 Tolentino vs. Francisco 57 Phil. 749 Mercado vs. Santos 66 Phil. 215 Testate Estate of Biascan vs. Biascan 347 SCRA 621 Nuguid vs. Nuguid 17 SCRA 449 1 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Morales v. Olondriz G.R. 198994 February 3, 2016 Caniza vs. CA 268 SCRA 641 Pecson vs. Coronel 45 Phil. 216 Acain vs. IAC 155 SCRA 101 Neri vs. Akutin 74 Phil. 185 Viado Non vs. Court of Appeals 325 SCRA 652 Perez vs. Garchitorena 54 Phil 431 Rabadilla vs. CA 334 SCRA 522 Morente vs. dela Santa 9 Phil. 387 Rosales vs. Rosales 148 SCRA 69 Parulan v. Garcia June 9, 2014 Francisco vs. Alfonso G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 Nieva vs. Alcala 41 Phil. 915 Florentino vs. Florentino 40 Phil. 480 Solivio vs. CA 182 SCRA 119 Sumaya vs. IAC 201 SCRA 178 Mendoza v. Policarpio G.R. NO. 176422 March 20, 2013 De Papa vs. Camacho 144 SCRA 281 Llorente vs. Rodriguez 10 Phil. 585 Ching v. Rodriguez G.R. No. 192828 November 28, 2011 Pecson vs. Mediavillo 28 Phil. 81 Dorotheo vs. CA 320 SCRA 12 Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA 284 SCRA 511 Ang vs. Pacunio G.R. No. 208928 (970) July 8, 2015 Sayson vs. CA 205 SCRA 321 Bagunu vs. Piedad 347 SCRA 571 Diaz vs. IAC 182 SCRA 427 Pascual vs. Bautista 207 SCRA 561 Manuel vs. Ferrer 247 SCRA 476 Tison vs. CA 276 SCRA 582 Verdad vs. CA 256 SCRA 593 Cacho vs. Udan 13 SCRA 693 Sarita vs. Candia 23 Phil. 443 Coja vs. Aquillo Dec. 10, 2007 Abellana de Bacayo vs. Borromeo 14 SCRA 986 Bicomong vs. Almanza 80 SCRA 421 City of Manila vs. Archbishop 36 Phil. 815 Torres vs. Lopez 49 Phil. 504 Nepomuceno vs. IAC 139 SCRA 206 Sanchez vs. CA 279 SCRA 647 Nazareno vs. CA 343 SCRA 637 Zaragosa vs. CA 341 SCRA 309 Mendoza vs. CA 199 SCRA 778 Aznar Brothers Realty vs. CA 327 SCRA 359 Ralla vs. Untalan 172 SCRA 858 Balanay vs. Martinez 64 SCRA 452 Plan vs. IAC 135 SCRA 270 MITRA VS. SABLAN-GUEVARRA, GR NO. 213994 18 APRIL 2018 MAYUGA VS. ATIENZA, GR NO. 2018197 10 JANUARY 2018 2 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW DKC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- COURT OF APPEALS, VICTOR U. BARTOLOME AND REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR METRO MANILA, DISTRICT III, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 118248, FIRST DIVISION, April 5, 2000, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. The Petitioner entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with the mother of the Respondent. When the mother of the Respondent died, the latter refused to honor the said contract and alleged that said obligation was extinguished by the death of his mother and was not transmitted to his as the heir. In the case at bar, there is no personal act required from the late Encarnacion Bartolome. Rather, the obligation of Encarnacion in the contract to deliver possession of the subject property to petitioner upon the exercise by the latter of its option to lease the same may very well be performed by her heir Victor. It is futile for Victor to insist that he is not a party to the contract because of the clear provision of Article 1311 of the Civil Code. Indeed, being an heir of Encarnacion, there is privity of interest between him and his deceased mother. He only succeeds to what rights his mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as against him. FACTS: The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land located in Malinta, Valenzuela, Metro Manila which was originally owned by private respondent Victor U. Bartolome's deceased mother, Encarnacion Bartolome. This lot was in front of one of the textile plants of petitioner and, as such, was seen by the latter as a potential warehouse site. Petitioner entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with Encarnacion Bartolome, whereby petitioner was given the option to lease or lease with purchase the subject land, which option must be exercised within a period of two years counted from the signing of the Contract. In turn, petitioner undertook to pay P3, 000.00 a month as consideration for the reservation of its option. Within the two-year period, petitioner shall serve formal written notice upon the lessor Encarnacion Bartolome of its desire to exercise its option. Petitioner regularly paid the monthly P3, 000.00 provided for by the Contract to Encarnacion until her death. Thereafter, petitioner coursed its payment to private respondent Victor Bartolome, being the sole heir of Encarnacion. Victor, however, refused to accept these payments. Meanwhile, Victor executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication over all the properties of Encarnacion, including the subject lot. Accordingly, respondent Register of Deeds issued a Transfer Certificate in the name of Victor Bartolome. Petitioner served upon Victor a notice that it was exercising its option to lease the property, tendering the amount of P15, 000.00 as rent for the month of March. Again, Victor refused to accept the tendered rental fee and to surrender possession of the property to petitioner. Petitioner thus opened a Savings Account with the China Banking Corporation, Cubao Branch, in the name of Victor Bartolome and deposited therein the P15, 000.00 rental fee for March as well as P6, 000.00 reservation fees for the months of February and March. Petitioner also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the title of Victor to the property but the Register of Deeds refused to register or annotate the same or even enter it in the day book or primary register. 3 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Thus, on April 23, 1990, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Victor and the Register of Deeds. Petitioner prayed for the surrender and delivery of possession of the subject land in accordance with the Contract terms; the surrender of title for registration and annotation thereon of the Contract; and the payment of damages. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its Decision, dismissing the Complaint and ordering petitioner to pay Victor P30, 000.00 as attorney's fees. On appeal to the CA, the Decision was affirmed in toto. Hence, this Petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy entered into by the late Encarnacion Bartolome with petitioner was terminated upon her death or whether it binds her sole heir, Victor, even after her demise? RULING: The general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. In the case at bar, there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and obligations under the contract intransmissible. More importantly, the nature of the rights and obligations therein are, by their nature, transmissible. The nature of intransmissible rights as explained by Arturo Tolentino, an eminent civilist, is as follows: Among contracts which are intransmissible are those which are purely personal, either by provision of law, such as in cases of partnerships and agency, or by the very nature of the obligations arising therefrom, such as those requiring special personal qualifications of the obligor. It may also be stated that contracts for the payment of money debts are not transmitted to the heirs of a party, but constitute a charge against his estate. Thus, where the client in a contract for professional services of a lawyer died, leaving minor heirs, and the lawyer, instead of presenting his claim for professional services under the contract to the probate court, substituted the minors as parties for his client, it was held that the contract could not be enforced against the minors; the lawyer was limited to a recovery on the basis of quantum meruit.” In American jurisprudence, "(W)here acts stipulated in a contract require the exercise of special knowledge, genius, skill, taste, ability, experience, judgment, discretion, integrity, or other personal qualification of one or both parties, the agreement is of a personal nature, and terminates on the death of the party who is required to render such service." It has also been held that a good measure for determining whether a contract terminates upon the death of one of the parties is whether it is of such a character that it may be performed by the promissor's personal representative.