Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Villareal Law Offices Nelson Loyola

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 94918. September 2, 1992.]
DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES, MARCELO I.

SUAREZ, JR., EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON and REGINIO I. SUAREZ ,
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO,
VIOLETA RAYMUNDO, MA. CONCEPCION VITO and VIRGINIA
BANTA , respondents.
Villareal Law Offices for petitioners.

Nelson Loyola for private respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; LEGITIME; PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE

CHILDREN, DIFFERENT AND ADVERSE FROM THEIR MOTHER. — The legitime of the
surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of each child. The proprietary interest of
petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different from and adverse to that of
their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the property not because of their mother
but through their own right as children of their deceased father. Therefore, petitioners are
not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protect their
own interest.
DECISION
NOCON , J : p
The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not private respondents can validly acquire all
the five (5) parcels of land co-owned by petitioners and registered in the name of
petitioners' deceased father, Marcelo Suarez, whose estate has not been partitioned or
liquidated, after the said properties were levied and publicly sold en masse to private
respondents to satisfy the personal judgment debt of Teofista Suarez, the surviving
spouse of Marcelo Suarez, mother of herein petitioners. LLphil
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father died in 1955 and since then his
estate consisting of several valuable parcels of land in Pasig, Metro Manila has lot been
liquidated or partitioned. In 1977, petitioners' widowed mother and Rizal Realty
Corporation lost in the consolidated cases for rescission of contract and for damages,
and were ordered by Branch 1 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Branch 151,
RTC of Pasig) to pay, jointly and severally, herein respondents the aggregate principal
amount of about P70,000 as damages. 1
The judgment against petitioners' mother and Rizal Realty Corporation having become final
and executory, five (5) valuable parcel of land in Pasig, Metro Manila, (worth to be millions
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
then) were levied and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 in favor of the private
respondents as the highest bidder for the amount of P94,170.000. Private respondents
were then issued a certificate of sale which was subsequently registered or August 1,
1983.
On June 21, 1984 before the expiration of the redemption period, petitioners filed a
reivindicatory action 2 against private respondents and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal,
thereafter docketed as Civil Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction sale and the
recovery of the ownership of the levied pieces of property. Therein, they alleged, among
others, that being strangers to the case decided against their mother, they cannot be held
liable therefor and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which they are co-owners, can neither
be levied nor sold on execution.
On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal issued to private respondents a final deed
of sale 3 over the properties.
On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined by herein petitioners filed with Branch 151 a
Motion for Reconsideration 4 of the Order dated October 10, 1984, claiming that the
parcels of land are co-owned by them and further informing the Court the filing and
pendency of an action to annul the auction sale (Civil Case No. 51203), which motion
however, was denied. LibLex
On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining private
respondents from transferring to third parties the levied parcels of land based on the
finding that the auctioned lands are co-owned by petitioners.
On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 a
Motion to Dismiss for failure on the part of the petitioners to prosecute, however, such
motion was later denied by Branch 155, Regional Trial Court, Pasig.
On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss
complaint for failure to prosecute. This was granted by Branch 155 through an Order
dated May 29, 1986, notwithstanding petitioner's pending motion for the issuance of alias
summons to be served upon the other defendants in the said case. A motion for
reconsideration was filed but was later denied.
On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739 an Order
directing Teofista Suarez and all persons claiming right under her to vacate the lots
subject of the judicial sale; to desist from removing or alienating improvements thereon;
and to surrender to private respondents the owner's duplicate copy of the torrens title and
other pertinent documents.
Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari to annul
the Orders of Branch 151 dated October 10, 1984 and October 14, 1986 issued in Civil
Case Nos. 21736-21739.
On December 4, 1986 petitioners filed with Branch 155 a Motion for reconsideration of the
Order 5 dated September 24, 1986. In an Order dated June 10, 1987, 6 Branch 155 lifted its
previous order of dismissal and directed the issuance of alias summons. LLpr
Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated
February 25, 1985, 7 May 19, 1989 8 and February 26, 1990 9 issued in Civil Case No.
51203 and further ordering respondent Judge to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203. The
appellate court rendered its decision on July 27, 1990, 1 0 the dispositive portion of which
reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the questioned
orders dated February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26, 1990 issued in
Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled, further respondent Judge is ordered to
dismiss Civil Case No. 51203." 1 1
Hence, this appeal.

Even without touching on the incidents and issues raised by both petitioner and private
respondents and the developments subsequent to the filing of the complaint, We cannot
but notice the glaring error committed by the trial court.
It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue on the validity of the execution and the
manner of publicly selling en masse the subject properties for auction. To start with, only
one-half of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the auction sale.
The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the law applicable at the time of the
institution of the case.
"The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent."
Article 888 further provides: prLL
"The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of

the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of
illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided."
Article 892, par. 2 likewise provides:

"If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse
shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate
children or descendants."
Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of
each child.
The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different from
and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the property not
because of their mother but through their own right as children of their deceased father.
Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the
auction sale to protect their own interest.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 1990 as well as its
Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No.
51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which belongs to petitioners and to
annul the sale with regard to said portion. LLphil
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla and Regalado, JJ ., concur.
Melo, J ., took no part.
Footnotes
1. Record, pp. 19-24.
2. Records, pp. 38-41.
3. Records, p. 25.
5. Records, p. 46.
6. Records, p. 104.
7. Records, p. 42.
9. Records, p. 76.
10. Records, pp. 177-180.

11. Rollo, p. 18.

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Villareal Law Offices Nelson Loyola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Villareal Law Offices Nelson Loyola

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Villareal Law Offices Nelson Loyola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94918. September 2, 1992.]

DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES, MARCELO I.

Villareal Law Offices for petitioners.

1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; LEGITIME; PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Hence, this appeal.

Article 888 further provides: prLL

"The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of

Article 892, par. 2 likewise provides:

10. Records, pp. 177-180.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like