G.R. No.

150175 March 10, 2006

ERLINDA PILAPIL, HEIRS OF DONATA ORTIZ BRIONES, namely: ESTELA, 4. TCT No. 221, acquired by Maximino during the marriage (now covered by TCT No.
ERIBERTO AND VIRGILIO SANTOS, ANA SANTOS CULTURA, ELVIRA SANTOS 21544);8 and
INOCENTES, ERNESTO MENDOZA, RIZALINA SANTOS, ADOLFO MENDOZA and
PACITA MENDOZA, Petitioners, 5. TCT No. 702, acquired by Maximino during the marriage (now covered by TCT No.
21542).9
vs.

HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES, namely: SILVERIO S. BRIONES, PETRA The CFI would subsequently issue an Order, dated 2 October 1952, awarding ownership
BRIONES, BONIFACIO CABAHUG, JR., ANITA TRASMONTE, CIRILITA FORTUNA, of the aforementioned real properties to Donata. On 27 June 1960, Donata had the said
CRESENCIA BRIONES, FUGURACION MEDALLE and MERCEDES LAGBAS, CFI Order recorded in the Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds,10 and by virtue
Respondents. thereof, received new TCTs, covering the said properties, now in her name.

Donata died on 1 November 1977. Erlinda, one of Donata’s nieces, instituted with the RTC
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, a petition for the administration of the intestate estate of Donata. Erlinda and her husband,
seeking the annulment and the setting aside of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- Gregorio, were appointed by the RTC as administrators of Donata’s intestate estate.
GR CV No. 55194, dated 31 August 2001,1 affirming the decision of the Cebu City Regional Controversy arose among Donata’s heirs when Erlinda claimed exclusive ownership of
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, in Civil Case No. CEB-5794, dated 28 September 1986.2 three parcels of land, covered by TCTs No. 21542, 21545, and 58684, based on two Deeds
of Donation, both dated 15 September 1977,11 allegedly executed in her favor by her aunt
Petitioners are the heirs of the late Donata Ortiz-Briones (Donata), consisting of her Donata. The other heirs of Donata opposed Erlinda’s claim. This Court, however, was no
surviving sister, Rizalina Ortiz-Aguila (Rizalina); Rizalina’s daughter, Erlinda Pilapil longer informed of the subsequent development in the intestate proceedings of the estate
(Erlinda); and the other nephews and nieces of Donata, in representation of her two other of Donata; and as far as this Petition is concerned, all the heirs of Donata, including Erlinda,
sisters who had also passed away. Respondents, on the other hand, are the heirs of the appear to be on the same side.
late Maximino Briones (Maximino), composed of his nephews and nieces, and
grandnephews and grandnieces, in representation of the deceased siblings of Maximino. On 21 January 1985, Silverio Briones (Silverio), a nephew of Maximino, filed a Petition12
with the RTC for Letters of Administration13 for the intestate estate of Maximino, which was
The facts that gave rise to the petition at bar are recounted as follows. initially granted by the RTC. The RTC also issued an Order, dated 5 December 1985,
allowing Silverio to collect rentals from Maximino’s properties. But then, Gregorio filed with
Maximino was married to Donata but their union did not produce any children. When the RTC a Motion to Set Aside the Order, dated 5 December 1985, claiming that the said
Maximino died on 1 May 1952, Donata instituted intestate proceedings to settle her properties were already under his and his wife’s administration as part of the intestate
husband’s estate with the Cebu City Court of First Instance (CFI), 14th Judicial District, estate of Donata.14 Silverio’s Letters of Administration for the intestate estate of Maximino
designated as Special Proceedings No. 928-R. On 8 July 1952, the CFI issued Letters of was subsequently set aside by the RTC.15
Administration3 appointing Donata as the administratrix of Maximino’s estate. She
submitted an Inventory4 of Maximino’s properties, which included, among other things, the On 3 March 1987, the heirs of Maximino filed a Complaint16 with the RTC against the heirs
following parcels of land – of Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of real property,
docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-5794. They later filed an Amended Complaint,17 on 11
1. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-599, acquired by Maximino prior to his marriage December 1992. They alleged that Donata, as administratrix of the estate of Maximino,
(now covered by TCT No. 21546);5 through fraud and misrepresentation, in breach of trust, and without the knowledge of the
other heirs, succeeded in registering in her name the real properties belonging to the
2. TCT No. RT-600, acquired by Maximino prior to his marriage (now covered by TCT No. intestate estate of Maximino.
21545);6
In their Answer18 to the Complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-5794, the heirs of Donata raised,
as affirmative and special defenses, the following – In the absence of partition of the estate of Maximino S. Briones all the properties left upon
his death remained owned in common by his heirs consisting of his surviving spouse and
1. The complaint does not state a sufficient cause of action against the defendants; the heirs of his deceased brothers and sisters the herein plaintiffs. Donata Ortiz Briones’s
possession and transfer of the title in her name of her late husband’s properties was no
2. That the titles to the lots in question were legally transferred to the name of the late more than that of a co-owner and no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir
Donata Ortiz Briones since 1952 when the surviving heirs of Maximino Briones sold their against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
rights over the said properties to the late Donata Ortiz Briones; ownership (Last paragraph, Art. 494, New Civil Code). Such titles cannot be used as a
shield to perpetrate fraud.
3. That even granting arguendo that plaintiffs have the right to question the transfer to the
name of the late Donata Ortiz Briones the titles of the said lots any action of that effect has xxxx
definitely prescribed for more than 30 years have already occurred when the titles to said
lots were transferred to the name of the late Donata Ortiz Briones; Since the inventory filed by Donata Ortiz Briones (Exhibit B) has been adopted as Exhibit
3 by defendants Erlinda Pilapil, Rizalina Ortiz Aguila and the Mendozas, said defendants
4. That moreover, even granting arguendo that there is an implied trust, an implied trust are bound by the contents thereof. Defendants, however, failed to show the order of the
prescribed in 10 years from the day titles to said lots have been transferred to the name of Court of First Instance of Cebu dated October 2, 1952 mentioned in the primary entry book
the late Donata Ortiz Briones. Consequently, the plaintiff’s action to enforce an implied trust (Exhibit 4) and marked as Exhibit 4-C, an omission which amounts to suppression of
has definitely prescribed; evidence which is presumed adverse to the defendant’s interest when produced. This
supposed declaration of heirs declaring the late Donata O. Briones as the sole, absolute
5. Be that as it may, plaintiffs whose claim is merely in a representative capacity acquires and exclusive heir of the late Maximino S. Briones entered in the primary entry book in the
no better right or title than that of their predecessor-in-interest. office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu City has been made thru Donata O. Briones’s
misrepresentation to the Court as Administratrix of the estate of her husband Maximino S.
After trial in due course, the RTC rendered its Decision, dated 8 April 1986, in favor of the Briones by failing to honestly disclose to the Court that the decedent was survived not only
heirs of Maximino,19 pertinent portions thereof are reproduced below – by his widow but also by his brothers and sisters and/or their children by right of
representation which fact was known to her at the time of her husband’s death.
When Donata Ortiz Briones filed Special Proceedings No. 928-R she was fully aware of the
existence of the hereditary rights of the brothers and sisters of her husband Maximino S. Hence, the RTC declared that the heirs of Maximino were entitled to ½ of the real properties
Briones and their surviving heirs and it was her duty to have informed the Court of such covered by TCTs No. 21542, 21543, 21544, 21545, 21546, and 58684. It also ordered
fact instead of asking the Court to have her declared as the sole heir of her deceased Erlinda to reconvey to the heirs of Maximino the said properties and to render an accounting
husband in the alleged order mentioned by the defendants which was never presented at of the fruits thereof.
the trial but was made the basis of the transfer of all the titles of the real properties left by
Maximino S. Briones to the name of Donata Ortiz Briones to the prejudice of the heirs of The heirs of Donata appealed the RTC Decision, dated 8 April 1986, to the Court of
the brothers and sisters of Maximino S. Briones. Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision,20 promulgated on 31 August 2001, affirmed
the RTC Decision, ratiocinating thus –
xxxx
The contentions of defendants-appellants are devoid of merit.
By having the immovable properties of the deceased Maximino S. Briones transferred in
her name as the sole heir of the said deceased despite her knowledge of the existence of At the outset, the proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration was invalid. Firstly,
other co-heirs like the plaintiffs, Donata Ortiz Briones’s alleged ownership and possession Donata did not include in her petition for letters of administration the names, ages and
of the subject properties in question was that of a trustee in an implied trust under Article residences of the heirs as required by Rule 79, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court. Secondly,
1451 of the New Civil Code x x x. the court failed to give notice to the known heirs that a petition has been filed, and the time
and place for hearing thereof as provided in Section 3 of the same rule, to give them ample
xxxx opportunity to oppose it, if warranted. Thirdly, the court failed to do its specific duty to
require proof, at the hearing of the petition, that the aforementioned notice has been given
to the heirs in accordance with Section 5 of the same rule. Furthermore, it is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that a co-owner may not acquire
exclusive ownership of common property thru prescription. [Castillo vs. Court of Appeals,
Consequently, the Order declaring Donata as the sole and exclusive heir would not be L-18046, March 31, 1964]
binding against herein plaintiffs-appellees.
xxxx
xxxx
In determining whether a delay in seeking to enforce a right constitutes laches, the
It should be noted that plaintiffs-appellees’ cause of action was not based merely on fraud existence of a confidential relationship between the parties is an important circumstance
but was primarily anchored on their right to inheritance and to have a partition of the same, for consideration. The doctrine of laches is not strictly applied between near relatives, and
both of which are imprescriptible as a general rule. With marked relevance is the fact that the fact that parties are connected by ties of blood or marriage tends to excuse an otherwise
their Complaint is for Partition, Annulment and Recovery of Possession of Real Property. unreasonable delay. [Gallardo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 67742, 29
October 1987]
With respect to the argument on implied trust, We subscribe to the view that there existed
an implied/constructive trust where, through fraudulent representations or by pretending to Unsatisfied with the afore-quoted Decision of the Court of Appeals, the heirs of Donata filed
be the sole heir of the deceased, an heir succeeded in having the original title of a land in the present Petition,21 raising the following errors:
the name of the deceased cancelled and a new one issued in his name thereby enabling
him to possess the land and get its produce. [Baysa vs. Baysa, [CA] 53 O.G. 7282, October I. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE CASE AS HAVING
1957] BEEN BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION;

This being so, the trustee may claim title by prescription founded on adverse possession II. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE CASE AS HAVING
where it appears that: (a) he has performed open and unequivocal acts of repudiation BEEN BARRED BY LACHES; AND
amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners; (b) such positive acts of repudiation have
been made known to the other co-owners; and (c) the evidence thereon should be clear III. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES,
and convincing; and (d) the period fixed by law has prescribed. [De Leon, Partnership, WHETHER CAPITAL PROPERTIES OF MAXIMINO OR CONJUGAL PROPERTIES OF
Agency and Trusts, 4th Edition, 1996] MAXIMINO AND DONATA BRIONES, BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENTS.
These conditions were not complied with in the case at bench. Assuming arguendo that the
issuance of the TCT would constitute an open and clear repudiation of the trust, it is well to Contrary to the conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC in their respective
note however that the required period has not yet elapsed. Article 1137 [New Civil Code] Decisions, this Court finds the Petition at bar meritorious and dismisses the Complaint for
provides that, "ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of real property filed before the RTC by
uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good the heirs of Maximino in Civil Case No. CEB-5794. Not only is the Complaint barred by prior
faith." This period should be counted from the date the adverse title was asserted, that is, judgment, the complainants therein, the heirs of Maximino, failed to satisfactorily establish
from the registration of the title. The TCTs covering the property in question were registered their right to the remedies prayed for therein.
in 1960 or 27 years at the time of the filing of the Complaint in 1987.
Maximino left no will at the time of his death, on 1 May 1952, and his estate was to be
Moreover, there is neither an adverse possession to speak of since Donata and the Heirs settled in accordance with the rules on legal or intestate succession. The heirs of Maximino,
of Briones are deemed co-owners of the property in question in accordance with Article respondents in the Petition at bar, claimed the right to inherit, together with Donata, from
1078. [New Civil Code] Hence, mere actual possession by Donata will not give rise to the the estate of Maximino, based on the Articles 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code, which
inference that the possession was adverse. This is because Donata after all is entitled to read –
possession of the property as a co-owner.
ART. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants, and illegitimate
xxxx children and their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall
inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers and sisters, nephews and While it is true that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the RTC are binding and
nieces, should there be any, under article 1001. conclusive upon this Court, such is not absolute, and there are recognized exceptions
thereto. This Court justifies its departure from the general rule and the conduct of its own
ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, review of the evidence and other records in the Petition at bar, given that (1) the factual
the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC are grounded entirely on speculation,
children to the other half. surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made were manifestly mistaken; and (3) the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the RTC are conclusions without citation of
The heirs of Maximino asserted that Donata had fraudulently excluded them from the specific evidence on which they are based.22
intestate proceedings of the estate of Maximino before the CFI . They were not given notice
of the institution of Special Proceedings No. 928-R and the scheduled hearings therein. At the onset, it should be emphasized that Donata was able to secure the TCTs covering
When Donata was declared the "sole, absolute, and exclusive heir" of Maximino in the CFI the real properties belonging to the estate of Maximino by virtue of a CFI Order, dated 2
Order, dated 2 October 1952, and when she managed to have the real properties of October 1952. It is undisputed that the said CFI Order was issued by the CFI in Special
Maximino registered in her own name on the basis of the foregoing CFI Order, she should Proceedings No. 928-R, instituted by Donata herself, to settle the intestate estate of
be deemed to have held the said properties in trust for her other co-heirs. Maximino. The petitioners, heirs of Donata, were unable to present a copy of the CFI Order,
but this is not surprising considering that it was issued 35 years prior to the filing by the
The RTC in its Decision, dated 8 April 1986, justified its finding of implied trust on Article heirs of Maximino of their Complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-5794 on 3 March 1987. The
1451 of the New Civil Code, which provides that, "When land passes by succession to any existence of such CFI Order, nonetheless, cannot be denied. It was recorded in the Primary
person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established Entry Book of the Register of Deeds on 27 June 1960, at 1:10 p.m., as Entry No. 1714.23
by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner." This Court, though, believes that It was annotated on the TCTs covering the real properties as having declared Donata the
Article 1451 is not applicable to the instant Petition considering that it refers to a situation sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of Maximino. The non-presentation of the actual CFI
wherein the heir himself causes the registration of his legal title under the name of another; Order was not fatal to the cause of the heirs of Donata considering that its authenticity and
the heir, by his voluntary action, establishes the implied trust and constitutes himself as the contents were never questioned. The allegation of fraud by the heirs of Maximino did not
trustee. In contrast, in the Petition herein, Donata managed to have the real properties pertain to the CFI Order, but to the manner or procedure by which it was issued in favor of
belonging to the estate of Maximino registered under her own name to the supposed Donata. Moreover, the non-presentation of the CFI Order, contrary to the declaration by
exclusion of all other legal heirs of her deceased husband. In such a case, implied trust the RTC, does not amount to a willful suppression of evidence that would give rise to the
may be more appropriately in accordance with Article 1456 of the New Civil Code, which presumption that it would be adverse to the heirs of Donata if produced.24 As this Court
declares that, "If the property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it already expounded in the case of People v. Jumamoy25 –
is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes." x x x We reiterate the rule that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is
not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the evidence suppressed or
Now the foremost question that needs to be answered is whether an implied trust under withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the disposal of both
Article 1456 of the New Civil Code had been sufficiently established in the instant Petition. parties; and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Moreover, if the accused
This Court answers in the negative. believed that the failure to present the other witnesses was because their testimonies would
be unfavorable to the prosecution, he should have compelled their appearance, by
Since it was the respondents, heirs of Maximino, who claimed the existence of an implied compulsory process, to testify as his own witnesses or even as hostile witnesses.
trust, they bear the burden of proving that Donata registered in her own name the real
properties belonging to the estate of Maximino either by fraud or mistake, pursuant to Article If there is indeed a surviving copy of the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, then there is no
1456 of the New Civil Code. The heirs of Maximino never contended that Donata may have reason to believe that it would be exclusively available only to the heirs of Donata and not
registered the real properties in her name by mistake, but repeatedly maintain that she did to the heirs of Maximino. It is important to note that two of the documents relating to Special
so by fraud. Both the Court of Appeals and the RTC, in their respective Decisions, found Proceedings No. 928-R, namely, (1) the Letters of Administration issued in favor of Donata
that Donata secured the CFI Order, dated 02 October 1952, and the new TCTs covering by the CFI, and (2) the Inventory submitted by Donata to the CFI, were actually produced
the real properties in her name fraudulently. before the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-5794 by the heirs of Maximino. It only goes to show
that the heirs of Maximino did have access to the records of Special Proceedings No. 928-
R in which the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, was issued. If there was still a copy of the the other heirs of Maximino? Second, there was also no evidence showing that the CFI
CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, in the records of Special Proceedings No. 928-R, and actually failed to send notices of Special Proceedings No. 928-R to the heirs of Maximino
the contents of such Order were truly adverse to the heirs of Donata, then it would have or that it did not require presentation of proof of service of such notices. It should be
been more compelling for the heirs of Maximino to present it before the RTC in Civil Case remembered that there stands a presumption that the CFI Judge had regularly performed
No. CEB-5794, with the aid of the appropriate court processes if necessary. his duties in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, which included sending out of notices and
requiring the presentation of proof of service of such notices; and, the heirs of Maximino
The CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, issued in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, effectively did not propound sufficient evidence to debunk such presumption. They only made a
settled the intestate estate of Maximino by declaring Donata as the sole, absolute, and general denial of knowledge of Special Proceedings No. 928-R, at least until 1985. There
exclusive heir of her deceased husband. The issuance by the CFI of the said Order, as well was no testimony or document presented in which the heirs of Maximino categorically
as its conduct of the entire Special Proceedings No. 928-R, enjoy the presumption of denied receipt of notice from the CFI of the pendency of Special Proceedings No. 928-R.
validity pursuant to the Section 3(m) and (n) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, The only evidence on record in reference to the absence of notice of such proceedings was
reproduced below – the testimony of Aurelia Briones (Aurelia),28 one of the heirs of Maximino, to wit –

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if Q When the husband of defendant Erlinda Pilapil was presented before this Court he
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: testified that when the late Donata Ortiz filed a petition to be declared sole heir according
to him the brothers and sisters of the late Maximino Briones were notified of the said
xxxx hearing. What can you say about this, Ms. Witness?

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; A No, I don’t think they were notified. They would have contested their right to inherit their
brother’s property because he had no issue with his wife.
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. Q Likewise the same witness testified that at the time the petition was granted there was
no opposition from the heirs. What can you say about this, Ms. Witness?
By reason of the foregoing provisions, this Court must presume, in the absence of any clear
and convincing proof to the contrary, that the CFI in Special Proceedings No. 928-R had A I don’t think they were notified because I know they will contest that declaration.
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and to have rendered a judgment valid in
every respect;26 and it could not give credence to the following statements made by the Aurelia’s testimony deserves scant credit considering that she was not testifying on matters
Court of Appeals in its Decision27 – within her personal knowledge. The phrase "I don’t think" is a clear indication that she is
merely voicing out her opinion on how she believed her uncles and aunts would have acted
At the outset, the proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration was invalid. Firstly, had they received notice of Special Proceedings No. 928-R.
Donata did not include in her petition for letters of administration the names, ages and
residences of the heirs as required by Rule 79, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court. Secondly, In further support of their contention of fraud by Donata, the heirs of Maximino even
the court failed to give notice to the known heirs that a petition has been filed, and the time emphasized that Donata lived along the same street as some of the siblings of Maximino
and place for hearing thereof as provided in Section 3 of the same rule, to give them ample and, yet, she failed to inform them of the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, in Special
opportunity to oppose it, if warranted. Thirdly, the court failed to do its specific duty to Proceedings No. 928-R, and the issuance in her name of new TCTs covering the real
require proof, at the hearing of the petition, that the aforementioned notice has been given properties which belonged to the estate of Maximino. This Court, however, appreciates
to the heirs in accordance with Section 5 of the same rule. such information differently. It actually works against the heirs of Maximino. Since they only
lived nearby, Maximino’s siblings had ample opportunity to inquire or discuss with Donata
There was totally no evidentiary basis for the foregoing pronouncements. First of all, the the status of the estate of their deceased brother. Some of the real properties, which
Petition filed by Donata for Letters of Administration in Special Proceedings No. 928-R belonged to the estate of Maximino, were also located within the same area as their
before the CFI was not even referred to nor presented during the course of the trial of Civil residences in Cebu City, and Maximino’s siblings could have regularly observed the actions
Case No. CEB-5794 before the RTC. How then could the Court of Appeals make a finding and behavior of Donata with regard to the said real properties. It is uncontested that from
that Donata willfully excluded from the said Petition the names, ages, and residences of the time of Maximino’s death on 1 May 1952, Donata had possession of the real properties.
She managed the real properties and even collected rental fees on some of them until her in such cases, if the parties are living, from the frailty of memory, and human infirmity, is,
own death on 1 November 1977. After Donata’s death, Erlinda took possession of the real that the material facts can be given with certainty to a common intent; and, if the parties
properties, and continued to manage the same and collect the rental fees thereon. Donata are dead, and the cases rest in confidence, and in parol agreements, the most that we can
and, subsequently, Erlinda, were so obviously exercising rights of ownership over the real hope is to arrive at probable conjectures, and to substitute general presumptions of law, for
properties, in exclusion of all others, which must have already put the heirs of Maximino on exact knowledge. Fraud, or breach of trust, ought not lightly to be imputed to the living; for,
guard if they truly believed that they still had rights thereto. the legal presumption is the other way; as to the dead, who are not here to answer for
themselves, it would be the height of injustice and cruelty, to disturb their ashes, and violate
The heirs of Maximino knew he died on 1 May 1952. They even attended his wake. They the sanctity of the grave, unless the evidence of fraud be clear, beyond a reasonable doubt
did not offer any explanation as to why they had waited 33 years from Maximino’s death (Prevost vs. Gratz, 6 Wheat. [U.S.], 481, 498)."
before one of them, Silverio, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration for the intestate
estate of Maximino on 21 January 1985. After learning that the intestate estate of Maximino It is granted that the heirs of Maximino had rights to his intestate estate upon his death on
was already settled in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, they waited another two years, 1 May 1952, by virtue of Articles 995 and 1005 of the New Civil Code. Nonetheless, the
before instituting, on 3 March 1987, Civil Case No. CEB-5794, the Complaint for partition, CFI, in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, had declared Donata as the sole, absolute, and
annulment and recovery of the real property belonging to the estate of Maximino. The heirs exclusive heir of Maximino in its Order, dated 2 October 1952. This Court, in the absence
of Maximino put off acting on their rights to the estate of Maximino for so long that when of evidence to the contrary, can only presume that Special Proceedings No. 928-R was fair
they finally did, attributing fraud to Maximino’s wife, Donata, the latter had already passed and regular, which would consequently mean that the CFI complied with the procedural
away, on 1 November 1977, and was no longer around to explain and defend herself. The requirements for intestate proceedings such as publication and notice to interested parties,
delay of the heirs of Maximino is not without consequence, as this Court explained in and that the CFI had carefully reviewed and studied the claims of creditors, as well as the
Ramos v. Ramos29 – rights of heirs to the estate, before issuing the Order, dated 2 October 1952. There is no
showing that the Order, dated 2 October 1952, had been appealed and had, therefore, long
Parenthetically, it may be noted that the filing of the instant case long after the death of attained finality, which even this Court would be bound to respect. Without doubt, if the
Jose Ramos and other persons involved in the intestate proceeding renders it difficult to action for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession instituted by the heirs of
determine with certitude whether the plaintiffs had really been defrauded - What Justice Maximino in Civil Case No. CEB-5794 succeeds, then, it would be a circumvention of the
Street said in Sinco vs. Longa, 51 Phil. 507, 518-9 is relevant to this case: finality of the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, in Special Proceedings No. 928-R,
because, necessarily, a recognition of the rights of the other heirs to the estate of Maximino
"In passing upon controversies of this character experience teaches the danger of would violate the sole, absolute, and exclusive right of Donata to the same estate previously
accepting lightly charges of fraud made many years after the transaction in question was determined by the CFI. As this Court had discussed in Ramos v. Ortuzar30 –
accomplished, when death may have sealed the lips of the principal actors and changes
effected by time may have given a totally different color to the cause of controversy. In the If we are to assume that Richard Hill and Marvin Hill did not formally intervene, still they
case before us the guardian, Emilio Tevez, is dead. The same is true of Trinidad Diago, would be concluded by the result of the proceedings, not only as to their civil status but as
mother of the defendant Agueda Longa; while Agapito Longa is now living in Spain. It will the distribution of the estate as well. As this Court has held in Manolo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil.
be borne in mind also that, insofar as oral proof is concerned, the charge of fraud rests 938, "The proceeding for probate is one in rem (40 Cyc., 1265) and the court acquires
principally on the testimony of a single witness who, if fraud was committed, was a jurisdiction over all persons interested, through the publication of the notice prescribed by
participant therein and who naturally would now be anxious, so far as practicable, to put sec. 630 C. P. C.; and any order that may be entered therein is binding against all of them."
the blame on others. In this connection it is well to bear in mind the following impressive (See also in re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156) "A final order of distribution of the estate of
language of Mr. Justice Story: a deceased person vests the title to the land of the estate in the distributees." (Santos vs.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Caceres, 45 Phil. 895) There is no reason why, by
"x x x But length of time necessarily obscures all human evidence; and as it thus removes analogy, these salutory doctrines should not apply to intestate proceedings.
from the parties all the immediate means to verify the nature of the original transactions, it
operates by way of presumption, in favor of innocence, and against imputation of fraud. It The only instance that we can think of in which a party interested in a probate proceeding
would be unreasonable, after a great length of time, to require exact proof of all the minute may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances
circumstances of any transaction, or to expect a satisfactory explanation of every difficulty, beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even
real or apparent, with which it may be encumbered. The most that can fairly be expected, then, the better practice to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper motion
within the reglementary period, instead of an independent action the effect of which, if
successful, would be, as in the instant case, for another court or judge to throw out a
decision or order already final and executed and reshuffle properties long ago distributed
and disposed of.

In summary, the heirs of Maximino failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
Donata managed, through fraud, to have the real properties, belonging to the intestate
estate of Maximino, registered in her name. In the absence of fraud, no implied trust was
established between Donata and the heirs of Maximino under Article 1456 of the New Civil
Code. Donata was able to register the real properties in her name, not through fraud or
mistake, but pursuant to an Order, dated 2 October 1952, issued by the CFI in Special
Proceedings No. 928-R. The CFI Order, presumed to be fairly and regularly issued,
declared Donata as the sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of Maximino; hence, making
Donata the singular owner of the entire estate of Maximino, including the real properties,
and not merely a co-owner with the other heirs of her deceased husband. There being no
basis for the Complaint of the heirs of Maximino in Civil Case No. CEB-5794, the same
should have been dismissed.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR
CV No. 55194, dated 31 August 2001, affirming the Decision of the Cebu City RTC in Civil
Case No. CEB-5794, dated 28

September 1986, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and the Complaint for partition,
annulment, and recovery of possession filed by the heirs of Maximino in Civil Case No.
CEB-5794 is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.