Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Ramos Vs Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Junelyn T. Ella
    This document summarizes a legal case regarding the partition of an intestate estate between legitimate and natural children. It details that Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died in 1906 and 1880, respectively, leaving behind 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children of Martin's. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate for over 6 years before a partition was approved, dividing the estate among the legitimate and 2 of the natural children. In 1914, the court asked Rafael to prove the shares were distributed, but he did not strictly comply. This led the natural children to sue for their shares of land, but the court dismissed due to prescription, laches, and res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramos Vs Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Junelyn T. Ella
    51 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a legal case regarding the partition of an intestate estate between legitimate and natural children. It details that Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died in 1906 and 1880, respectively, leaving behind 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children of Martin's. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate for over 6 years before a partition was approved, dividing the estate among the legitimate and 2 of the natural children. In 1914, the court asked Rafael to prove the shares were distributed, but he did not strictly comply. This led the natural children to sue for their shares of land, but the court dismissed due to prescription, laches, and res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the

    Original Title

    Ramos vs Ramos.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a legal case regarding the partition of an intestate estate between legitimate and natural children. It details that Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died in 1906 and 1880, respectively, leaving behind 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children of Martin's. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate for over 6 years before a partition was approved, dividing the estate among the legitimate and 2 of the natural children. In 1914, the court asked Rafael to prove the shares were distributed, but he did not strictly comply. This led the natural children to sue for their shares of land, but the court dismissed due to prescription, laches, and res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views2 pages

    Ramos Vs Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Junelyn T. Ella
    This document summarizes a legal case regarding the partition of an intestate estate between legitimate and natural children. It details that Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died in 1906 and 1880, respectively, leaving behind 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children of Martin's. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate for over 6 years before a partition was approved, dividing the estate among the legitimate and 2 of the natural children. In 1914, the court asked Rafael to prove the shares were distributed, but he did not strictly comply. This led the natural children to sue for their shares of land, but the court dismissed due to prescription, laches, and res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FACTS: Spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4,

    1906 and October 26, 1880, respectively. They were survived by their
    3 children. Moreover, Martin was survived by his 7 natural children. In
    December 1906, a special proceeding for the settlement of the
    intestate estate of said spouses was conducted. Rafael Ramos, a
    brother of Martin, administered the estate for more than 6 years.
    Eventually, a partition project was submitted which was signed by the 3
    legitimate children and 2 of the 7 natural children. A certain Timoteo
    Zayco signed in representation of the other 5 natural children who
    were minors. The partition was sworn to before a justice of peace.

    The conjugal hereditary estate was appraised at P74,984.93, consisting


    of 18 parcels of land, some head of cattle and the advances to the
    legitimate children. ½ thereof represented the estate of Martin. 1/3
    thereof was the free portion or P12,497.98. The shares of the 7
    natural children were to be taken from that 1/3 free portion. Indeed,
    the partition was made in accordance with the Old Civil code.
    Thereafter, Judge Richard Campbell approved the partition project.
    The court declared that the proceeding will be considered closed and
    the record should be archived as soon as proof was submitted that
    each he3ir had received the portion adjudicated to him.

    On February 3, 1914, Judge Nepumoceno asked the administrator to


    submit a report showing that the shares of the heirs had been
    delivered to them as required by the previous decision. Nevertheless,
    the manifestation was not in strict conformity with the terms of the
    judge’s order and with the partition project itself. 8 lots of the
    Himamaylan Cadastre were registered in equal shares in the names of
    Gregoria (widow of Jose Ramos) and her daughter, when in fact the
    administrator was supposed to pay the cash adjudications to each of
    them as enshrined in the partition project. Plaintiffs were then
    constrained to bring the suit before the court seeking for the
    reconveyance in their favor their corresponding participations in said
    parcels of land in accordance with Article 840 of the old Civil Code.
    Note that 1/6 of the subject lots represents the 1/3 free portion of
    martin’s shares which will eventually redound to the shares of his 7
    legally acknowledged natural children. The petitioners’ action was
    predicated on the theory that their shares were merely held in trust
    by defendants. Nonetheless, no Deed of Trust was alleged and proven.
    Ultimately, the lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of
    res judicata, prescription and laches.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiffs’ action was barred by


    prescription, laches and res judicata to the effect that they were
    denied of their right to share in their father’s estate.

    RULING: YES, there was inexcusable delay thereby making the


    plaintiffs’ action unquestionably barred by prescription and laches and
    also by res judicata. Inextricably interwoven with the questions of
    prescription and res judicata is the question on the existence of a
    trust. It is noteworthy that the main thrust of plaintiffs’ action is the
    alleged holding of their shares in trust by defendants. Emanating from
    such, the Supreme Court elucidated on the nature of trusts and the
    availability of prescription and laches to bar the action for
    reconveyance of property allegedly held in trust. It is said that trust is
    the right, enforceable solely in equity to the beneficial enjoyment of
    property, the legal title to which is vested in another. It may either be
    express or implied. The latter ids further subdivided into resulting and
    constructive trusts. Applying it now to the case at bar, the plaintiffs
    did not prove any express trust. Neither did they specify the kind of
    implied trust contemplated in their action. Therefore, its enforcement
    maybe barred by laches and prescription whether they contemplate a
    resulting or a constructive trust.

    You might also like