1. vda de reyes v Ca, gr no.

92436
2. spas villafria v plazo, gr no. 1875524
3. ermac v medelo, gr no. L-32281
4. cua v vargas, gr no. 156536

5. neri v heirs of Uy, gr no. 194366

Facts: This case is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioners: Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Rosa,
Douglas, Eutropia, and Victoria seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA which annulled
the Decision of the RTC of Davao del Norte, and entered a new one dismissing P’s complaint for
annulment of sale and damages against herein respondent.
During the lifetime of Ps’ mother, Anunciacion, she and her 2nd husband, Enrique, acquired several
homestead properties. When Anunciacion died, however, Enrique in his personal capacity and as natural
guardian of his minor children Rosa and Douglas, together with, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda executed
an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale (1979) adjudicating among
themselves the said homestead properties, and thereafter, sold the properties to the late spouses Uy for a
consideration of 80,000.
On 1996, the children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of the said sale against spouses Uy,
assailing the validity of the sale for having been sold within the prohibited period. And, also, for having
been executed without the consent or approval of Eutropia, Victoria, Rosa and Douglas; thus, depriving
the latter siblings of their legitime.
Uy countered that the sale took place beyond the 5 year prohibitory period from the issuance of the
homestead patents. They also denied that Eutropia and Victoria were excluded from the Extra-judicial
settlement and sale of the subject properties, and interposed further the defense of prescription and laches.
RTC rendered a Decision annulling the Extra-judicial settlement of estate with Absolute Deed of Sale. It
ruled that the sale is void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that
Enrique had no judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.
On appeal, however, CA reserved and set aside RTC decision. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether Enrique, as guardian of his children and co-owner (with his children), sell their co-owned
property?
Decision: No, as to the shares of the minor children because as a natural guardian, he is merely clothed
with powers of administration.
Doctrine: Parents should apply for judicial guardianship in order for them to sell properties of their
children.
*Even the parents of their minor children are bound to post bond.*
With respect to Rosa and Douglas who were minors at the time of the execution of the settlement and
sale, their NATURAL GUARDIAN and father, Enrique, represented them in the transaction. However,
on the basis of the laws prevailing at that time, Enrique was merely clothed with POWERS OF
ADMINISTRATION and bereft of any authority to dispose of their 2/16 shares in the estate of their
mother, Anunciacion.
Power of dominion, is granted by law only to a JUDICIAL GUARDIAN of the ward’s property and even
then only with court’s prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the Rules.
Exception: RATIFICATION
Consequently, the disputed sale entered into by Enrique in behalf of his minor children without the proper
judicial authority, unless ratified by them upon reaching the age of majority, is unenforceable in
accordance with Art. 1317 and 1403(1) of the Civil Code.
ADVERTISEMENT
REPORT THIS AD
Records, however, show that Rosa had ratified the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with absolute
deed of sale.  The same, however, is not true with respect to Douglas for lack of evidence showing
ratification.
THEREFORE, the extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid and not binding on Eutropia, Victoria and
Douglas. Consequently, spouses Uy or their substituted heirs became pro indiviso co-owners of the
homestead properties with Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, who retained title to their respective shares.

6. bautista v bautista, gr ni. 160556

Since the deed of extra-judicial partition is invalid, it confers no rights upon the transferees under the
principle of nemo dat quod non habet.
During her lifetime, Teodora Rosario was the owner of a 211.80 square meter parcel of land (the
property) in Pangasinan. She died intestate leaving the said property behind to her spouse Isidro Bautista,
and five children namely: Teofilo, Alegria, Angelica, Pacita, and Gil Bautista. Later on, Isidro and four of
his five children, Pacita, Gil, Alegria and Angelica (Teofilo not included), executed a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition of the property where Isidro waived his share in favor of his four children.
Alegria and Angelica, sold the ½ of the property they have acquired to Pacita and her common-law
husband Pedro Tandoc, by Deed of Absolute Sale. Pacita, with Pedro‘s consent, later sold ½ of the
property in favor of Cesar Tamondong, Pedro‘s nephew via Deed of Absolute Sale. Teofilo, represented
by his Attorney-in-Fact Francisco Muñoz, then filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court against his
siblings claiming that his co-heirs defrauded him of his rightful share of the property and that the Deed of
Sale executed by Pacita in favor of Cesar was fictitious because she was already seriously ill that time.
The RTC ruled in favor of Teofilo declaring null and void and no force and effect the documents
mentioned. On appeal by Tandoc and Tamondong, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court‘s
decision and dismissed Teofilo‘s complaint on the ground of prescription. The CA denied the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Teofilo. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the extra-judicial partition executed by Teofilo Bautista‘s co-heirs is valid
HELD:
The Court of Appeals applied the prescriptive periods for annulment on the ground of fraud and for
reconveyance of property under a constructive trust.
The extra-judicial partition executed by Teofilo‘s co-heirs was invalid, however. As previously held by
this Court in Segura v. Segura, ―no extra-judicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has
not participated therein or had no notice thereof.‖ As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the
excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had
prescribed after two years.
The deed of extra-judicial partition in the case at bar being invalid, the action to have it annulled does not
prescribe.
Since the deed of extra-judicial partition is invalid, it transmitted no rights to Teofilo‘s co-
heirs. Consequently, the subsequent transfer by Angelica and Alegria of ½ of the property to Pacita and
her husband Pedro, as well as the transfer of ½ of the property to Cesar Tamondong is invalid, hence,
conferring no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet.

7. macababbad v masira, gr no. 161237

FACTS : On April 28, 1999, respondents Fernando Masirag (Fernando), Faustina Masirag (Faustina),
Corazon Masirag (Corazon), Leonor Masirag (Leonor) and Leoncio Masirag Goyagoy (Leoncio)
(collectively called the respondents), filed with the RTC a complaint[5] against Macababbad, Chua and
Say.[6] On May 10, 1999, they amended their complaint to allege new matters. The deceased spouses
Pedro Masirag (Pedro) and Pantaleona Tulauan (Pantaleona) were the original registered owners of Lot
No. 4144 of the Cadastral Survey of Tuguegarao (Lot No. 4144), as evidenced by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 1946. Respondents Fernando, Faustina, Corazon and Leonor Masirag are the children of
Valeriano and Alfora Goyagoy, while Leoncio is the son of Vicenta and Braulio Goyagoy. The
respondents allegedly did not know of the demise of their respective parents; they only learned of the
inheritance due from their parents in the first week of March 1999 when their relative, Pilar Quinto,
informed respondent Fernando and his wife Barbara Balisi about it. They immediately hired a lawyer to
investigate the matter. The investigation disclosed that the petitioners falsified a document entitled Extra-
judicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Portion of Registered Land (Lot 4144) dated December 3,
1967[12] (hereinafter referred to as the extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale) so that the respondents
were deprived of their shares in Lot No. 4144. The document purportedly bore the respondents signatures,
making them appear to have participated in the execution of the document when they did not; they did not
even know the petitioners. The document ostensibly conveyed the subject property to Macababbad for the
sum of P1,800.00.[13] Subsequently, OCT No. 1946 was cancelled and Lot No. 4144 was registered in
the names of its new owners under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 13408,[14] presumably after
the death of Pedro and Pantaleona. However, despite the supposed sale to Macababbad, his name did not
appear on the face of TCT No. 13408.[15] Despite his exclusion from TCT No. 13408, his Petition for
another owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 13408, filed in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, was
granted on July 27, 1982. Subsequently, Macababbad registered portions of Lot No. 4144 in his name and
sold other portions to third parties.[17]

On May 18, 1972, Chua filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT No. T-13408 and the issuance of a
title evidencing his ownership over a subdivided portion of Lot No. 4144 covering 803.50 square meters.
On May 23, 1972, TCT No. T-18403 was issued in his name. The RTC, after initially denying the motion
to dismiss, reconsidered its ruling and dismissed the complaint in its Order[19] dated May 29, 2000 on the
grounds that: 1) the action, which was filed 32 years after the property was partitioned and after a portion
was sold to Macababbad, had already prescribed; and 2) there was failure to implead indispensable
parties, namely, the other heirs of Pedro and Pantaleona and the persons who have already acquired title
to portions of the subject property in good faith. The petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal primarily on
the ground that the errors the respondents raised involved pure questions of law that should be brought
before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
respondents insisted that their appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law and thus fell within the
purview of the CAs appellate jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed and set aside the RTCs dismissal
of the complaint

ISSUE  :  WON CA erred in reversing the RTC decision

HELD : A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts while
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[34] A
question of law may be resolved by the court without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.[35] No
examination of the probative value of the evidence would be necessary to resolve a question of law.[36]
The opposite is true with respect to questions of fact, which necessitate a calibration of the evidence. The
nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from the appellants notice of appeal filed in the
trial court and in his or her brief as appellant in the appellate court.[38] In their Notice of Appeal, the
respondents manifested their intention to appeal the assailed RTC order on legal grounds and on the basis
of the environmental facts.[39] Further, in their Brief, the petitioners argued that the RTC erred in ruling
that their cause of action had prescribed and that they had slept on their rights.[40] All these indicate that
questions of facts were involved, or were at least raised, in the respondents appeal with the CA

Since the appeal raised mixed questions of fact and law, no error can be imputed on the respondents for
invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA through an ordinary appeal. (1) ordinary appeal or appeal by
writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of
original jurisdiction, covered by Rule 41; (2) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the
RTC in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, covered by Rule 42; and (3) petition for review to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The first mode of appeal is taken to the CA on
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is brought to the CA on
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the
Supreme Court only on questions of law.

A ruling on prescription necessarily requires an analysis of the plaintiffs cause of action based on the
allegations of the complaint and the documents attached as its integral parts. A motion to dismiss based
on prescription hypothetically admits the allegations relevant and material to the resolution of this issue,
but not the other facts of the case.

Dismissal based on laches cannot also apply in this case, as it has never reached the presentation of
evidence stage and what the RTC had for its consideration were merely the parties pleadings. Laches is
evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.[49] Without solid
evidentiary basis, laches cannot be a valid ground to dismiss the respondents complaint.

when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. The court, either
motu proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the
plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. If the plaintiff to
whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply with the order of the
court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion.[51]
Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed.
In an action for reconveyance, all the owners of the property sought to be recovered are indispensable
parties. Thus, if reconveyance were the only relief prayed for, impleading petitioners Macababbad and the
spouses Chua and Say would suffice. On the other hand, under the claim that the action is for the
declaration of the nullity of extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale, all of the parties who executed the
same should be impleaded for a complete resolution of the case. This case, however, is not without its
twist on the issue of impleading indispensable parties as the RTC never issued an order directing their
inclusion. Under this legal situation, particularly in light of Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, there
can be no basis for the immediate dismissal of the action.