Case Digest: Treyes vs. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020

                                             Art. 777 | Succession, Heirs

Provision:

Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.

Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.

Principle:

Under the Civil Code, when the brothers and sisters of a deceased married sister survive with her widower, the latter shall be entitled by law to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters to the other half The Civil Code likewise states that this successional right of the legal heirs is vested in them from the very moment of the decedent's death.

Ponente:

Caguioa, J.

Facts:

Dr. Nixon L. Treyes and Rosie Larlar Treyes are married.

In 2008, Rosie died without children and left no will. She had seven siblings.

Rosie and Treyes jointly owned 14 real estate properties as conjugal properties.

Treyes executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, transferring Rosie's estate to himself, claiming to be her sole heir.

In 2012, Rosie's siblings requested settlement of Rosie's estate, but Treyes did not respond. They discovered that titles to most properties were transferred to Treyes.

In 2013, the Larlar siblings filed a complaint for annulment of the affidavits, cancellation of titles, reconveyance, partition, and damages against Treyes.

Treyes filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground on the following grounds: (1) improper venue; (2) prescription; and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

RTC:

Denied the Omnibus Motion.

CA:

Denied the Petition. Affirmed the RTC ruling.

Nature:

Petition for Review (Rule 45).

Issue:

WoN a prior determination of the status as a legal or compulsory heir in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking for the protection and enforcement of ownership rights given by the law of succession. (NO)

Held:

Petition denied.

In the instant case, it is readily apparent from the allegations in the Complaint filed by the private respondents that the action was not instituted for the determination of their status as heirs, as it was their position that their status as heirs was already established ipso jure without the need of any judicial confirmation. Instead, what the Complaint alleges is that the private respondents' rights over the subject properties, by virtue of their being siblings of the deceased, must be enforced by annulling the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication and ordering the reconveyance of the subject properties.

That the private respondents do not really seek in their Complaint the establishment of their rights as intestate heirs but, rather, the enforcement of their rights already granted by law as intestate heirs finds basis in Article 777 of the Civil Code, which states that the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.

The operation of Article 777 occurs at the very moment of the decedent's death – the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of death and, therefore, the heir is legally deemed to have acquired ownership of his/her share in the inheritance at that very moment, "and not at the time of declaration of heirs, or partition, or distribution."

Hence, the Court has held that the "title or rights to a deceased person's property are immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death. The heirs' rights become vested without need for them to be declared 'heirs.'"

In Bonilla, et al. v. Barcena, et al., the Court held that:

"From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute owners of his property, subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, x x x the right of the heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before judicial declaration of their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings."

In fact, in partition cases, even before the property is judicially partitioned, the heirs are already deemed co-owners of the property. Thus, in partition cases, the heirs are deemed real parties in interest without a prior separate judicial determination of their heirship.

Similarly, in the summary settlement of estates, the heirs may undertake the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the decedent amongst themselves through the execution of a public instrument even without a prior declaration in a separate judicial proceeding that they are the heirs of the decedent. If there is only one legal heir, the document usually executed is an affidavit of self-adjudication even without a prior judicial declaration of heirship.

The Civil Code identifies certain relatives who are deemed compulsory heirs and intestate heirs. They refer to relatives that become heirs by virtue of compulsory succession or intestate succession, as the case may be, by operation of law.

In the instant case, Article 1001 states that brothers and sisters, or their children, who survive with the widow or widower, shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, while the surviving spouse shall be entitled to the other half:

Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.

Hence, subject to the required proof without any need of prior judicial determination, the private respondents siblings of Rosie, by operation of law, are entitled to one-half of the inheritance of the decedent. Thus, in filing their Complaint, they do not seek to have their right as intestate heirs established, for the simple reason that it is the law that already establishes that right. What they seek is the enforcement and protection of the right granted to them under Article 1001 in relation to Article 777 of the Civil Code by asking for the nullification of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication that disregard and violate their right as intestate heirs.

As correctly explained by Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (Justice Bernabe) in her Separate Opinion, "a prior declaration of heirship in a special proceeding should not be required before an heir may assert successional rights in an ordinary civil action aimed only to protect his or her interests in the estate. Indeed, the legal heirs of a decedent should not be rendered helpless to rightfully protect their interests in the estate while there is yet no special proceeding."

To stress once more, the successional rights of the legal heirs of Rosie are not merely contingent or expectant — they vest upon the death of the decedent. By being legal heirs, they are entitled to institute an action to protect their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession and are thus real parties in interest in the instant case. To delay the enforcement of such rights until heirship is determined with finality in a separate special proceeding would run counter to Article 777 of the Civil Code which recognizes the vesting of such rights immediately — without a moment's interruption — upon the death of the decedent.

Given the clear dictates of the Civil Code that the rights of the heirs to the inheritance vest immediately at the precise moment of the decedent's death even without judicial declaration of heirship, and the various Court En Banc and Division decisions holding that no prior judicial declaration of heirship is necessary before an heir can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession through the nullification of deeds divesting property or properties forming part of the estate and reconveyance thereof to the estate or for the common benefit of the heirs of the decedent, the Court hereby resolves to clarify the prevailing doctrine.

Accordingly, the rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, and other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned.

Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial court shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only between and among the parties.