Case Digest: Francisco vs. Francisco-Alfonso, G.R. No. 138774, March 8, 2001

Succession | Art. 888

Art. 888. The legitime of 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.

Ponente:
Pardo, J.:

Facts:

Gregorio Francisco owned two residential parcels in Bocaue, Bulacan.

In 1990, Gregorio was hospitalized. He informed Aida Francisco-Alfonso that the titles to his properties were in possession of Regina Francisco and Zenaida Pascual.

Aida is the only daughter of Gregorio with his deceased spouse Cirila de la Cruz. Regina and Zenaida are daughters of Gregorio with his common law wife Julia Mendoza, with whom he begot seven children.

After Gregorio's death, Aida discovered a deed of absolute sale dated August 15, 1983, where Gregorio sold the land to Regina and Zenaida for P25,000, resulting in title certificates issued to them.

Aida filed a complaint against petitioners for annulment of sale with damages, alleging forgery.

RTC-Bulacan: Dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the sale and the titles

CA: Reversed the decision of the trial court, declaring the deed null and void, annulling the titles issued, and ordering the reinstatement of titles to Gregorio Francisco.

Issue:

WoN legitimate daughter be deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father by a simulated contract transferring the property of her father to his illegitimate children. NO

Held:

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals because:

First: The kasulatan was simulated. There was no consideration for the contract of sale. Felicitas de la Cruz, a family friend of the Franciscos, testified that Zenaida Pascual and Regina Francisco did not have any source of income in 1983, when they bought the property, until the time when Felicitas testified in 1991.

As proof of income, however, Zenaida Pascual testified that she was engaged in operating a canteen, working as cashier in Mayon Night Club as well as buying and selling RTW (Ready to Wear) items in August of 1983 and prior thereto.

Zenaida alleged that she paid her father the amount of P10,000.00. She did not withdraw money from her bank account at the Rural Bank of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to pay for the property. She had personal savings other than those deposited in the bank. Her gross earnings from the RTW for three years was P9,000.00, and she earned P50.00 a night at the club.

Regina Francisco, on the other hand, was a market vendor, selling nilugaw, earning a net income of P300.00 a day in 1983. She bought the property from the deceased for P15,000.00.17 She had no other source of income.

We find it incredible that engaging in buy and sell could raise the amount of P10,000.00, or that earnings in selling goto could save enough to pay P15,000.00, in cash for the land.

The testimonies of petitioners were incredible considering their inconsistent statements as to whether there was consideration for the sale and also as to whether the property was bought below or above its supposed market value. They could not even present a single witness to the kasulatan that would prove receipt of the purchase price.

Since there was no cause or consideration for the sale, the same was a simulation and hence, null and void.

Second: Even if the kasulatan was not simulated, it still violated the Civil Code provisions insofar as the transaction affected respondent's legitime. The sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the Family Code.

Obviously, the sale was Gregorio's way to transfer the property to his illegitimate daughters at the expense of his legitimate daughter. The sale was executed to prevent respondent Alfonso from claiming her legitime and rightful share in said property. Before his death, Gregorio had a change of heart and informed his daughter about the titles to the property.

According to Article 888, Civil Code:

"The legitime of 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."

Gregorio Francisco did not own any other property. If indeed the parcels of land involved were the only property left by their father, the sale in fact would deprive respondent of her share in her father's estate. By law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his only legitimate child.

The legal heirs of the late Gregorio Francisco must be determined in proper testate or intestate proceedings for settlement of the estate. His compulsory heir can not be deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 48545 is AFFIRMED, in toto.