Case Digest: Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA, G.R. No. 116775, January 22, 1998

Succession | Rule on Proximity

Art. 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.

Ponente:

Mendoza J.:

Facts: 

Benedicto Estrada filed a case for the partition of the land left by Justa Arnaldo-Sering. The land had been acquired by Justa as follows: 

1. 0.5 hectare by inheritance from her parents Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil, and 
2. 2.2 hectares by purchase.

Benedicto is the nephew of Justa by her half sister Agatonica. He claimed to be the sole surviving heir of Justa.

Benedicto complained that Pascasio Uriarte who worked the land as Justa’s tenant, refused to give him his share of the harvest. 

Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his heirs. His heirs denied they were mere tenants of Justa but the latter’s heirs entitled to her entire land. They claim that:

• The entire land was originally owned by Ambrocio Arnaldo.
• In 1908, Ambrocio Arnaldo executed a holographic will bequeathing the property to his nephews, Domingo and Juan Arnaldo.
• Domingo = 2/3 of the land
• Juan = 1/3 of the land
• The heirs claimed that the land had always been in their possession.
• Justa never asserted exclusive right over the property in her lifetime.
• Benedict Estrada did not have any right to the property because he was not an heir of Ambrocio Arnaldo.

RTC-Surigao del Sur: Ruled in favor of Pascasio's heirs.

CA: Reversed the decision.

Issue: 

WoN Benedicto is entitled to share in the estate of Justa. YES

Held: 

After due consideration of the petition, we find it to be without merit.

As already stated, Justa left a piece of land consisting 2.7 hectares. Half of this land (0.5 hectares), as the Court of Appeals found, formerly was conjugal property of her parents, Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil. The rest, consisting of 2.2 hectares, was acquired by Justa after the death of her parents. Accordingly, the division of Justa’s property should be as follows as private respondent contends:

1. The first ½ hectare should be divided into two parts, the share of Juan Arnaldo which will accrue to petitioners and the second half which pertains to Ursula Tubil, which will accrue to private Respondent.
2. As to the second portion of the area of the land in question which as already stated was consolidated with the ½ hectare originally belonging to the conjugal partnership of Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil, the same shall accrue to private respondent, who is the son of Agatonica Arreza, and who is only three degrees from Justa Arnaldo, whereas petitioners who are the children of Primitiva Arnaldo and Gregorio Arnaldo, are five degrees removed from Justa Arnaldo.

The issue in this case is who among the petitioners and the private respondent is entitled to Justa’s estate as her nearest relatives within the meaning of Art. 962 of the Civil Code.

As a preliminary matter, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in holding that private respondent is the son of Agatonica Arreza, who was the half-sister of Justa Arnaldo. Petitioners are raising this issue only now. It is well-settled, however, that questions not taken up during the trial of a case cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. With more reason, therefore, should such a question be disallowed when raised for the first time on appeal to this Court.

It is noteworthy that, in their brief before the Court of Appeals, petitioners admitted that private respondent is Justa’s nephew, his mother, Agatonica, being Justa’s half-sister. Apparently they are now questioning private respondent’s filiation because, as explained by the Court of Appeals, private respondent is the nearest relative of Justa and, therefore, the only one entitled to her estate.

Indeed, given the fact that 0.5 hectares of the land in question belonged to the conjugal partnership of Justa’s parents, Justa was entitled to 0.125 hectares of the half hectare land as her father’s (Juan Arnaldo’s) share in the conjugal property, while petitioners are entitled to the other 0.125 hectares. In addition, Justa inherited her mother’s (Ursula Tubil’s) share consisting of 0.25 hectares. Plus the 2.2 hectares which belonged to her in her own right, Justa owned a total of 2.575 or 2.58 hectares of the 2.7-hectare land. This 2.58-hectare land was inherited by private respondent Benedicto Estrada as Justa’s nearest surviving relative. 

As the Court of Appeals held:

According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.

Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares, subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half blood, and of Article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between paternal and maternal lines.

The manner of determining the proximity of relationship are provided by Articles 963 - 966 of the Civil Code. They provide:

ART. 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. Each generation forms a degree.

ART. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral.

A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a common ancestor.

ART. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.

The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him.

The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.

ART. 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.

In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. Thus the child is one degree removed from the parent, two from the grandfather, and three from the great-grandparent.

In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two degrees removed from his brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from his first cousin, and so forth.

In this case, plaintiff is the son of Agatonica, the half-sister of Justa. He is thus a third degree relative of Justa.

On the other hand, defendants and intervenors are the sons and daughters of Justa’s cousin. They are thus fifth degree relatives of Justa.

Applying the principle that the nearest excludes the farthest, then plaintiff is the lawful heir of Justa. The fact that his mother is only a half-sister of Justa is of no moment. 

Nevertheless, petitioners make much of the fact that private respondent is not an Arnaldo, his mother being Ursula’s daughter not by Juan Arnaldo but by Pedro Arreza. They claim that this being the case, private respondent is not an heir of Justa and thus not qualified to share in her estate.

Petitioners misappreciate the relationship between Justa and private Respondent. As already stated, private respondent is the son of Justa’s half-sister Agatonica. He is therefore Justa’s nephew. A nephew is considered a collateral relative who may inherit if no descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the decedent.  The private respondent is only a half-blood relative is immaterial. This alone does not disqualify him from being his aunt’s heir. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, "The determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half-blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors." 

Because of the conclusion we have thus reached, the third and fourth grounds of the petition for renew must fail.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is LIFTED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.