Skip to main content

Ecarma vs CA G.R. No. 193374 | June 08, 2016

CASE DIGEST

Ecarma vs CA

G.R. No. 193374 | June 08, 2016 Topic: Partition and distribution of estate under Art. 1078 and 1081 of NCC;

Facts: 

 Spouses Natalio and Arminda owned 4 properties designated as Kitanlad, Cuyapo and Lala consisting of 2 lots. They have 7 children among them were Gerry Ecarma and private respondent Renato Ecarma. Natalio predeceased Arminda, and therefater their children executed Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate. No physical division of properties was effected and they remained in co-ownership even after the death of Arminda. Renato Ecarma as the Special Administrator in the intestate proceedings filed a Project of Partition because of the conflict between Gerry and the other heirs over actual division of their inherited properties. The legal heirs except Gerry expressed their desire to have the property partitioned. 

 Gerry objected because the proposed partition is not feasible, impractical and detrimental. The planned partition is not accordance with the wishes of decedents, but however, it was denied by the lower court. He brought up the case to the CA but before the controversy has been settled, he died. Therefore, the heirs of Gerry Ecarma filed their Appellant’s Brief in substitution of the deceased.

 Issue:

 1. WON the Order of Partition is proper where one of the co - owners refuse to accede to such proposed partition on the ground that it is not feasible, impractical and detrimental. - YES

 Held:

 1. Upon Arminda's death, her heirs' rights to the succession (covering Arminda's share in the subject properties) vested and their co-ownership over the subject properties has consolidated by operation of law. Effectively, without a valid will of Arminda, and as Arminda's compulsory heirs, herein parties (specifically Gerry Ecarma prior to his death and substitution by herein petitioners) all ipso facto co-owned the subject properties in equal proportion being compulsory heirs of the deceased spouses Natalio and Arminda. 

 Their objection to the actual partition notwithstanding, herein petitioners and even Rodolfo Ecarma cannot compel the other co-heirs to remain in perpetual co-ownership over the subject properties. Article 494, in relation to Article 1083, of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. 
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. 
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. 
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. 
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. 
Art. 1083. Every co-heir has a right to demand the division of the estate unless the testator should have expressly forbidden its partition, in which case the period of indivision shall not exceed twenty years as provided in Article 494. This power of the testator to prohibit division applies to the legitime. 
Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-ownership terminates when any of the causes for which partnership is dissolved takes place, or when the court finds for compelling reasons that division should be ordered, upon petition of one of the co-heirs.
Ineluctably, therefore, herein petitioners' absolute opposition to the partition of the subject properties which are co-owned has no basis in law. As mere co-owners, herein petitioners, representing the share of the deceased Gerry Ecarma, cannot preclude the other owners likewise compulsory heirs of the deceased spouses Natalio and Arminda, from exercising all incidences of their full ownership. 
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more