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

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

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services, et. al. | G.R. No. 187587| 2013

G.R. No. 187587| June 5, 2013  697 SCRA 359 Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National Defense; NMSI , Petitioner, vs. MSS - PVAO, DND,  Respondent; ---and--- G.R. No. 187654| June 5, 2013 WBLOA, INC. , represented by its Board of Directors, Petitioner, vs.    MSS - PVAO, DND , Respondent. Ponente :  SERENO, CJ.:  Doctrines :  (1) Petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. (2) The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided.  (3) The Supreme Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal...
Read more

People vs. Dueño, 90 SCRA 23, No. L-31102 May 5, 1979

No. L-31102. May 5, 1979; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE DUEÑO, alias FELIPE CATALAN, SOFRONIO DUEÑO and ANDRESITO BELONIO alias HAPON, defendants-appellants. DOCTRINES: Appellants’ contention that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses Dellomos and Dolfo are inherently improbable as not be credible has been successfully traversed by the Solicitor General. For, Dolfo and Dellomos, having been the target of accused-appellants only a few hours earlier in the afternoon of the same day, may and should be expected to take some risks—to the point perhaps of being illogical and reckless—to identify and, if possible, frustrate any further attempts on the part of the three accused to assault and to try to kill them again. Motive is relevant where the indentity of the persons accused of having committed the crime is in dispute, where there are no eyewitnesses, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons (People vs. Portugueza, L-22604, July 31, 1967...
Read more