TEOFILO BAUTISTA, represented by FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, Attorney-in-Fact v. ALLEGRIA BAUTISTA, et al.
529 SCRA 187 (2007)
Since the deed of extra-judicial partition is invalid, it confers no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet.
During her lifetime, Teodora Rosario was the owner of a 211.80 square meter parcel of land (the property) in Pangasinan. She died intestate leaving the said property behind to her spouse Isidro Bautista, and five children namely: Teofilo, Alegria, Angelica, Pacita, and Gil Bautista. Later on, Isidro and four of his five children, Pacita, Gil, Alegria and Angelica (Teofilo not included), executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of the property where Isidro waived his share in favor of his four children.
Alegria and Angelica, sold the ½ of the property they have acquired to Pacita and her common-law husband Pedro Tandoc, by Deed of Absolute Sale. Pacita, with Pedro‘s consent, later sold ½ of the property in favor of Cesar Tamondong, Pedro‘s nephew via Deed of Absolute Sale. Teofilo, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Francisco Muñoz, then filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court against his siblings claiming that his co-heirs defrauded him of his rightful share of the property and that the Deed of Sale executed by Pacita in favor of Cesar was fictitious because she was already seriously ill that time.
The RTC ruled in favor of Teofilo declaring null and void and no force and effect the documents mentioned. On appeal by Tandoc and Tamondong, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court‘s decision and dismissed Teofilo‘s complaint on the ground of prescription. The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Teofilo. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the extra-judicial partition executed by Teofilo Bautista‘s co-heirs is valid
HELD:
The Court of Appeals applied the prescriptive periods for annulment on the ground of fraud and for reconveyance of property under a constructive trust.
The extra-judicial partition executed by Teofilo‘s co-heirs was invalid, however. As previously held by this Court in Segura v. Segura, ―no extra-judicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.‖ As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed after two years.
The deed of extra-judicial partition in the case at bar being invalid, the action to have it annulled does not prescribe.
Since the deed of extra-judicial partition is invalid, it transmitted no rights to Teofilo‘s co-heirs. Consequently, the subsequent transfer by Angelica and Alegria of ½ of the property to Pacita and her husband Pedro, as well as the transfer of ½ of the property to Cesar Tamondong is invalid, hence, conferring no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet.
