J.L.T. AGRO, INC. v. BALANSAG
G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
Don Julian Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena and had
two kids namely Josefa and Emilio. After her death, he married Milagros Teves and they had four children namely: Maria Teves, Jose Teves, Milagros Teves and Pedro
Teves. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement.
When Antonia died an action for partition was instituted where the parties
entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the
properties of Don Julian. On the basis of the compromise agreement, the CFI declared
a tract of land known as Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa as property owned in common by
Don Julian and his two children of the first marriage. The property was to remain
undivided during the lifetime of Don Julian. Josefa and Emilio likewise were given other
properties at Bais, including the electric plant, the “movie property,” the commercial
areas, and the house where Don Julian was living. The remainder of the properties was
retained by Don Julian.
On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed of
Assignment of Assets with Assumption of Liabilities in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc.
(petitioner). Later, Don Julian, Josefa and Emilio also executed an instrument
entitled Supplemental to the Deed of Assignment of Assets with the Assumption of
Liabilities (Supplemental Deed) dated 31 July 1973. This instrument transferred
ownership over Lot No. 63, among other properties, in favor of petitioner. The appellate
court ruled that the supplemental deed, conveying ownership to JLT agro is not valid
because the Compromise Agreement reserved the properties to Don Julian’s two sets
of heirs their future legitimes. The two sets of heirs acquired full ownership and
possession of the properties respectively adjudicated to them and Don Julian himself
could no longer dispose of the same. The appellate court in holding that the Supplemental Deed is not valid, added that it contained a prohibited preterition of
Don Julian’s heirs from the second marriage.
ISSUE: (A.) Was there preterition in the case? (B) Whether or not the future legitime
can be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian
(A) None. Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will.
In the case at bar, Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted to was a
partition inter vivos of his properties, as evidenced by the court approved Compromise
Agreement. Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition prior to the
death of Don Julian in the absence of a will depriving a legal heir of his
legitime. Besides, there are other properties which the heirs from the second marriage
could inherit from Don Julian upon his death.
(B) As a general rule, No. Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even
future ones, which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a
contract. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is partition inter vivos referred to in Article 1080.
The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid pursuant to Article 1347. However, considering that it would become legally operative only upon the death of Don Julian, the right of his heirs from the second marriage to the properties adjudicated to him under the compromise agreement was but a mere expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the property of their father. Being the prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by its nature was inchoate. Evidently, at the time of the execution of the supplemental deed in favor of petitioner, Don Julian remained the owner of the property since ownership over the subject lot would only pass to his heirs from the second marriage at the time of his death.
