Vizconde v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118449 February 11, 1998
Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde and his wife Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde had two
children, viz., Carmela and Jennifer. Petitioner’s wife, Estrellita, is one of the five
siblings of spouses Rafael Nicolas and Salud Gonzales-Nicolas. The other children of
Rafael and Salud are Antonio Nicolas; Ramon Nicolas; Teresita Nicolas de Leon,
and Ricardo Nicolas, an incompetent. Antonio predeceased his parents and is now
survived by his widow, Zenaida, and their four children.
On May 22, 1979, Estrellita purchased from Rafael a parcel of land with an area
of 10,110 sq. m. located at Valenzuela, Bulacan (hereafter Valenzuela property)
covered by TCT No. (T-36734) 13206 for One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos
(P135,000.00), evidenced by a “Lubusang Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa na Nasasakupan
ng Titulo TCT No. T-36734”. In view thereof, TCT No. V-554 covering the Valenzuela
property was issued to Estrellita. On March 30, 1990, Estrellita sold the Valenzuela
property to Amelia Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar Chiu for Three Million, Four
Hundred Five Thousand, Six Hundred Twelve Pesos (P3,405,612.00). In June of the same year, Estrellita bought from Premier Homes, Inc., a parcel of land with improvements situated at Vinzon St., BF Homes, Parañaque (hereafter Parañaque
property) using a portion of the proceeds of sale of the Valenzuela property. The
remaining amount of the proceeds was used in buying a car while the balance was
deposited in a bank.
On November 18, 1992, Rafael died. To settle Rafael’s estate, Teresita instituted
an intestate estate proceeding docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1679, with Branch 120 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City listing as heirs Salud, Ramon, Ricardo,
and the wife (Zenaida) and children of Antonio. Teresita prayed to be appointed Special
Administratrix of Rafael’s estate. Additionally, she sought to be appointed as
guardian ad litem of Salud, now senile, and Ricardo, her incompetent brother Herein
private respondent Ramon filed an opposition dated March 24, 1993, praying to be
appointed instead as Salud and Ricardo’s guardian.
Barely three weeks passed, Ramon filed another opposition alleging, among others,
that Estrellita was given the Valenzuela property by Rafael which she sold for not less
than Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) before her gruesome murder. Ramon pleaded
for the court’s intervention “to determine the legality and validity of the intervivos
distribution made by deceased Rafael to his children,” Estrellita included. On May 12,
1993, Ramon filed his own petition, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1699, entitled “In The
Matter Of The Guardianship Of Salud G. Nicolas and Ricardo G. Nicolas” and averred
that their legitime should come from the collation of all the properties distributed to his
children by Rafael during his lifetime. Ramon stated that herein petitioner is one of Rafael’s children “by right of representation as the widower of deceased legitimate daughter of Estrellita.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is a proper party in the proceedings of which
properties are allegedly subject to collation
The probate court erred in ordering the inclusion of petitioner in the intestate
estate proceeding. Petitioner, a son-in-law of Rafael, is not one of Rafael’s compulsory
heirs. Article 887 of the Civil Code is clear on this point:
Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate
parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the following, legitimate parents and ascendants, with
respect to their legitimate children and ascendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those
in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes
mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent
established by this Code.
With respect to Rafael’s estate, therefore, petitioner who was not even shown to
be a creditor of Rafael is considered a third person or a stranger. As such, petitioner
may not be dragged into the intestate estate proceeding. Neither may he be permitted
or allowed to intervene as he has no personality or interest in the said
proceeding, which petitioner correctly argued in his manifestation.
Even on the assumption that collation is appropriate in this case the probate
court, nonetheless, made a reversible error in ordering collation of the Parañaque
property. We note that what was transferred to Estrellita, by way of deed of sale, is the
Valenzuela property. The Parañaque property which Estrellita acquired by using the
proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property does not become collationable simply
by reason thereof. Indeed, collation of the Parañaque property has no statutory basis.
The order of the probate court presupposes that the Parañaque property was
gratuitously conveyed by Rafael to Estrellita. Records indicate, however, that the
Parañaque property was conveyed for and in consideration of P900,000.00, by Premier
Homes, Inc., to Estrellita. Rafael, the decedent, has no participation therein, and
petitioner who inherited and is now the present owner of the Parañaque property is not
one of Rafael’s heirs. Thus, the probate court’s order of collation against petitioner is
unwarranted for the obligation to collate is lodged with Estrellita, the heir, and not to
herein petitioner who does not have any interest in Rafael’s estate
As it stands, collation of the Parañaque property is improper for, to repeat,
collation covers only properties gratuitously given by the decedent during his lifetime to
his compulsory heirs which fact does not obtain anent the transfer of the Parañaque
property. Moreover, Rafael, in a public instrument, voluntarily and willfully waived any
“claims, rights, ownership and participation as heir” in the Parañaque property.
