Zaragoza v. CA
G.R. No. 106401 September 29, 2000
On December 9, 1964, Flavio Zaragoza Cano died without a will and was
survived by his four children: Gloria, Zacariaz, Florentino and Alberta, all surnamed
Zaragoza.
On December 28, 1981, private respondent Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan filed a
complaint with CFI against Spouses Florentino and Erlinda, herein petitioners, for
delivery of her inheritance share, consisting of Lots 943 and 871, and for payment of
damages.
She alleged that her father, in his lifetime, partitioned the aforecited properties
among his four children. The shares of her brothers and sister were given to them in
advance by way of deed of sale, but without valid consideration, while her share, which
consists of lots no. 871 and 943, was not conveyed by way of deed of sale then.
She averred that because of her marriage, she became an American citizen and
was prohibited to acquire lands in the Philippines except by hereditary succession. For
this reason, no formal deed of conveyance was executed in her favor covering these
lots during her father’s lifetime
ISSUE: Whether or not the partition inter vivos by Flavio Zaragoza Cano of his
properties, which include Lots 871 and 943, is valid.
YES. The Court held that it is basic in the law of succession that a partition inter
vivos may be done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil
Code is clear on this.
Thus, the court ruled that that during the lifetime of Flavio, he already partitioned
and distributed his properties among his three children, excepting private respondent,
through deeds of sale. A deed of sale was not executed in favor of private respondent
because she had become an American citizen and the Constitution prohibited a sale in
her favor. Petitioner admitted Lots 871 and 943 were inheritance shares of the private
respondent.
As to the alleged prejudice on legitimes, the Court stated that the legitime of
compulsory heirs is determined after collation, as provided for in Article 1061:
Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring
into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous
title in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir,
and in the account of the partition.
Unfortunately, collation cannot be done in this case where the original petition for
delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory heirs. The
petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a new
proceeding where all the indispensable parties are present for the rightful determination of their respective legitime and if the legitimes were prejudiced by the partitioning inter vivos.
