CASE DIGEST: Balus v. Balus

Balus v. Balus

G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010

Petitioner Celestino and respondents Saturnino and Leonarda are the children of the spouses Rufo and Sebastiana Balus. Sebastiana died on 6 September 1978. In 1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land as security for a loan obtained from a bank. When Rufo failed to pay the loan, the property was foreclosed and was subsequently sold to the Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that purpose. The same was not redeemed within the period allowed by law. Hence, a new title was issued in the name of the Bank. Rufo died on 6 July 1984. On 10 October, 1989, petitioner and respondents executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each of the a specific one-third portion of the subject property. Three years thereafter, respondents bought the subject property from the Bank and a new title was issued in their name. Meanwhile, petitioner continued possession of the subject lot. The respondents thus filed a complaint for recovery of possession. However, petitioner alleged that respondents’ act of buying back the property without notifying him inures to his benefit as co-owner and that he is entitled to a one-third share of the property.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject property forms part of the estate of petitioner and respondents’ father

No. The court ruled that the subject property does not form part of the estate of Rufo considering that ownership over the same was transferred to the bank prior to the death of Rufo. Inheritance consists of existing property, as well as accrued property, and transmissible rights and obligations at the time of death of the decedent. Thus, since Rufo lost ownership over the subject property during his lifetime, the same no longer forms part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim at the time of his death. Consequently, his children never inherited the property. The Court further ruled that petitioner and respondents are not co-owners of the subject property and there is no property to partition, as the disputed lot never formed part of the estate of their deceased father.