Feliciano v. Canoza
G.R. No. 161746, September 1, 2010
The deceased Antonio Feliciano left behind a parcel of land as his only property.
On March 28, 1972, Leona, Maria, Pedro and Salina Feliciano declared themselves to
be the only surviving heirs of Antonio, with the exception of Salina. They executed an
extrajudicial settlement of Antonio’s estate and appropriated among themselves the said parcel of land, to the exclusion of the heirs of Esteban and Doroteo, deceased children of Antonio. Said property was then sold the property to Felisa Feliciano and Pedro Canoza, who each secured their respective patents corresponding to the portion of the land they purchased. On October 18, 1993, the heirs of the Esteban and Doroteo filed a complaint against Salina and Felisa Feliciano, Pedro Canoza and the heirs of the late Jacinto Feliciano for the Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Title, Recovery of Real Property and Damages. They alleged that the settlement of the estate and sale were done without their participation and consent as heirs of Esteban and Doroteo. Likewise, they averred that the ancestral home of the Felicianos is erected on the subject property and that they have occupied the same since birth. Canoza and Jacinto falsely declared that the property was not occupied, so their titles to the property should be declared null and void on the ground that they have made false statements in their respective applications for free patent. Before an answer could be filed, they amended their complaint to include the allegation that they sought to recover the shares of their fathers, Esteban and Doroteo, which they could have acquired as heirs of Antonio. In their Answer, Canoza and his spouse alleged that they were buyers in good faith and for value, and that assuming that there was preterition of legal heirs, they never took part in it.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was preterition of legal heirs
YES. The heirs of Doroteo and Esteban did not participate in the extrajudicial
partition executed by Salina with the other compulsory heirs, Leona, Maria and
Pedro. The said deed was fraudulently obtained as it deprived the known heirs of
Doroteo and Esteban of their shares in the estate. A deed of extrajudicial partition
executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to
the same, is fraudulent and vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of
fraud could be instituted which must be brought within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. However, in this case, said action has prescribed since the complaint was filed
only on October 18, 1993, or almost 16 years after Jacinto Feliciano was issued a free
patent and 14 years from the time Pedro Canoza was issued an original certificate of
title. As petitioners are deemed to have obtained constructive notice of the fraud upon
the registration of the Free Patent, they clearly failed to institute the present civil action
within the allowable period. The same result obtains even if their complaint is treated as
one (1) essentially for reconveyance as more than ten (10) years have passed since
petitioners’ cause of action accrued. Petition for review on certiorari was denied.
