Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Reyes v.

Barreto-Datu
REYES V. BARRETTO-DATU, 19 SCRA 85 (1967)

DOCTRINE: Preterition is the omission of one, some or all compulsory heirs


in the direct line, whether living at the time of the death of the testator, or
born subsequent thereto. Among other things, Reyes holds that omission
from the inheritance, as an element of preterition, must be a total omission,
such that if a compulsory heir in the direct line received something from the
testator under the terms of the will, such heir cannot be considered
preterited

FACTS: Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria Gerardo. During their lifetime
they acquired a vast estate, consisting of real properties in Manila,
Pampanga, and Bulacan.
1. WhenBibianoBarrettodiedonFebruary18,1936,intheCity
ofManila,helefthisshareofthesepropertiesinawill
toSaludBarretto(Salud),motherofplaintiff'swards,and
Lucia Milagros Barretto (Milagros) and a small portion as
legaciestohistwosistersRosaBarrettoandFelisaBarretto
and his nephew and nieces. The usufruct of the fishpond
situated in barrio San Roque, Hagonoy, Bulacan, above
mentioned, however, was reserved for his widow, Maria
Gerard. In the meantime, Maria Gerardo was appointed
administratrix.Byvirtuethereof,shepreparedaprojectof
partition,whichwassignedbyherinherownbehalfandas
guardian of the minor Milagros Barretto. Said project of
partition was approved by the Court of First Instance of
Manila.Thedistributionoftheestateandthedeliveryof
the shares of the heirs followed. As a consequence,
SaludBarretto took immediate possession of her share and
secured the cancellation of the original certificates of
titleandtheissuanceofnewtitlesinherownname.
2. Maria Gerardo died and upon her death, it was discovered
that she executed two will. In the first will, she
institutedSaludandMilagrosasherheirs. Inthesecond
will,sherevokedthesameandleftallherpropertiesin
favourofMilagrosalone. Thelaterwillwasallowedand
thefirstrejected.

3. In rejecting the first will presented by Tirso Reyes,


husbandofthedeceasedSalud,asguardianofthechildren,
itwasdeterminedbythelowercourtthatSaludwasnota
child of Maria Gerardo and her husband, Bibiano. This
rulingwasappealedtotheSupremeCourt,whichaffirmedthe
same.
4. Having thus lost this fight for a share in the estate of
Maria Gerardo as a legitimate heir of Maria Gerardo,
plaintiffnowfallsbackupontheremnantoftheestateof
thedeceasedBibianoBarretto,whichwasgiveninusufructto
his widow Maria Gerardo (fishpond property). Hence, this
actionfortherecoveryofonehalfportion,thereof.
5. Milagros then moved to declare the project of partition
submitted in the proceedings for the settlement of the
estateofBibianotobenullandvoidabinitiobecausethe
Distributee,SaludBarretto,wasnotadaughteroftheSps.
The nullity of the project was based on Art. 1081 of the
CivilCodeof1889whichprovidedthat:
A partition in which a person was believed to be an heir, without
being so, has been been included, shall be null and void.
The Court ordered the plaintiff to return the properties received under
the project
of partition.
ISSUE: WON the partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond is void ab
initio and that Salud did not acquire title thereto

HELD: NO
1. SaludBarrettoadmittedlyhadbeeninstitutedasanheirin
thelateBibianoBarretto'slastwillandtestamenttogether
with defendant Milagros; hence, the partition had between
themcouldnotbeonesuchhadwithapartywhowasbelieved
tobeanheirwithoutreallybeingone,andwasnotnulland
void under said article. The legal precept (Article 1081)
does not speak of children, or descendants, but of
heirs(without distinction between forced, voluntary or
intestateones),andthefactthatSaludhappenednottobe
adaughterofthetestatordoesnotprecludeherbeingone
of the heirs expressly named in his testament; for
BibianoBarrettowasatlibertytoassignthefreeportionof

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

his estate to whomsoever he chose. While the share ()


assigned to Salud impinged on the legitime of Milagros,
Salud did not for that reason cease to be a testamentary
heirofBibianoBarretto.
Wherethetestatorallottedinhiswilltohislegitimate
daughterasharelessthanherlegitime,suchcircumstance
would not invalidate the institution of a stranger as an
heir,sincetherewasnopreteritionortotalomissionof
theforcedheir.
Whereapartitionwasmadebetweentwopersonsinstitutedas
heirsinthewill,andoneofthemwasfoundoutlaternot
tobethetestatorsdaughter,whiletheotherwasreally
his daughter, it cannot be said that the partition was a
voidcompromiseonthecivilstatusofthepersonwhowas
notthetestatorsdaughter.Atthetimeofthepartition,
thecivilstatusofthatpersonwasnotbeingquestioned.
There can be no compromise on a matter that was not an
issue. While the law outlaws a compromise over civil
status, it does not forbid a settlement by the parties
regardingthesharethatshouldcorrespondtotheclaimant
tothehereditaryestate.
A project of partition is merely a proposal for the
distributionofthehereditaryestate,whichthecourtmay
accept or reject. It is the court alone that makes the
distribution of the estate and determines the persons
entitled thereto. It is the final judicial decree of
distributionthatveststitleinthedistributees. Ifthe
decreewaserroneous,itshouldhavebeencorrectedbyan
opportuneappeal;butonceithadbecomefinal,itsbinding
effect is like that of any other judgment in rem, unless
properlysetasideforlackofjurisdictionorfraud.Where
thecourthasvalidlyissuedadecreeofdistributionand
thesamehasbecomefinal,thevalidityorinvalidityofthe
projectofpartitionbecomesirrelevant.
Adistributioninthedecedentswill,madeaccordingtohis
will should be respected. The fact that one of the
distributeeswasaminor(Milagros)atthetimethecourt
issuedthedecreeofdistributiondoesnotimplythatthe
court had no jurisdiction to enter the decree of
distribution. The proceeding for the settlement of a
decedentsestateisaproceedinginrem.Itisbindingon
the distributee who was represented by her mother as
guardian.
Whereinapartitionbetweentwoinstitutedheirs,oneof
themdidnotknowthatshewasnotreallythechildofthe

testator, it cannot be said that she defrauded the other


heirwhowasthetestatorsdaughter. Atanyrate,relief
onthegroundoffraudmustbeobtainedwithin4yearsfrom
itsdiscovery.WhenMilagroswas16yearsoldin1939,when
thefraudwasallegedlyperpetratedandshebecameofagein
1944,andbecameawardofthefraudin1946,heractionin
1956tosetasidethepartitionwasclearlybarred.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen