TodayisMonday,February06,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.204029June4,2014

AVELINAABARIENTOSREBUSQUILLO[substitutedbyherheirs,exceptEmelindaR.Gualvez]and
SALVADORA.OROSCO,Petitioners,
vs.
SPS.DOMINGOandEMELINDAREBUSQUILLOGUALVEZandtheCITYASSESSOROFLEGAZPICITY,
Respondents.

DECISION

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

BeforeUsisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45assailingtheDecision1andResolution2datedMarch
30, 2012 and September 25, 2012, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 93035, which
reversedandsetasidetheDecisiondatedJanuary20,2009oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch4inLegazpi
City,inCivilCaseNo.10407.

Theantecedentfactsmaybesummarizedasfollows:

OnOctober26,2004,petitionersAvelinaAbarientosRebusquillo(Avelina)andSalvadorOrosco(Salvador)fileda
ComplaintforannulmentandrevocationofanAffidavitofSelfAdjudicationdatedDecember4,2001andaDeedof
AbsoluteSaledatedFebruary6,2002beforethecourtaquo.Init,petitionersallegedthatAvelinawasoneofthe
children of Eulalio Abarientos (Eulalio) and Victoria Villareal (Victoria). Eulalio died intestate on July 3, 1964,
survived by his wife Victoria, six legitimate children, and one illegitimate child, namely: (1) Avelina Abarientos
Rebusquillo,petitionerinthiscase(2)FortunataAbarientosOrosco,themotherofpetitionerSalvador(3)Rosalino
Abarientos(4)JuanAbarientos(5)FelicianoAbarientos(6)AbrahamAbarientosand(7)CarlosAbarientos.His
wifeVictoriaeventuallydiedintestateonJune30,1983.

Onhisdeath,EulalioleftbehindanuntitledparceloflandinLegazpiCityconsistingoftwothousandeighthundred
sixtynine(2,869)squaremeters,moreorless,whichwascoveredbyTaxDeclarationARPNo.(TD)0141.

In2001,Avelinawassupposedlymadetosigntwo(2)documentsbyherdaughterEmelindaRebusquilloGualvez
(Emelinda) and her soninlaw Domingo Gualvez (Domingo), respondents in this case, on the pretext that the
documents were needed to facilitate the titling of the lot. It was only in 2003, so petitioners claim, that Avelina
realized that what she signed was an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
respondents.

Asrespondentspurportedlyignoredherwhenshetriedtotalktothem,AvelinasoughttheinterventionoftheRTCto
declarenullandvoidthetwo(2)documentsinordertoreinstateTD0141andsocorrecttheinjusticedonetothe
otherheirsofEulalio.

Intheiranswer,respondentsadmittedthattheexecutionoftheAffidavitofSelfAdjudicationandtheDeedofSale
wasintendedtofacilitatethetitlingofthesubjectproperty.Paragraph9oftheirAnswerreads:

Sometimeintheyear2001,[petitioner]AvelinatogetherwiththeotherheirsofEulalioAbarientosbroughtoutthe
ideato[respondent]EmelindaRebusquilloGualveztohavethepropertydescribedinparagraph8ofthecomplaint
registeredundertheTorrensSystemofRegistration.Tofacilitatethetitlingoftheproperty,sothatthesamecouldbe
attractive to prospective buyers, it was agreed that the propertys tax declaration could be transferred to
[respondents]Spouses[Emelinda]R.GualvezandDomingoGualvezwhowillspendallthecostoftitlingsubjectto
reimbursementbyallotherheirsincasethepropertyissoldThatitwasagreedthatalltheheirswillbegiventheir
corresponding shares on the property That pursuant to said purpose Avelina AbarientosRebusquillo with the
knowledge and consent of the other heirs signed and executed an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication and a Deed of
AbsoluteSaleinfavorof[respondents]Gualvez.Infact,[petitioner]AvelinaRebusquillowasgivenanadvancesum
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by [respondent] spouses and all the delinquent taxes paid by
[respondents].3

Aftertrial,theRTCrendereditsDecisiondatedJanuary20,2009annullingtheAffidavitofSelfAdjudicationandthe
DeedofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbyAvelinaonthegroundsthat(1)withregardtotheAffidavitofSelfAdjudication,
shewasnotthesoleheirofherparentsandwasnotthereforesolelyentitledtotheirestateand(2)inthecaseof
theDeedofAbsoluteSale,Avelinadidnotreallyintendtosellhershareinthepropertyasitwasonlyexecutedto
facilitatethetitlingofsuchproperty.ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered,asfollows:

1. The subject Affidavit of SelfAdjudication of the Estate of the Deceased Spouses Eulalio Abarientos and
Victoria Villareal, dated December 4, 2001 as well as the subject Deed of Absolute Sale, notarized on
February 6, 2002, covering the property described in par. 8 of the Amended Complaint are hereby ordered
ANNULLED

2.ThatdefendantCityAssessorsOfficerofLegazpiCityisherebyorderedtoCANCELtheTaxDeclarationin
the name of private [respondents] spouses Gualvez under ARP No. 4143 and to REINSTATE the Tax
DeclarationunderARPNo.0141inthenameofEulalioAbarientos

3. By way of restitution, [petitioner] Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo is hereby ordered to return or refund to
[respondents]spousesDomingoGualvezandEmelindaGualvez,theP50,000.00givenbythelatterspouses
totheformer.4

Assailing the trial courts decision, respondents interposed an appeal with the CA arguing that the Deed of Sale
cannotbeannulledbeingapublicdocumentthathasforitsobjectthecreationandtransmissionofrealrightsover
the immovable subject property. The fact that Avelinas testimony was not offered in evidence, so respondents
argued, the signature on the adverted deed remains as concrete proof of her agreement to its terms. Lastly,
respondents contended that the Complaint filed by petitioners Avelina and Salvador before the RTC is not the
properremedyprovidedbylawforthosecompulsoryheirsunlawfullydeprivedoftheirinheritance.

Pendingtheresolutionofrespondentsappeal,AvelinadiedintestateonSeptember1,2009leavingbehindseveral
livingheirs5includingrespondentEmelinda.

In its Decision dated March 30, 2012, the appellate court granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the
Decision of the RTC. The CA held that the RTC erred in annulling the Affidavit of SelfAdjudication simply on
petitionersallegationoftheexistenceoftheheirsofEulalio,consideringthatissuesonheirshipmustbemadein
administrationorintestateproceedings,notinanordinarycivilaction.Further,theappellatecourtobservedthatthe
Deed of Absolute Sale cannot be nullified as it is a notarized document that has in its favor the presumption of
regularityandisentitledtofullfaithandcredituponitsface.

Aggrieved by the CAs Decision, petitioner Avelina, as substituted by her heirs except respondent Emelinda, and
petitionerSalvadorarenowbeforethisCourtascribingreversibleerroronthepartoftheappellatecourt.

Wefindmeritintheinstantpetition.

It has indeed been ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, not in an
independent civil action. However, this Court had likewise held that recourse to administration proceedings to
determinewhoheirsareissanctionedonlyifthereisagoodandcompellingreasonforsuchrecourse.6Hence,the
Courthadallowedexceptionstotherulerequiringadministrationproceedingsaswhenthepartiesinthecivilcase
alreadypresentedtheirevidenceregardingtheissueofheirship,andtheRTChadconsequentlyrenderedjudgment
upontheissuesitdefinedduringthepretrial.7InPortugalv.PortugalBeltran,8thisCourtheld:

Inthecaseatbar,respondent,believingrightlyorwronglythatshewasthesoleheirtoPortugalsestate,executed
onFebruary15,1988thequestionedAffidavitofAdjudicationunderthesecondsentenceofRule74,Section1of
theRevisedRulesofCourt.Saidruleisanexceptiontothegeneralrulethatwhenapersondiesleavingaproperty,
it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order
establishedinSec.6,Rule78incasethedeceasedleftnowill,orincasehedid,hefailedtonameanexecutor
therein.

Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive heirs of Portugal. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has
jurisdictiontodeclarewhoaretheheirsofadeceased.

Itappearing,however,thatinthepresentcasetheonlypropertyoftheintestateestateofPortugalistheCaloocan
parceloflandtostillsubjectit,underthecircumstancesofthecase,toaspecialproceedingwhichcouldbelong,
hence,notexpeditious,justtoestablishthestatusofpetitionersasheirsisnotonlyimpracticalitisburdensometo
theestatewiththecostsandexpensesofanadministrationproceeding.Anditissuperfluousinlightofthefactthat
thepartiestothecivilcasesubjectofthepresentcase,couldandhadalreadyinfactpresentedevidencebefore
thetrialcourtwhichassumedjurisdictionoverthecaseupontheissuesitdefinedduringpretrial.

In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugals
estatetoadministrationproceedingssinceadeterminationofpetitionersstatusasheirscouldbeachievedinthe
civilcasefiledbypetitioners,thetrialcourtshouldproceedtoevaluatetheevidencepresentedbythepartiesduring
thetrialandrenderadecisionthereonupontheissuesitdefinedduringpretrialxxx.(emphasissupplied)

SimilartoPortugal,inthepresentcase,thereappearstobeonlyoneparceloflandbeingclaimedbythecontending
partiesastheinheritancefromEulalio.Itwouldbemorepractical,asPortugalteaches,todispensewithaseparate
specialproceedingforthedeterminationofthestatusofpetitionerAvelinaassoleheirofEulalio,especiallyinlight
ofthefactthatrespondentsspousesGualvezadmittedincourtthattheyknewforafactthatpetitionerAvelinawas
notthesoleheirofEulalioandthatpetitionerSalvadorwasoneoftheotherlivingheirswithrightsoverthesubject
land.AsconfirmedbytheRTCinitsDecision,respondentshavestipulatedandhavetherebyadmittedtheveracity
ofthefollowingfactsduringthepretrial:

IVUNCONTROVERTEDFACTS:(BasedonthestipulationoffactsinthePreTrialOrder)

A.xxx

B.[Petitioners]andprivate[respondents]spousesGualvezadmittedthefollowingfacts:

1.Identityoftheparties

2.Capacityofthe[petitioners]andprivate[respondents]tosueandbesued

3.[Petitioner]AvelinaAbarientosRebusquillloisnottheonlysurvivingheirofdeceasedspousesEulalioand
VictoriaAbarientos

4.PetitionerSalvadorOroscoisacoowner/possessorofaportionofthesubjectproperty

5.FortunataAbarientosOroscoisthesisterofAvelinaAbarientos

6.[Respondent]EmelindaRebusquilloGualvesisadaughterof[petitioner]AvelinaA.Rebusquillo

7.[Petitioner]AvelinaRebusquillowasbornonNov.10,1923

8. The existence of Affidavit of SelfAdjudication of Estate of the Deceased and Deed of Absolute Sale
executedby[petitioner]AvelinaA.Rebusquilloonthesubjectproperty.9(emphasissupplied)

InlightoftheadmissionofrespondentsspousesGualvez,itiswithmorereasonthataresorttospecialproceeding
willbebutanunnecessarysuperfluity.Accordingly,thecourtaquohadproperlyrenderedjudgmentonthevalidity
of the Affidavit of SelfAdjudication executed by Avelina. As pointed out by the trial court, an Affidavit of Self
Adjudicationisonlyproperwhentheaffiantisthesoleheirofthedecedent.ThesecondsentenceofSection1,Rule
74oftheRulesofCourtispatentlyclearthatselfadjudicationisonlywarrantedwhenthereisonlyoneheir:

Section1.Extrajudicialsettlementbyagreementbetweenheirs.xxxIfthereisonlyoneheir,hemayadjudicate
to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. x x x (emphasis
supplied)

Asadmittedbyrespondents,AvelinawasnotthesoleheirofEulalio.Infact,asadmittedbyrespondents,petitioner
Salvadorisoneofthecoheirsbyrightofrepresentationofhismother.Withoutadoubt,Avelinahadperjuredherself
whenshedeclaredintheaffidavitthatsheis"theonlydaughterandsoleheirofspousesEULALIOABARIENTOS
ANDVICTORIAVILLAREAL."10Thefalsityofthisclaimrendersheractofadjudicatingtoherselftheinheritanceleft
byherfatherinvalid.TheRTCdidnot,therefore,erringrantingAvelinasprayertodeclaretheaffidavitnullandvoid
andsocorrectthewrongshehascommitted.

Inlikemanner,theDeedofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbyAvelinainfavorofrespondentswascorrectlynullifiedand
voidedbytheRTC.Avelinawasnotintherightpositiontosellandtransfertheabsoluteownershipofthesubject
property to respondents. As she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her Affidavit of SelfAdjudication is void, the
subject property is still subject to partition. Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the subject
property but only an aliquot portion. What she could have transferred to respondents was only the ownership of
suchaliquotportion.ItisapparentfromtheadmissionsofrespondentsandtherecordsofthiscasethatAvelinahad
no intention to transfer the ownership, of whatever extent, over the property to respondents. Hence, the Deed of
AbsoluteSaleisnothingmorethanasimulatedcontract.

TheCivilCodeprovides:
Art. 1345. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not
intendtobeboundatallthelatter,whenthepartiesconcealtheirtrueagreement.(emphasissupplied)

Art.1346.Anabsolutelysimulatedorfictitiouscontractisvoid.Arelativesimulation,whenitdoesnotprejudicea
thirdpersonandisnotintendedforanypurposecontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicy
bindsthepartiestotheirrealagreement.

In Heirs of Policronio Ureta Sr. v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta,11 this Court explained the concept of the simulation of
contracts:

Inabsolutesimulation,thereisacolorablecontractbutithasnosubstanceasthepartieshavenointentiontobe
boundbyit.Themaincharacteristicofanabsolutesimulationisthattheapparentcontractisnotreallydesiredor
intendedtoproducelegaleffectorinanywayalterthejuridicalsituationoftheparties.Asaresult,anabsolutely
simulatedorfictitiouscontractisvoid,andthepartiesmayrecoverfromeachotherwhattheymayhavegivenunder
thecontract.However,ifthepartiesstateafalsecauseinthecontracttoconcealtheirrealagreement,thecontract
isrelativelysimulatedandthepartiesarestillboundbytheirrealagreement.Hence,wheretheessentialrequisites
of a contract are present and the simulation refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is
absolutelybindingandenforceablebetweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest.(emphasissupplied)

Inthepresentcase,thetrueintentionofthepartiesintheexecutionoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleisimmediately
apparentfromrespondentsveryownAnswertopetitionersComplaint.Asrespondentsthemselvesacknowledge,
thepurposeoftheDeedofAbsoluteSalewassimplyto"facilitatethetitlingofthe[subject]property,"nottotransfer
theownershipofthelottothem.Furthermore,respondentsconcedethatpetitionerSalvadorremainsinpossession
ofthepropertyandthatthereisnoindicationthatrespondentsevertookpossessionofthesubjectpropertyafterits
supposedpurchase.Suchfailuretotakeexclusivepossessionofthesubjectpropertyor,inthealternative,tocollect
rentalsfromitspossessor,iscontrarytotheprincipleofownershipandisaclearbadgeofsimulationthatrenders
thewholetransactionvoid.12

Contrarytotheappellatecourtsopinion,thefactthatthequestionedDeedofAbsoluteSalewasreducedtowriting
andnotarizeddoesnotaccorditthequalityofincontrovertibilityotherwiseprovidedbytheparoleevidencerule.The
formofacontractdoesnotmakeanotherwisesimulatedandinvalidactvalid.Theruleonparoleevidenceisnot,as
itwere,ironclad.Sec.9,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtprovidestheexceptions:

Section9.Evidenceofwrittenagreements.xxx

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in
issueinhispleading:

(a)Anintrinsicambiguity,mistakeorimperfectioninthewrittenagreement

(b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrueintentandagreementofthepartiesthereto

(c)Thevalidityofthewrittenagreementor

(d)Theexistenceofothertermsagreedtobythepartiesortheirsuccessorsininterestaftertheexecutionof
thewrittenagreement.

Theterm"agreement"includeswills.(emphasissupplied)

The failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to express the true intent and agreement of the contracting parties was
clearlyputinissueinthepresentcase.Again,respondentsthemselvesadmitintheirAnswerthattheAffidavitof
SelfAdjudicationandtheDeedofAbsoluteSalewereonlyexecutedtofacilitatethetitlingoftheproperty.TheRTC
is,therefore,justifiedtoapplytheexceptionsprovidedinthesecondparagraphofSec.9,Rule130toascertainthe
trueintentoftheparties,whichshallprevailovertheletterofthedocument.Thatsaid,consideringthattheDeedof
Absolute Sale has been shown to be void for being absolutely simulated, petitioners are not precluded from
presentingevidencetomodify,explainoraddtothetermsofthewrittenagreement.13

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 30, 2012 and the Resolution dated
September25,2012oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.93035areherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
TheDecisiondatedJanuary20,2009inCivilCaseNo.10407oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch4inLegazpi
CityisREINSTATED.

SOORDERED.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
 DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.* JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,A1iicleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*
ActingmemberperSpecialOrderNo.1691datedMay22,2014.
1
Rollo, pp. 2439. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate
JusticesMariflorP.PunzalanCastilloandMyraV.GarciaFernandez.
2
Id.at6768.
3
Records,Folder1,pp.2425.
4
CArollo,pp.7778.
5
Rollo, pp. 6566. The following, including herein respondent Emelinda Rebusquillo Gualvez, are the only
livingheirsofpetitionerAvelinaAbarientosGualvezRebusquillo:

Children:

1.ConsueloR.EspedidoTagdon,Barcelona,Sorsogon

2.TeresitaA.RebusquilloOas,Albay

3.ShirleyR.RedutaSalitran3,Blk23,CardinalVillage,Dasmarias,Cavite

4.SusanA.Rebusquillo,Oas,Albay

5.AliciaA.Rebusquillo,350Dr.FernandezSt.,Mauway,MandalauyongCity

6. Josefina R. Raro who died intestate on July 24, 2005, is represented by: Maria Joyce R.
Birrey,RomeroRaro,Jr.,JohncarloR.Raro,CelsoR.RaroIII,JayromeR.Raro

7. Abdon A. Rebusquillo, who died intestate on May 30, 2004, is represented by Shiela R.
Rebancos, Ryan B. Rebusquillo, Arjay B. Rebusquillo, Cyrene B. Rebusquillo, Donna B.
Rebusquillo,andCyrilB.Rebusquillo.
6
Pereirav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.81147,June20,1989,174SCRA154IntestateEstateofMercadov.
Magtibay,96Phil.383(1953).
7
HeirsofMagdalenoYponv.GaudiosoPonterasRicaforte,G.R.No.198680,July8,2013,700SCRA778
Republicv.Mangotara,G.R.No.170375,July7,2010,624SCRA360HeirsofTeofiloGabatanv.Courtof
 Appeals, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 70, 8081 Fidel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
168263,July21,2008,559SCRA186,194.
8
G.R.No.155555,August16,2005,467SCRA184,199.
9
CArollo,pp.7172.
10
Paragraph1,AffidavitofSelfAdjudication,Annex"3"oftheComplaint,records,p.17.
11
G.R.Nos.165748&165930,September14,2011,657SCRA555,575citingValeriov.Refresca,G.R.No.
163687,March28,2006,485SCRA494,500501.
12
Id.
13
SeeHeirsofPolicronioUretaSr.v.HeirsofLiberatoUreta,id.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation