Napoleon D. Neri et al. vs.
Heirs of Uy With respect to Rosa and Douglas who were minors at the time of the execution of the
October 10, 2012
Facts:
This case is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioners: Napoleon, Alicia,
Visminda, Rosa, Douglas, Eutropia, and Victoria seeking to reverse and set aside the
Decision of the CA which annulled the Decision of the RTC of Davao del Norte, and
entered a new one dismissing Ps complaint for annulment of sale and damages against
herein respondent.
During the lifetime of Ps mother, Anunciacion, she and her 2 nd husband,
Enrique, acquired several homestead properties. When Anunciacion died, however,
Enrique in his personal capacity and as natural guardian of his minor children Rosa and
Douglas, together with, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda executed an Extra-Judicial
Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale (1979) adjudicating among
themselves the said homestead properties, and thereafter, sold the properties to the
late spouses Uy for a consideration of 80,000.
On 1996, the children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of the said sale against
spouses Uy, assailing the validity of the sale for having been sold within the prohibited
period. And, also, for having been executed without the consent or approval of Eutropia,
Victoria, Rosa and Douglas; thus, depriving the latter siblings of their legitime.
Uy countered that the sale took place beyond the 5-year prohibitory period from the
issuance of the homestead patents. They also denied that Eutropia and Victoria were
excluded from the Extra-judicial settlement and sale of the subject properties, and
interposed further the defense of prescription and laches.
RTC rendered a Decision annulling the Extra-judicial settlement of estate with Absolute
Deed of Sale. It ruled that the sale is void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived
of their hereditary rights and that Enrique had no judicial authority to sell the shares of
his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.
On appeal, however, CA reserved and set aside RTC decision. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether Enrique, as guardian of his children and co-owner (with his children),
sell their co-owned property?
Held: No, as to the shares of the minor children because as a natural guardian, he is
merely clothed with powers of administration.
Doctrine: Parents should apply for judicial guardianship in order for them to sell
properties of their children.
*Even the parents of their minor children are bound to post a bond. *
settlement and sale, their NATURAL GUARDIAN and father, Enrique, represented
them in the transaction. However, on the basis of the laws prevailing at that time,
Enrique was merely clothed with POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION and bereft of any
authority to dispose of their 2/16 shares in the estate of their mother, Anunciacion.
Power of dominion, is granted by law only to a JUDICIAL GUARDIAN of the wards
property and even then only with courts prior approval secured in accordance with the
proceedings set forth by the Rules.
Exception: RATIFICATION
Consequently, the disputed sale entered into by Enrique in behalf of his minor children
without the proper judicial authority, unless ratified by them upon reaching the age of
majority, is unenforceable in accordance with Art. 1317 and 1403(1) of the Civil Code.
Records, however, show that Rosa had ratified the extrajudicial settlement of the estate
with absolute deed of sale. The same, however, is not true with respect to Douglas for
lack of evidence showing ratification.
THEREFORE, the extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid and not binding on
Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas. Consequently, spouses Uy or their substituted heirs
became pro indiviso co-owners of the homestead properties with Eutropia, Victoria and
Douglas, who retained title to their respective shares.
SPOUSES BENATIRO vs HEIRS OF CUYOS
G.R. No. 161220 July 30, 2008
FACTS:
Spouses Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos had nine children,
namely: Francisco, Victoria, Columba, Lope, Salud, Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano,
and Enrique. On August 28, 1966, Evaristo died leaving six parcels of land located in
Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu.
Before the CFI, after filing a petition to have herself appointed administrator,
and after filing an opposition thereto, Gloria & Fransisco, assisted by their
corresponding counsels, agreed to have Gloria appointed as administratrix of the estate
& letters of administration of the estate of the late Evaristo Cuyos were issued in favor
of Mrs. Gloria Cuyos Talian after posting a nominal bond of P1,000.00. The Clerk of
Court, Atty. Taneo was appointed to act as Commissioner to effect the agreement of
the parties and to prepare the project of partition. In his Commissioners report dated
July 29, 1976, Atty. Taneo stated that he issued subpoenae supplemented by
telegrams to all the heirs to cause their appearance on February 28 and 29, 1976 in
Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu, where the properties are located, for a conference or
meeting to arrive at an agreement; that out of the nine heirs, only respondents Gloria,
Salud and Enrique Cuyos failed to attend. He reported that those who were present signatures of all the heirs showing conformity thereto. The CFI's order based on a void
agreed not to partition the properties of the estate but instead agreed to first sell it for Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment for lack of due process.
the sum of P40,000.00 & divide the proceeds equally. Columba bought the properties.
The CFI appointed Lope Cuyos (Cuyos) as the new administrator of the estate based The CFI's order being null and void may be assailed anytime, the respondents' right to
on Glorias absence & change of residence. The Court ordered the Administratrix to due process is the paramount consideration in annulling the assailed order. An action
execute the deed of sale afterthe payment of the sum ofP36,000 which shall remain in to declare the nullity of a void judgment does not prescribe. Since the CFI judgment is
custodia legis, then divided among the heirs after payment of necessary taxes. void, it has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In
contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Hence, the execution of the Deed of Sale by
Cuyos executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the six parcels of land in favor Lope in favor of Columba pursuant to said void judgment, the issuance of titles pursuant
of Columba for a consideration of the sum of P36,000.00. Original Certificates of Titles to said Deed of Sale, and the subsequent transfers are void ab initio.
were issued in favor of the latter.
The petition was denied
In Feb 1998, Gloria, Patrocenia , Numeriano, Enrique & Salud filed with the
CA a petition for annulment of the order of the CFI of Cebu, alleging that the CFIs order
was null and void and of no effect, the same being based on a Commissioner's Report,
which was patently false and irregular; that such report practically deprived them of due
process in claiming their share of their father's estate, clearly showing that extrinsic
fraud caused them to be deprived of their property.

The CA granted the petition and declared the CFI order & the Certificates of
Title issued in the name of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro null & void, hence this petition for
review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON extrinsic fraud existed in the case at bar serving as a sufficient ground
to annul the CFIs order.

HELD:

The Court held that the CFI;s order should be annulled not on the ground of
extrinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Taneo or any of the heirs
guilty of fraud, but on the ground that the assailed order is void for lack of due process.

Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that: Grounds for annulment of
judgment. The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.

However, jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as additional ground therefor.

The veracity of Atty. Taneos report was doubtful. There was no evidence showing that
the heirs indeed convened for the purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the
estate properties, since they were not even required to sign anything to show their
attendance of the alleged meeting. The Commissioner's Report, which embodied the
alleged agreement of the heirs, did not bear the signatures of the alleged attendees to
show their consent and conformity thereto. It was imperative that all the heirs must be
present in the conference and be heard to afford them the opportunity to protect their
interests. The CFI adopted and approved the Report despite the absence of the