FERNANDEZ VS FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 143256, 363 SCRA 811, August 28, 2001

GONZAGA-REYES, J.
DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition.

FACTS:
In this case, the late Spouses Dr. Jose K. Fernandez, and Generosa A. de
Venecia were the registered owners of the subject land in question. The late Spouses
being childless by the death of their son, purchased a one (1) month baby boy. The
boy being referred to was later on identified as Rodolfo Fernandez, the herein
appellant. Appellant was taken care of by the couple and was sent to school and
became a dental technician. He lived with the couple until they became old and
disabled.

The issue arose when Jose Fernandez died leaving an estate which was divided
by Generosa and Rodolfo through an extra-judicial partition among themselves. The
heirs of Jose Fernandez constituting his nephews, nieces, and siblings filed a
complaint for declaring the extra-judicial partition void by alleging that without basis of
heirship or any iota of rights to succession or inheritance had caused an extra-judicial
partition and were able to secure new land titles to their disadvantage.

ISSUE:
Whether the extra-judicial partition executed by Generosa A. de Venecia and
Rodolfo V. Fernandez were valid and binding?

RULING:

The extra-judicial partition was valid but was null and void as to Rodolfo.

Art. 1105 of the New Civil Code provides, a partition which includes a person
believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such person.

In this case, petitioner Rodolfo is not a child by nature of the spouses Fernandez
and not a legal heir of Dr. Jose Fernandez. Also, various supporting documents
presented by Rodolfo did not suffice to prove its filiation to the spouses Fernandez.

Therefore, the subject deed of extra-judicial settlement of the estate of Dr. Jose
Fernandez between Generosa vda. de Fernandez and Rodolfo is null and void insofar
as Rodolfo is concerned.
 AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY VS COURT
OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition

FACTS:
Petitioner Aznar Brothers Realty Co. (hereafter AZNAR) in this case allegedly
purchased the subject lot in this case from the heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on by virtue of
an Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale.

On the other hand, the private respondents alleged that they are the successors
and descendants of the eight children of the late Crisanta Maloloy-on, whose names
appear as the registered owners in the Original Certificate of Title.

The MTC ruled in favor of AZNAR on the ground that, private respondents'
allegation that two of the signatories were not heirs of the registered owners; that some
of the signatories were already dead at the date of the execution of the deed; and that
many heirs were not parties to the extrajudicial partition is a form of a negative
pregnant, which had the effect of admitting that the vendors, except those mentioned in
the specific denial, were heirs and had the legal right to sell the subject land to
petitioner. This decision was affirmed by the RTC.

CA however reversed the decision as there was no evidence that petitioner was
ever in possession of the property. Its claim of ownership was based only on an
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale, which private respondents, however,
claimed to be null and void for being simulated and fraudulently obtained.

ISSUE:
Whether the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale was null and void

RULING:
No, the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale was valid.

Article 1105 is in point; it provides: A partition which includes a person believed

to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such person. In other
words, the participation of non-heirs does not render the partition void in its entirety but
only to the extent corresponding to them.

In this case, among the allegations of the private respondents was that two
persons who participated in the extrajudicial partition and were made parties thereto
were not heirs of Crisanta. This claim, even if true, would not warrant rescission of the
deed.

Therefore, the extrajudicial partition remains valid.

 MENDOZA VS INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT
G.R. No. L-63132, July 30, 1987
FERNAN, J.
DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition

FACTS:
In this case, Buenaventura, Nicolasa and Teresa, all surnamed Gabuya, are the
legitimate children of the spouses Evaristo Gabuya and Susana Sabandija, who died
intestate many years ago, that both Nicolasa and Teresa died single, and that Modesta
Gabuya was the illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa.

That there was a chance that Modesta Gabuya and Elias S. Mendoza together
with Buenaventura went to the Cebu Capitol Building and signed a document,
acknowledged before Atty. Salvador B. Mendoza for a supposed to be reconstitution of
title but it turned out to be an Extra-judicial settlement of the Estate of Evaristo Gabuya
whereby Buenaventura and Modesta appear to have divided and partitioned between
themselves pro indiviso and share and share alike [1/2 each].

Prior to the institution of the extra-judicial settlement, a Deed of Absolute Sale

was executed by Modesta Gabuya in favor of the spouses Atty. and Mrs. Elias S.
Mendoza covering her alleged one-half [1/2] undivided share. That when Atty. Elias S.
Mendoza and Modesta Gabuya have respectively asked from Buenaventura Gabuya
the partition of the lots which they are co-owners of the undivided one-half [1/2]
portions, Buenaventura refused to do so claiming that Modesta Gabuya is not entitled
to inherit from the estate of his late father Evaristo Gabuya.

ISSUE:
Whether Modesta Gabuya is entitled to the undivided one-half [1/2] portions of
the estate of Evarusto Gabuya

RULING:
That this petition must fail is a foregone conclusion. Modesta Gabuya, not
having been acknowledged in the manner provided by law by her mother, Nicolasa,
was not entitled to succeed the latter. The extrajudicial settlement of the estate of
Evaristo Gabuya is, therefore, null and void insofar as Modesta Gabuya is concerned
per Article 1105 of the New Civil Code which states: "A partition which includes a
person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such
person." Since the ownership of the one-half [1/2] pro indiviso portion of Lot No. 3597
never passed on to Modesta Gabuya, it follows that the sale thereof to petitioners-
spouses Elias and Eustiquia Mendoza is likewise null and void.

In the case at bar, the only document presented by Modesta Gabuya to prove
that she was recognized by her mother was the certificate of birth and baptism signed
by Rev. Fr. Filomeno Singson, Assistant Parish Priest of Pardo, Cebu City, stating
therein that Modesta Gabuya is an illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa Gabuya. 10
However, Philippine jurisprudence is consistent and uniform in ruling that the canonical
certificate of baptism is not sufficient to prove recognition.
 LANDAYAN VS BACANI
G.R. No. L-30455, September 30, 1982
VASQUEZ, J.
DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition

FACTS:
Teodoro Abenojar died intestate, leaving parcels of land. Maxima Andrada, the
surviving spouse of Teodoro Abenojar, and Severino Abenojar, executed a public
document, entitled “Extra-Judicial Agreement of Partition” whereby they adjudicated
between themselves the properties left by Teodoro Abenojar. Severino Abenojar
represented himself in said document as “the only forced heir and descendant” of the
late Teodoro Abenojar.

Petitioners herein filed a complaint in the CFI of Pangasinan presided over by

the respondent Judge seeking a judicial declaration that they are legal heirs of the
deceased Teodoro Abenojar. They alleged that they are the legitimate children of
Guillerma Abenojar, then already deceased, who was the only child of
Teodoro Abenojar with his first wife named Florencia Bautista; and that while Teodoro
Abenojar contracted a second marriage with Antera Mandap and a third with private
respondent Maxima Andrada, he did not have any offspring in any of the said second
and third marriages. They aver that private respondent Severino Abenojar is an
illegitimate son of Guillerma Abenojar. They accordingly pray that they be declared as
among the legal heirs of the deceased Teodoro Abenojar entitled to share in his estate.

Private respondents, on the other hand, have alleged in their pleadings that
Teodoro Abenojar married only once, and that was with private respondent Maxima
Andrada. They claimed that private respondent Severino Abenojar is an acknowledged
natural child of Teodoro Abenojar with Florencia Bautista. They disclaimed the
allegation of the petitioners that their mother Guillerma Abenojar was a legitimate
daughter of Teodoro Abenojar and Florencia Bautista, the truth being allegedly that
Guillerma Abenojar, the mother of the Landayans, was Teodoro Abenojar's spurious
child with Antera Mandap who was then married to another man.

ISSUE:
Whether the extra judicial partition executed by Teodoro Abenojar and Severino
Abenojar is valid

RULING:
Art. 1105 of the New Civil Code provides that, a partition which includes a
person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such
person.

Applying the rule in this case, the right of Severino Abenojar to be considered a
legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar depends on the truth of his allegations that he is not an
illegitimate child of Guillerma Abenojar, but an acknowledged natural child of Teodoro
Abenojar. On this assumption, his right to inherit from Teodoro Abenojar is recognized
by law. He even claims that he is the sole legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar inasmuch as
the petitioners Landayans, who are admittedly the children of the deceased Guillerma
Abenojar, have no legal successional rights from Teodoro Abenojar, their mother being
a spurious child of Teodoro Abenojar.
 Should the petitioners be able to substantiate their contention that
Severino Abenojar is an illegitimate son of Guillerma Abenojar, he is not a legal heir of
Teodoro Abenojar. The right of representation is denied by law to an illegitimate child
who is disqualified to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of
Ms father. On this supposition, the subject deed of extra- judicial partition is one that
included a person who is not an heir of the descendant whose estate is being
partitioned.

Therefore, the respondent Judge is ordered to try the case on the merits and
render the corresponding judgment thereon.