Case: Rodriguez vs.

Ravilan
Citation: 17 Phil 63

Doctrine: A civil partnership contract executed between several brothers or relatives, relating to the use and enjoyment of
property held in common, cannot affect the hereditary rights of the relatives of a deceased partner, nor alter the order of
inheritance prescribed by law.

Facts: Spouses Javier and Seno died leaving 9 heirs their share in the inheritance. Among the children, 4 of them namely
Espiridion, Jorgia, Matea, and Pedro were given an undivided property. A co-ownership over the said property was
established by the 4 heirs appointing Espiridion as the administrator. The latter died without heirs and was replaced by
Pedro. Pedro subsequently died leaving four children represented by his spouse Luisa Ravilan (herein respondent). Jorgia
and Matea also died and the latter left a son, represented by his spouse, Donato, (herein plaintiff) while Jorgia left no heir.

Plaintiff moved for partition for the reason that Ravilan, as the administratrix, continued to possess and enjoy the profits of
the co-owned property without the consent or intervention of the plaintiffs. The remaining heirs demand for the division of
the properties and prayed that the profits accrued thereto during the possession and usufruct enjoyed by Ravilan also be
divided among the parties. Plaintiffs also contended that the share of Espiridion and Jorgia in the undivided property, having
died without heirs, by force of law, passed to his brothers and sisters Pedro and Matea. The judge decided in favor of the
plaintiffs and ordered for the partition.

Issue: Whether or not the partition should be granted.

Ruling: No. It is to be noted that the partnership contract entered into by the four brothers and sisters cannot affect the
hereditary rights which belong to the relatives of the deceased predecessor in interest nor alter the order prescribed by law
for testate or intestate successions. (Arts. 744, 763, 806, 808, 913, 946, Civil Code.)

It must be remembered that the hereditary succession of the deceased Espiridion and Jorgia Barte, who it is said left no
legitimate descendants at their death, should be divided among their eight brothers and sisters who may have survived
them, and in case any of these have died, the children of his deceased brother or sister, that is, his nephews and nieces per
stripes, are entitled to share in his inheritance, according to the provisions of Articles 946, 947, 948 of the Civil Code.
Aritcle 948 provides: "Should brothers survive with nephews, children of brothers of the whole blood, the former shall inherit
per capita and the latter per stripes, representing their respective fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters of the deceased”.
It is incorrect to divide the shares only among the heirs of those who are under the co-ownership but it should be divided
among all the children of Spouses Javier and Seno. The partition prayed for is denied.

SUAREZ vs. CA and Raymundo

GR No. 94918, September 2, 1992

Doctrine: The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and
of the mother.If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion
equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.

Facts: Herein Petitioners are brothers and sisters who assail the validity of the sale made by their mother of the undivided
properties left by their deceased father. The sale was made in favor of the respondents to pay the debts of their mother.
Petitioners contended that they cannot be held liable therefore and the subject properties, which consists of 5 parcels of
land, can neither be levied nor sold on execution. RTC ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the petitioners to
convey the property to the former. Petitioners appealed to the CA which reversed the trial court's ruling, hence this case.

Issue: WON the trial court’s decision favoring the sale to the respondents is correct

Ruling: No. The trial court committed an error. To start with, only one-half and not the all parcels of land should have been
the subject of the auction sale. Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent. Moreover, Article 888 provides that the legitime of the legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. Art. 892 further provides that if
there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the
legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is
equal to the legitime of each child.

Petitioners became co-owners of the property not because of their mother but through their own right as children of their
deceased father. Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the auction sale to
protect their own interest. It is to be noted that the sale of a co-owned property by one co-owner is only valid and effective
upon the latter’s share. Wherefore, the decision of the CA is set aside. Only the share of the petitioner’s mother was validly
sold.