Nothing to transmit

The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. This is the law applied in this case of the heirs of Pinong.

The case involved a parcel of land with all the improvements thereon containing an area of 3.0740 hectares exclusively owned by Pinong and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-439 (subject property). Pinong and his late wife Tina had three children, Tino, Turing and Linda.

On January 3, 1979, Pinong mortgaged the said parcel of land as security for a loan he obtained from a Rural Bank (the Bank). When he failed to pay the loan the property was foreclosed by the Bank which was the sole bidder at the auction sale held for the purpose. On November 20, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was executed by the Sheriff in favor of the Bank. Then more than two years later when the property was not redeemed by Pinong within the period allowed by law, or on January 25, 1984, the Sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale in the bank’s favor. Thereafter a new title was issued in the Bank’s name.

On July 6, 1984, Pinong died leaving Tino, Turing and Linda as his sole surviving heirs. But it was only on October 10, 1989 that the three heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating to each of them a specific one third portion of the subject property consisting of 10,246 square meters. In the Extrajudicial Settlement, the heirs also admitted that their father mortgaged the subject property to the Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the soonest possible time.

On October 12, 1992 or three years after the signing the Extrajudicial Settlement, Turing and Linda bought the subject property from the Bank which executed a Deed of Sale of Registered Land, Thus the Bank’s title was cancelled and a new title was issued in the names of Turing and Linda.

Considering that Tino was in possession of the land and refused to turn it over to Turing and Linda, who already notified him that they were the new owners, Turing and Linda filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against Tino after exhausting all remedies for amicable settlement.

On February 7, 1997 however the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Tino ordering Turing and Linda to execute a Deed of Sale in his favor the one third portion of the land presently possessed by him. The RTC held that the right of Tino to purchase from Turing and Linda his share in the disputed property was recognized by the provisions of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement which was executed before Turing and Linda bought the subject lot from the bank. Was the RTC correct?

No. The estate of a person consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. In this case, Pinong was no longer the owner of the subject property when he died on July 6, 1984 because the Bank had already acquired exclusive ownership of the said property when title was issued in its name pursuant to the Definite Deed of Sale executed by   the Sheriff in its favor on January 25, 1984. Since Pinong lost ownership of the property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the said disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate which can be the subject of Extrajudicial Settlement among the heirs. Stated differently, the subject land was never inherited by Tino, Turing and Linda nor did it pass into their hands as compulsory heirs of Pinong.

Turing and Linda therefore legally acquired the subject property in their own right and not as heirs when they purchased it from the Bank. So Tino should immediately surrender possession of the said property to them (Balus vs. Balus, G.R. 168970, January 15, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]