Inexistent right

What constitutes the inheritance of a person? This is answered in this case of Tino, Nino and Narda.

Tino, Nino and Narda were the children of Rudy, a widower who owned a parcel of land with an area of 3.0740 hectares. On January 3, 1979, Rudy mortgaged the said property as security for a loan he obtained from a Rural Bank.

When Rudy failed to pay his loan, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and was subsequently sold to the bank as the highest bidder at a public auction held for that purpose. On November 20, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was executed by the Sheriff in favor of the Bank. Rudy however was not able to redeem the property within the period allowed by law. So on January 25, 1984, the Sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of the Bank and a title was issued in its name, although possession of the land remained with Rudy.

On July 6, 1984, Rudy also died without leaving any Will. While his son Tino thereafter continued possession of the land, he and his brother and sister Nino and Narda did not execute a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Rudy until October 10, 1989 wherein they adjudicated to each of them a specific one-third portion of the land consisting of 10,246 square meters. The Deed also contained a provision acknowledging that the property had been mortgaged by their father to the bank and that they would redeem it at the soonest possible time.

Three years after, only Nino and Narda bought back the property from the Bank as a result of which a Deed of Sale was executed in their favor on October 12, 1992 and Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in their names but possession of the land remained with Tino.

 So, on June 27, 1995, Nino and Narda already filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Tino alleging that despite being informed that they were the new owners of the land and after exhausting all means to reach an amicable settlement, Tino refused to surrender possession of the same to them.

Tino on the other hand contended that by virtue of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement they signed, which is a contract by itself and the law between them, they agreed to continue their co-ownership of the subject property they inherited from their father Rudy, by redeeming or repurchasing the same from the bank. As a result, Tino argued that Nino and Narda’s act of buying the land from the Bank without notifying him inures to his benefit as to give him the right to claim his rightful 1/3 portion of the property by reimbursing Nino and Narda of the sum they paid the Bank. Was Tino correct?

No. The inheritance 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 succession. In this case Rudy already lost ownership of the land during his lifetime. There is no dispute that Title was already in the name of the Bank on January 25, 1984, before Rudy died on July 6, 1984. So Tino, Narda, and Nino never inherited the land from their father Rudy. In the eyes of the law, the disputed land did not pass into the hands of Tino, Nino and Narda as compulsory heirs of Rudy at any given time. The lack of knowledge on their part that the mortgage was already foreclosed and title to the property was already transferred to the Bank does not give them the right or authority to unilaterally declare themselves as its co-owners.

Besides, the Extrajudicial Settlement clearly showed their intention of having the property partitioned by assigning to each of them a specific 1/3 portion. Partition seeks the severance of the individual interest of each co-owner, vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific portion. In order words the purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership, which negates Tino’s claim. Hence Tino should immediately surrender the subject property to Nino and Narda who had already repurchased it from the Bank (Balus vs. Balus, G.R. 168970, Jnanuary 15, 2010, 610, SCRA, 178).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]