This case involved a dispute over land between the heirs of Policronio Ureta and the other heirs of their father, Alfonso Ureta. Alfonso had executed deeds of sale for parcels of land to four of his children, including Policronio, for tax avoidance purposes. However, the land deeded to Policronio was never transferred to him and remained under the control of the administrators of Alfonso's estate after his death. The heirs of Policronio challenged an extrajudicial partition of Alfonso's estate that excluded them. The RTC found for the other heirs, but the CA partially granted the appeal by the heirs of Policronio and remanded the
This case involved a dispute over land between the heirs of Policronio Ureta and the other heirs of their father, Alfonso Ureta. Alfonso had executed deeds of sale for parcels of land to four of his children, including Policronio, for tax avoidance purposes. However, the land deeded to Policronio was never transferred to him and remained under the control of the administrators of Alfonso's estate after his death. The heirs of Policronio challenged an extrajudicial partition of Alfonso's estate that excluded them. The RTC found for the other heirs, but the CA partially granted the appeal by the heirs of Policronio and remanded the
This case involved a dispute over land between the heirs of Policronio Ureta and the other heirs of their father, Alfonso Ureta. Alfonso had executed deeds of sale for parcels of land to four of his children, including Policronio, for tax avoidance purposes. However, the land deeded to Policronio was never transferred to him and remained under the control of the administrators of Alfonso's estate after his death. The heirs of Policronio challenged an extrajudicial partition of Alfonso's estate that excluded them. The RTC found for the other heirs, but the CA partially granted the appeal by the heirs of Policronio and remanded the
Among these 14 belong the ascendants of the parties in this case Policronio and Liberato. Here, the descendants of Policronio are up against the rest of Alfonsos children and their descendants (including those of Liberato) When he was alive, Alfonso was well-off he owned several fishpens, a fishpond and a sari-sari store, among others.o On October 1969, four of Alfonsos children (Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco), together with their father met in Liberatos house. Francisco, who was then a municipal judge suggested that to reduce the inheritance taxes, their father should make it appear that he sold some of his lands to his children. As such, Alfonso executed 4 deeds of sale covering parcels of land in favour of Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife, Valeriana dela Cruz. The dispute of this case is centered on the deed of sale in favour of Policronio which covered six parcels of land. Since the sale was only made to avoid taxes and that no monetary consideration was received, Alfonso continued to enjoy the lands. When Alfonso died, except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest of the parcels transferred to Policronio were never turned over to him. Instead, these were turned over to the administrators of Alfonsos estate Liberato, succeeded by Prudencia, and then by her daughter Carmencita Perlas. Subsequently, Alfonsos heirs executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition, which included all the lands
covered by the 4 deeds of sale executed by Alfonso for tax purposes. When the heirs of Policronio learned about the extra- judicial partition involving Alfonsos estate (Conrado, the Policronio heirs representative avers that he did not understand the partitions terms when he signed it) which excludes them, they sought to amicably settle the matter with the rest of the heirs of Alfonso. Given the futility of these talks, the heirs of Policronio filed a complaint for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, annulment of documents, partition, and damages. Note: a will was never mentioned in this case - RTC Judgment In favour of the Heirs of Alfonso. According to the court, it was clearly established that the deed of sale was null and void. Policronios heirs never took possession of the involved lots and not even a single centavo was paid for consideration of the sale. Even assuming there was, the 2000 pesos for the six parcels of land the heirs of Policronio claimed that was paid to Alfonso was grossly inadequate. The deed of extrajudicial partition was declared valid by the RTC. The Court considered Conrados (the representative of the heirs of Policronio) claim that he did not understand the full significance of his signature when he signed in behalf of his coheirs, as a gratuitous assertion. The RTC said that given his signature in all the pages of the extrajudicial partition and having appeared personally before the notary public, he is presumed to have understood the contents. Court of Appeals Judgmento Partially Granted the CA, disagreeing with the RTC, declared that the
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was void. This
decision of the CA was predicated on the incapacity of one of the parties to give his consent to the contract. It held that for Conrado to bind his coheirs to the partition, it was necessary that he acquired special powers of attorney from them pursuant to Article 1878 of the Civil Code. The CA said that the case should be remanded to determine the proper portions to be awarded to the heirs
Issue (relevant to preterition): WON the defense of
ratification and/or preterition raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained Held: No preterition in this case Ratio: E
- The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the
absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their representative results, at the very least, in the preterition and not the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue that remanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longer necessary since the issue is purely legal. Conrado then, according to them, should just fully account for what he received and deliver to his co-heirs their respective shares in the inheritance. - This cannot be given credence AT ALL
- Their posited theory on preterition is no longer
viable. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WILL IN THIS CASE
- Preterition has been defined as the total
omission of a compulsory heir from the disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testatment, either
by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him
anything in the hereditary property buy without expressly disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case E
- Thus, PRETERITION IS A CONCEPT OF
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. In the absence of a will, there can be no preterition.