Heirs of Policronio Ureta v.

Heirs of Liberato Ureta

(2011)
Facts:

In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta begot 14 children.

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.