Case 1 Mabalot v.
Madela
Facts
- Plaintiff appellant as owner of an apartment leased it to Atty. Armando Galvez on a monthly
basis of P200.00 a month since 1967.
- Upon the death of Atty. Armando Galvez, the spouses Mabalot were ordered to vacate since
they cannot inherit the said apartment.
- Araceli Mabalot (the wife) admitted that Atty. Armando Galvez mentioned in his application for
insurance that she was also mentioned as a niece.
- And they have the right to continue as tenants.
- The City Court ruled in favor of the Spouses.
- However it was reversed by Judge Madela in the Court of First Instance, filing an Unlawful
detainer and ordering them to vacate the premises since they are not heirs of Atty. Galvez.
- The spouses Mabalot argue that an action for unlawful detainer must be filed within one year
after the unlawful deprivation of the possession of the subject property by the defendant.
Issues:
- Whether or not a lease contract may be the subject of inheritance.
Ruling:
- The petition was dismissed by the court.
- The court ruled that the filing of the action for unlawful detainer was well within the one year
period.
o The occupancy of the apartment by Araceli Mabalot in 1966 was not unlawful because
she was then a member of the household of Armando Galvez who was the lessee of the
premises in question.
o The possession of the petitioners became unlawful only after Armando Galvez died.
- Hence, the action in this case is for the recovery of the possession of real property brought
within one year.
- And such legal issue is purely incidental to the question of whether they are entitled to possess
the apartment in question.
Case 2 Noel v. CA
Facts
- Nanaman spouses were a childless, legally-married couple. Gregorio, however, had a child
named Virgilio Nanaman by another woman.
- Upon the death of Gregorio, Virgilio declared the property in his name for taxation purposes.
- Virgilio then executed a deed of sale over the 34.7 hectare land in favor of respondent and was
then registered in the name of private respondent.
- However, the brother of Gregorio opposed the intestate estate proceedings and prayed that the
court cite private respondents and its tenants in contempt for interfering in the land.
- The trial court rendered a decision, holding that the action for annulment of the deed of sale
had prescribed in 1958 inasmuch as the sale was registered in 1954 and that Gregorio’s heirs
had slept on their rights by allowing Hilaria to exercise rights of ownership over Gregorio’s share
of the conjugal property after his death in 1945.
- Petitoner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
- Whether Hilaria and Virgilio could dispose of the entire property sold to private respondent.
Ruling:
- After the death of Gregorio, the succession to the estate was governed primarily by the
provisions of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889.
- Hilaria had full ownership over the undivided half of the estate.
- On the other hand, Virgilio was not an heir of Gregorio under the Spanish Civil Code of 1889.
Although he was treated as a child by the Nanaman spouses, illegitimate children who were not
natural were disqualified to inherit under the said Code.
o Article 998 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which gave an illegitimate child certain
hereditary rights, could not benefit Virgilio because the right of ownership of the
collateral heirs of Gregorio had become vested upon his death.
- In a contract of sale, it is essential that the seller is the owner of the property he is selling. The
principal obligation of a seller is "to transfer the ownership of" the property sold (Civil Code of
the Philippines, Art. 1458). This law stems from the principle that nobody can dispose of that
which does not belong to him.
o NEMO DAT QUAD NON HABET
- The Court reinstated and affirmed the decision of the trial court ruling that the sale was valid.
Case 3 Araneta v. Montelibano
Facts
- In this case Plaintiff Araneta commenced an action in the Court of First Instance against
defendant Montelibano to compel the delivery of a deed and possession of a certain parcel of
land in favor to the plaintiff.
- The facts in this case are that Defendant sold to Plaintiff the land in question with the right to
repurchase the same after a period of four years.
- Defendant remained in possession of the land and eventually died intestate without having
repurchased the said land.
- Thus an absolute deed should have been delivered to Plaintiff Araneta.
- The lower court held that the land went out of the possession of Defendant Montelibano and
was conveyed to a certain Leon Lopez.
- Therefore, it did not go into his estate, was not included in the inventory of his estate, and none
of the property came into the hands of the defendant Montelibano
- The court added that the sale made to Lopez was with the consent of Araneta and the balance
of the debt was also paid by Lopez.
Issues:
- W/o the land was sold to Leon Lopez.
Ruling:
- No
- The mere fact that the land in question was not included in the inventory of the estate of
Aniceto Montelibano does not show that it had been sold to Lopez.
- The court held that the present action could not be concluded without having all of the heirs in
court.
- Under the provisions of article 661 of the Civil Code, the heirs, by virtue of the right of
succession, are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of the deceased. The heirs are no
more than the continuation of the juridical personality of their predecessor in interest.
- The heirs having succeeded to whatever interest their ancestry had in the land and contract in
question, they may, by virtue of articles 1279 and 1280 of the Civil Code, be compelled in a
proper action to execute the public instrument required under the contract between their
ancestor and Araneta.
- Therefore, that all of the heirs of the said Aniceto Montelibano were not made parties in the
present action, the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and the cause is hereby
remanded to the lower court, with permission on the part of the plaintiff to amend his
complaint.
Case 4 Viardo v. Belmonte
Facts
Issues:
- Whether or not the trial court erred in not annulling the three sales executed by Pilar Belmonte.
- Whether or not the trial court erred in not annulling the sales executed by Pilar Belmonte in
favor of her daughters.
Ruling:
- No
o Before Pilar Belmonte sold parts of her undivided share, there was notice of lis pendens
recorded on the certificate of title; and that this notice is binding upon all who should
acquire an interest in the property subsequent to the record of the lis pendens.
o Pilar Belmonte, as the owner of this undivided one-half interest, had a right to sell it and
could convey absolute title thereto or to parts thereof.
- No
o The only evidence adduced by the appellant in support of this contention is that the
sales were made by the mother to her daughters. This is not enough evidence to hold
the sale fictitious and fraudulent.
o There is no evidence whatsoever that Pilar Belmonte, at the time she sold the lots, had
outstanding debts or was in an otherwise embarrassing financial position. Even the
credit of Leon C. Viardo, the appellant, was established only after the sales were
executed.
Case 5 Litonjua v. Montilla
Facts
- Pedro L. Litonjua filed in Special Proceeding No. 532 of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, Intestate Estate of Agustin Montilla, Sr., deceased, a motion praying that the
interest, property and participation of Claudio Montilla, one of the heirs of Agustin Montilla, Sr.,
in the latter's intestate estate be sold and out of the proceeds the judgment debt of Claudio
Montilla in favor of Pedro L. Litonjua be paid.
- This motion was opposed by Claudio Montilla and by Agustin Montilla, Jr., administrator of the
intestate estate.
- The Court of First Instance, of Negros Occidental issued an order denying the motion.
- Pedro L. Litonjua appealed
Issue:
- Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in denying Plaintiff’s motion.
Ruling:
- The court ruled in the negative.
- It cited the case of Ortiga Brothers & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico.
o it was held that the creditor of the heirs of a deceased person is entitled to collect his
claim out of the property which pertains by inheritance to said heirs, only after all the
debts of the testate or intestate succession have been paid and when the net assets that
are divisible among the heirs are known, because the debts of the deceased must first
be paid before his heirs can inherit.
o It was therein also held that a person who is not a creditor of a deceased, testate or
intestate, has no right to intervene either in the proceedings brought in connection with
the estate or in the settlement of the succession.
- Since plaintiff is not a creditor of the deceased Augustin Montilla Sr., therefore he cannot seek
to collect his claim out of the inheritance of Claudio Montilla, an heir, before the net assets of
the intestate estate have been determined.
