SANTIAGO vs. SANTIAGO

MA. PILAR SANTIAGO and CLEMENTE SANTIAGO vs. ZOILO S. SANTIAGO, FELICIDAD SANTIAGO-RIVERA, HEIRS OF RICARDO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF CIPRIANO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS SANTIAGO
G.R. No. 179859 August 9, 2010
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Facts:
Basilio Santiago contracted three marriages the first to Bibiana Lopez, the second to Irene Santiago, and the third to Cecilia Lomotan. Basilio and his first wife bore two offsprings, Irene and Marta, the mother of herein oppositors Felimon, Leonila, Consolacion, Ananias, Urbano, and Gertrudes, all surnamed Soco. Basilio and his second wife had six offsprings, Tomas, Cipriano, Ricardo, respondents Zoilo and Felicidad, and petitioner Ma. Pilar, all surnamed Santiago. Basilio and his third wife bore three children, Eugenia herein petitioner Clemente, and Cleotilde, all surnamed Santiago.
One of the provision of the will state that “e) Ang lupat bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod x x x.”
After the executrix-petitioner Ma. Pilar filed a Final Accounting, Partition and Distribution in Accordance with the Will, the probate court approved the will by Order of August 14, 1978 and directed the registers of deeds of Bulacan and Manila to register the certificates of title indicated therein. The oppositors-heirs of the first marriage thereupon filed a complaint for completion of legitime against the heirs of the second and third marriages.

Issue:
Whether or not the decree of distribution of the estate of Basilio should remain undisturbed

Ruling:
The Court is not persuaded. It is clear from Basilios will that he intended the house and lot in Manila to be transferred in petitioners names for administration purposes only, and that the property be owned by the heirs in common. But the condition set by the decedent on the propertys indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation. On this point, the Court agrees with the ruling of the appellate court: “ For this Court to sustain without qualification, petitioners’s contention, is to go against the provisions of law, particularly Articles 494, 870, and 1083 of the Civil Code, which provide that the prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership can only last for twenty (20) years. Although the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it would be contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code

Adjudication:

            The petition is DENIED

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

PEOPLE VS TAMPAL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUIS TAMPAL, DOMINGO PADUMON, ARSENIO PADUMON, SAMUEL PADUMON, and HON. WILFREDO C. OCHOTORENA G.R. No. 102485   May 22, 1995 Facts:           LUIS TAMPAL, DOMINGO PADUMON, ARSENIO PADUMON, SAMUEL PADUMON, PABLITO SUCO, DARIO SUCO and GALVINO CADLING were charged  with the crime of "Robbery with Homicide and Multiple Physical Serious Injuries."  Only private respondents Luis Tampal, Samuel Padumon, Arsenio Padumon and Domingo Padumon, were arrested. The others remained at large. Upon arraignment, the private respondents pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.  The case was set for hearing. On said date, however, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero mover for postponement on the ground that he failed to contact his material witnesses. The case was reset without any objection from the defense counsel.  The case was called on but the prosecutor was not present. The respo...
Read more

DELA CRUZ VS SISON

EPIFANIA DELA CRUZ, substituted by LAUREANA V. ALBERTO vs. SPS. EDUARDO C. SISON and EUFEMIA S. SISON G.R. No. 163770             February 17, 2005 Facts:                 Epifania claimed that sometime in 1992, she discovered that her rice land in Salomague Sur, Bugallon, Pangasinan, has been transferred and registered in the name of her nephew, Eduardo C. Sison, without her knowledge and consent, purportedly on the strength of a Deed of Sale she executed on November 24, 1989. Epifania thus filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, to declare the deed of sale null and void. She alleged that Eduardo tricked her into signing the Deed of Sale, by inserting the deed among the documents she signed pertaining to the transfer of her residential land, house and camarin, in favor of Demetrio, her foster child and the brother of Ed...
Read more