-
7/25/2019 Case # 13 Pedrosa vs. CA
1/3
Case # 13
G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001
MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ EDRO!A,petitioner,
vs.
"E ON. COUR" O$ AEAL!, %O!E, CARMEN, MERCEDE! & RAMON, a''
s(r)a*e+
RODRIGUEZ, RO!ALINA RODRIGUEZ, CAN LUNG $AI, MA"EO "AN "E, "E
ENG !U, LORE"A
"E, -IC"ORIO !. DE"ALIA, %EROME DEIARINE, E"RONILO !. DE"ALIA,
UER" CIU ULO,
A"ERIO N. LAO, LOREN!I"A M. ADILLA, IMMACULA"E CONCECION COLLEGE
AND LILIAN
E/RE!!, INC. a)+ "IO "UAN,respondents.
UI!UMING, J.
$AC"!
On April 29, 1972, Miguel died intestate. Thereafter, petitioner
(Maria Elena R. Pedrosatheadpted !hild" and Rosalina entered into
an e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent of Miguel&s estate,
ad$udi!ating
'eteen the%selves in e)ual proportion the estate of Miguel.
On *ove%'er 21, 1972, private respondents (Rodrigue+es" filed an
a!tion to annul the adoption
of petitioner 'efore the - of O+a%i+ it/, ith petitioner and
herein respondent Rosalina as defendants.
On August 20, 197, the - denied the petition and upheld the
validit/ of the adoption.
Thereafter, the private respondents appealed said de!ision to
the ourt of Appeals.
On Mar!h 11, 190, hile said appeal as pending, the Rodrigue+es
entered into an e#tra$udi!ial
settle%ent ith respondent Rosalina for the partition of the
estate of Miguel and of another sister, Pilar.Rosalina a!ted as the
representative of the heirs of Miguel Rodrigue+. Pilar had no heirs
e#!ept his
'rothers and sisters.
The 3eed of E#tra$udi!ial 4ettle%ent and Partition !overed 1
par!els of land !overing a total
area of 22,00 s)uare %eters. These properties ere divided a%ong
5ose, ar%en, Mer!edes, Ra%on
and the heirs of Miguel, represented solel/ '/ Rosalina.
Ar%ed ith the 3eed of E#tra$udi!ial 4ettle%ent and Partition,
respondents Rodrigue+es ere
a'le to se!ure ne Transfer ertifi!ates of Title (TTs" and ere
a'le to transfer so%e par!els to the
other respondents herein '/ virtue of 3eed of 4ale.
On 5une 19, 1906, the parties in the appeal hi!h sought to annul
the adoption of petitioner
Pedrosa filed a $oint Motion to 3is%iss. A dis%issed the appeal
'ut upheld the validit/ of the adoption of
petitioner.
Thereafter, petitioner sent her daughter, to !lai% their share
of the properties fro% the
Rodrigue+es. The latter refused sa/ing that Maria Elena and her
daughter ere not heirs sin!e the/ ere
not their 'lood relatives.
Petitioner, then, filed a !o%plaint to annul the 190 partition.
The said !o%plaint as filed on
5anuar/ 20, 1907. 4aid !o%plaint as later a%ended on Mar!h 2,
1907 to in!lude the allegation 8that
earnest efforts toard a !o%pro%ise ere %ade 'eteen the
plaintiffs and the defendants, 'ut the sa%e
failed.8
Respondents, in response, !lai% that the a!tion of petitioner
had alread/ pres!ri'ed
The RT dis%issed the !o%plaint. Petitioner appealed to the A.
The appellate !ourt affir%ed
the de!ision of the T. Petitioner filed a MR, hi!h as denied '/
the A. en!e, this petition.
-
7/25/2019 Case # 13 Pedrosa vs. CA
2/3
I!!UE!
1. :O* the !o%plaint for annul%ent of the 83eed of E#tra$udi!ial
4ettle%ent and Partition8 had
alread/ pres!ri'ed;
2. :O* said deed is valid; and
3. :O* the petitioner is entitled to re!over the lots hi!h had
alread/ 'een transferred to the
respondent 'u/ers.
Een pla!e
hen said instru%ent as filed ith the Register of 3eeds and ne
!ertifi!ates of title ereissued in the na%e of respondents
e#!lusivel/.
onsidering that the !o%plaint of the petitioner as filed on
5anuar/ 20, 1907, or three /ears and ten
%onths after the )uestioned e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent dated Mar!h
11, 190, as e#e!uted, the !ourt holds
that her a!tion against the respondents on the 'asis of fraud
has not /et pres!ri'ed.
2. The 3eed of e#tra 5udi!ial settle%et of estate and partition
is nvalid.
4e!tion 1 of Rule 7 of the Rules of ourt is the appli!a'le rule
on pu'li!ation of e#tra$udi!ial
settle%ent. t states=
The fa!t of the e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent or ad%inistration shall
'e pu'lished in a
nespaper of general !ir!ulation in the %anner provided in the
ne#t su!!eeding se!tion; but no
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who
has not participated therein or had
no notice thereof.
nder said provision, ithout the parti!ipation of all persons
involved in the pro!eedings, the
e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent !annot 'e 'inding on said persons. The
rule !onte%plates a noti!e hi!h %ust 'e
sent out or issued beforethe 3eed of 4ettle%ent andBor Partition
is agreed upon, i.e., a noti!e !alling all
interested parties to parti!ipate in the said deed of
e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent and partition, not after, hi!h
as hen pu'li!ation as done in the instant !ase. sin!e Maria
Elena did not parti!ipate in the saidpartition, the settle%ent is
not 'inding on her.
A deed of e#tra$udi!ial partition e#e!uted ithout in!luding so%e
of the heirs, ho had no
>noledge of and !onsent to the sa%e, is fraudulent and
vi!ious.Maria Elena is an heir of Miguel together
ith her adopting %other, Rosalina. Ceing the lone des!endant of
Miguel, she e#!ludes the !ollateral
relatives of Miguel fro% parti!ipating in his estate. The de!ree
of adoption as valid and e#isting. :ith
-
7/25/2019 Case # 13 Pedrosa vs. CA
3/3
this fa!tual setting, it is patent that private respondents
e#e!uted the deed of partition in 'ad faith ith
intent to defraud Maria Elena.
The partition in the present !ase as invalid 'e!ause it e#!luded
si# of the nine heirs ho ere
entitled to e)ual shares in the partitioned propert/. nder the
rule, 8no e#tra$udi!ial settle%ent shall 'e
'inding upon an/ person ho has not parti!ipated therein or had
no noti!e thereof
To sa/ that Maria Elena as represented '/ Rosalina in the
partitioning is i%pre!ise. Maria
Elena, the adopted !hild, as no longer a %inor at the ti%e
Miguel died. Rosalina, onl/ represented her
on interests and not those of Maria Elena. 4in!e Miguel
prede!eased Pilar, a sister, his estate
auto%ati!all/ vested to his !hild and ido, in e)ual shares.
Respondent Rodrigue+es& interests did not
in!lude Miguel&s estate 'ut onl/ Pilar&s estate.
:ERE-ORE, the petition is DRA*TE3. The assailed
de!ision of the ourt of Appeals is here'/ REER4E3 and 4ET A43E.
The 83eed of E#tra$udi!ial
4ettle%ent and Partition8 e#e!uted '/ private respondents on
Mar!h 11, 190 is de!lared invalid
. Diven the !ir!u%stan!es in this !ase, it is !onstrained to
hold that this is not the proper foru% tode!ide this issue. The
properties sought to 'e re!overed '/ the petitioner are no all
registered
under the na%e of third parties. :ell settled is the do!trine
that a Torrens Title !annot 'e
!ollaterall/ atta!>ed. The validit/ of the title !an onl/ 'e
raised in an a!tion e#pressl/ instituted for
su!h purpose.
:ERE-ORE, the petition is DRA*TE3. The assailed de!ision of the
ourt of Appeals is here'/
REER4E3 and 4ET A43E. The 83eed of E#tra$udi!ial 4ettle%ent and
Partition8 e#e!uted '/ private
respondents on Mar!h 11, 190 is de!lared invalid
