Bautista vs. Griño-Aquino

An extrajudicial partition is void ab initio if it includes property that does not belong to the decedent's estate, as this constitutes an illegal partition of future inheritance and deprives the lawful owner and their compulsory heirs of property without due process.

Manuel Bautista owned a parcel of land inherited from his father. Upon the death of his first wife, her heirs executed an extrajudicial partition of her estate, which improperly included Manuel's exclusive property, effectively divesting him of ownership and prejudicing his daughter from a second marriage.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance of Rizal, Civil Case No. 4033-P
• Lower Court Decision: January 14, 1983 — Dismissed the complaint with costs against plaintiffs.
• Appeal: CA-G.R. CV No. 03631
• CA Decision: August 3, 1987 — Affirmed the trial court's decision.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners challenging the CA decision.

• The Exclusive Property: The land in question was registered under TCT No. 2210 in the name of Manuel Bautista, who inherited it from his father, Mariano Bautista.
• The First Marriage: Manuel Bautista was first married to Juliana Nojadera, who later died.
• The Extrajudicial Partition: On December 22, 1966, private respondents (heirs of Juliana) executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of the estate of the late Juliana Nojadera. The document included Manuel's exclusive property and indicated Manuel waived his share in favor of private respondents. Manuel denied signing the document, but an NBI examination concluded the signature was authentic.
• The Subsequent Sales: Private respondents (except Manolito) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Manolito (TCT No. 14186 issued). Shortly after, Manolito sold the property back to the other private respondents (TCT Nos. 15665-15671 issued).
• The Second Marriage: Manuel married his second wife, Emiliana Tamayo, and had a daughter, Evangeline Bautista (born April 29, 1949).
• The Challenge: Petitioners filed suit to nullify the extrajudicial partition, the deeds of sale, and the resulting titles, arguing the property was Manuel's exclusive property and Evangeline was pretermitted.

• The findings of fact by the CA are manifestly absurd and mistaken.
• The CA authorized the extrajudicial partition of future inheritance in clear violation of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
• The CA authorized the preterition of Evangeline Bautista in violation of the law on succession.

• Relied on the CA's affirmance of the trial court's findings, primarily resting on the authenticity of Manuel Bautista's signature on the extrajudicial partition as confirmed by the NBI.
• Asserted the defense of prescription, arguing that the petitioners' right to file the action had already prescribed.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the action to nullify the extrajudicial partition has prescribed.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the exclusive property of a surviving husband can be the subject of an extrajudicial partition of the estate of his deceased wife; whether such partition constitutes a void partition of future inheritance; whether the partition results in the preterition of a compulsory heir.

• Procedural: The action has not prescribed. The right to sue co-owners for partition is imprescriptible. Even assuming the action could prescribe, petitioners Emiliana and Evangeline were not parties to the instrument and asserted they discovered it only shortly before filing the complaint.
• Substantive: The extrajudicial partition is void ab initio. Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, extrajudicial settlement applies only to the estate left by the decedent. The subject property belonged exclusively to Manuel Bautista, not to the estate of Juliana Nojadera. Including it in the partition deprived the lawful owner of his property without due process. Furthermore, the partition constitutes a prohibited partition of future inheritance under Article 1347 of the Civil Code. The partition also resulted in the bad faith preterition of Evangeline Bautista, a compulsory heir, as private respondents knew of her existence as their half-sister. All subsequent transactions among private respondents are consequently null and void.

• Extrajudicial Partition of Estate — Applies only to the estate left by the decedent who died without a will, with no creditors, and where heirs are all of age or minors are properly represented. Property not belonging to the decedent's estate cannot be lawfully included.
• Prohibition against Partition of Future Inheritance — Partition of future inheritance is prohibited by law. A partition executed during the lifetime of the owner, disguised as a partition of a decedent's estate, is void.
• Preterition — The omission of a compulsory heir from the partition. When attended with bad faith (as when heirs knowingly exclude a known compulsory heir), the partition must be rescinded.
• Imprescriptibility of Action for Partition among Co-owners — An action for partition among co-owners does not prescribe.

• Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court — Governs extrajudicial settlement by agreement among heirs. Applied by the SC to emphasize that such settlements are confined strictly to the estate of the decedent; Manuel's exclusive property falls outside Juliana's estate.
• Article 1347, Civil Code — Prohibits contracts upon future inheritance. Applied by the SC to invalidate the partition, as it effectively partitioned Manuel's property during his lifetime.
• Articles 1080 and 1102, Civil Code — Govern preterition and the rescission of partitions. Applied by the SC to rescind the partition due to the bad faith preterition of Evangeline Bautista.