Heirs of Rosendo Lasam vs. Umengan

An unprobated will cannot be the source of any right to possess property in an unlawful detainer case, as a will has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder until admitted to probate.

Spouses Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan owned Lots Nos. 5427 and 990 in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Their heirs conveyed the lots to Irene Cuntapay and Isabel Cuntapay, who later agreed to partition the property, with the eastern half (subject lot) belonging to Isabel. Isabel had six children from two marriages: Abdon, Sado, Rufo, and Maria from her first husband, and Trinidad and Rosendo from her second husband. The subject lot remained covered by the original certificates of title in the names of the Cuntapay spouses.

• The Subject Property: The disputed lot is the eastern half portion of Lot No. 5427 and Lot No. 990 in Tuguegarao City, originally owned by spouses Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan. Through a 1979 Partition Agreement, the eastern half was allocated to the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay.
• Petitioners' Claim: The heirs of Rosendo Lasam (Isabel's son from her second marriage) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Vicenta Umengan (the daughter of Abdon Turingan, Isabel's son from her first marriage). Petitioners alleged that Rosendo was the sole heir of the subject lot by virtue of a newly discovered Testamento Abierto executed by Isabel Cuntapay. They claimed that Vicenta’s occupation of the lot since 1955 was merely tolerated by Rosendo and that she refused to vacate despite demand.
• Respondent's Claim: Vicenta Umengan countered that Isabel died intestate, leaving her six children as co-owners with equal 1/6 pro indiviso shares. She asserted ownership over 4/6 of the property based on deeds of conveyance: Rufo sold his 1/6 share to her in 1961; Abdon purchased the 1/6 shares of Maria and Sado in 1975; and Abdon donated his own 1/6 share to her in 1961.
• Lower Court Rulings: The MTCC and RTC favored the petitioners, relying on the unprobated will and the principle that testacy is favored over intestacy. The CA reversed, finding that the will did not comply with formal legal requisites—lacking page numbers, an attestation clause, signatures on the second page, and notarial acknowledgment—and questioning its authenticity. The CA held that respondent's deeds of conveyance and prior possession established a better right to possess the property.

• Jurisdiction and Scope of Unlawful Detainer: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in ruling on the validity of the will after acknowledging that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case, which should only resolve physical possession.
• Validity of the Will: Petitioners maintained that the will complied with formal requisites and that the CA erroneously declared it void.
• Res Judicata: Petitioners insisted that the deeds of sale and donation relied upon by respondent were already adjudicated in a prior dismissed partition case (Civil Case No. 4917), thus constituting res judicata.
• Better Right to Possess: Petitioners asserted that respondent's possession was by mere tolerance, supported by an affidavit from her brother. They further argued that the Cuntapay spouses' original titles remained undisturbed, meaning Abdon and his siblings could not have validly conveyed portions of the lot to respondent.
• Technical Defects: Petitioners contended that the CA should have dismissed respondent's appeal outright for failure to comply with technical requirements, such as proper verification and written explanation for lack of personal service.

• Intestate Succession and Valid Conveyances: Respondent argued that Isabel died intestate, entitling her six children to equal pro indiviso shares. The conveyances of these shares to her via deeds of sale and donation were valid.
• Invalidity of the Will: Respondent challenged the validity of the unprobated will, highlighting its non-compliance with the formal requisites of the law on wills and questioning its authenticity due to a date discrepancy.
• Prior Possession: Respondent asserted that her possession of the property since 1955 gave her the right to remain until a person with a better right lawfully ejects her.

• Validity of Unprobated Will in Ejectment: Whether an unprobated will can be relied upon to establish a better right to possess property in an unlawful detainer case.
• Validity of Co-Heir Conveyances: Whether co-heirs can validly convey their pro indiviso shares in a property still covered by the original owners' titles.
• Res Judicata: Whether the dismissal of a prior partition case constitutes res judicata on the validity of the conveyances and ownership of the subject lot.

• Validity of Unprobated Will in Ejectment: The unprobated will was deemed incapable of conferring any right to possess. Because a will is ambulatory and has no effect until admitted to probate, petitioners cannot claim any right thereunder. The lower courts erred in relying on the unprobated will to favor petitioners' claim of possession.
• Validity of Co-Heir Conveyances: The conveyances made by the children of Isabel Cuntapay to respondent were valid. Upon the decedent's death, hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heirs, who own the estate in common before partition. The law recognizes the substantive right of heirs to dispose of their ideal or pro indiviso shares in the co-ownership, even if the property is still covered by the original owners' titles and the estate remains unsettled.
• Res Judicata: Res judicata was not established because the prior dismissal of the partition case was not a judgment on the merits. The prior court merely dismissed the action to allow for the probate of the newly discovered will, without conducting a trial on the merits or declaring the petitioners the owners of the disputed property.

• Probate of Wills — No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. A will is ambulatory and has no effect whatever prior to its admission to probate; no right can be claimed thereunder until such probate. The presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and a matter of public policy. The Court applied this doctrine to nullify the petitioners' claim of a better right to possess, which was anchored solely on an unprobated will.
• Alienation of Pro Indiviso Shares — An heir or co-owner has full ownership of their part in the co-ownership and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, even before partition and even if the estate is under administration. The effect of the alienation with respect to the co-owners is limited to the portion allotted to the alienating co-owner upon termination of the co-ownership. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the validity of the deeds of sale and donation executed by the Turingan children in favor of respondent.
• Res Judicata — For res judicata to apply, the following elements must concur: (1) finality of the former judgment; (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; (3) judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. The Court applied this doctrine to rule that the dismissal of the prior partition case did not bar the unlawful detainer action, as the dismissal was not a judgment on the merits.

• "No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court." — Citing Article 838 of the Civil Code, emphasizing the mandatory nature of probate before a will can have any legal effect.
• "Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated. To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal, vested by law with authority for that purpose, that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be, and that it has been executed, attested and published as required by law, and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind. It is a proceeding to establish the validity of the will." — Quoting Dr. Tolentino's treatise on Civil Law, defining the nature and purpose of probate proceedings.

• Cañiza v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1107 (1997) — Followed. The Court reiterated the ruling that a will has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder until admitted to probate.
• Acebedo v. Abesamis, G.R. No. 102380, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA 186 — Followed. The Court relied on this case to uphold the right of an heir to dispose of their ideal share in a property under administration or co-ownership.
• Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89 — Followed. Cited for the elements necessary for res judicata to apply.

• Article 838, Civil Code — Provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Applied to defeat petitioners' claim based on the unprobated will.
• Article 493, Civil Code — Mandates that each co-owner shall have the full ownership of their part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, with the effect of the alienation limited to the portion allotted to them upon partition. Applied to validate the conveyances of pro indiviso shares by the Turingan children to respondent.
• Articles 805 and 806, Civil Code — Prescribe the formal requisites for notarial wills, including subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment. Referenced by the CA to point out the fatal defects in the unprobated will.
• Article 1080, Civil Code — States that a partition of an estate by an act inter vivos or by will shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs. Cited by the MTCC erroneously to justify favoring the unprobated will over intestate succession.

Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.