Navarro vs. Harris

An extrajudicial partition that intentionally excludes a compulsory heir is void ab initio for being contrary to law, but the nullity of the partition does not void a co-heir’s subsequent sale of her own undivided hereditary share; the vendee acquires the vendor’s pro indiviso interest and becomes a lawful co-owner, and the remedy is a new partition of the estate in accordance with the law on intestate succession.

Leoncia Tamondong died intestate in 1944, survived by her husband Buenaventura and their five children: Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo, Dionisia, and Paciencia. She left two parcels of land: a 10,269-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 2570 (0-43633) and a 638-sq.m. lot under OCT No. 43631. Rodrigo died on August 15, 1954, leaving his wife Josefina and daughter Zenaida as his forced heirs. Paciencia died on June 9, 1998 without issue. On September 16, 1961, an Extrajudicial Partition of Leoncia’s estate was executed by Buenaventura, Remegio, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia, excluding Rodrigo’s heirs, although Rodrigo was already deceased and his heir Zenaida was then a minor. The partition adjudicated the 638-sq.m. lot and a 3,465-sq.m. portion of the larger lot to Remegio, while Buenaventura, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia each received 1,701 sq.m. Victoria died in 1963 and her share passed to her ten children (the Navarros). On December 28, 1984, Dionisia sold her 1,701-sq.m. share to four of Victoria’s daughters — Nieves, Cecilia, Leonida, and Mercedes Navarro — by a Deed of Absolute Sale; a new title (TCT No. 63484) was issued in their names alongside the other co-owners. In 2001, Rodrigo’s heirs and Melanio Cayabyab (who claimed to be Leoncia’s son, but was later found to be Remegio’s son) filed a complaint to annul the Extrajudicial Partition and all subsequent transactions, alleging they were unlawfully excluded.

• The Estate and Heirs: Leoncia Tamondong died intestate in 1944, survived by her husband Buenaventura and children Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo, Dionisia, and Paciencia. She owned two parcels of land: a 10,269-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 2570 (0-43633) and a 638-sq.m. lot under OCT No. 43631. Rodrigo died in 1954, leaving his wife Josefina and daughter Zenaida as forced heirs. Paciencia died in 1998 without issue. Another claimant, Melanio Cayabyab, asserted that he was a son of Leoncia, but the courts later found he was actually a child of Remegio, registered as Leoncia’s son only in keeping with a local custom, and thus an heir of Remegio by representation.

• The Extrajudicial Partition: On September 16, 1961, an Extrajudicial Partition of Leoncia’s estate was executed by Buenaventura, Remegio, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia. The partition excluded Rodrigo’s heirs (Josefina and Zenaida), who had no knowledge or participation in its execution. The document adjudicated to Remegio the entire 638-sq.m. lot plus a 3,465-sq.m. portion of the larger lot, while Buenaventura, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia each received 1,701 sq.m. TCT No. 2570 was cancelled and replaced with TCT No. 11564 in the names of the five signatories.

• Subsequent Transfers: Victoria died in 1963, and her 1,701-sq.m. share was inherited by her ten Navarro children. Buenaventura died in 1975. On December 28, 1984, Dionisia sold her 1,701-sq.m. share via a Deed of Absolute Sale to four of Victoria’s daughters — Nieves, Cecilia, Leonida, and Mercedes Navarro — the Navarro vendees. TCT No. 63484 was subsequently issued in their names alongside the other co-owners and reflected the sale. Before Remegio’s death in 1995, a Confirmation of Subdivision dated February 2, 1995 was executed, and Remegio’s share eventually passed to his own heirs.

• The Complaint: On July 9, 2001, respondents Zenaida (Rodrigo’s daughter) and Melanio filed a complaint for annulment of the Extrajudicial Partition and all transactions arising from it, alleging that they were compulsory heirs unjustly excluded and deprived of their inheritance from Leoncia. They prayed for a new partition of the two lots. Petitioners (the Navarro vendees and Irene Navarro) countered that the partition of Paciencia’s estate had not yet been effected and that respondents had made unjustified demands; they also challenged Melanio’s filiation and sought damages for an unfounded suit. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents: the Extrajudicial Partition and all its derivative transactions, including Dionisia’s sale, were declared void ab initio, and a repartition into three equal shares was ordered. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, specifically assailing the voiding of the sale to the Navarro vendees and the denial of their counterclaim for damages.

• Validity of the Sale to the Navarro Vendees: Petitioner Nieves Navarro (one of the vendees) argued that the nullity of the Extrajudicial Partition should not automatically void the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Dionisia in favor of the Navarro vendees. She maintained that Dionisia, as a co-heir, had the right to sell her own undivided pro indiviso share in the estate, a right that existed independently of the validity of the partition instrument.

• Entitlement to Damages: Petitioners asserted that respondents Zenaida and Melanio acted maliciously and filed the complaint out of greed to obtain a larger share, entitling them to damages as a counterclaim for an allegedly unfounded suit with unjustifiable demands.

• Nemo Dat and Void Chain of Title: Respondents Zenaida and Melanio argued that because the Extrajudicial Partition was void ab initio, all subsequent transactions flowing from it — including the Deed of Absolute Sale — were likewise void. They invoked the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, claiming that Dionisia could transfer no valid title to the Navarro vendees because the partition upon which her title was based was void. They cited Bautista v. Bautista, where the Court invalidated an entire chain of transfers following a defective extrajudicial partition.

• Rightful Heir Status: Respondents maintained their status as compulsory heirs excluded from the partition, and that the repartition ordered by the lower courts fully protected their hereditary rights by reverting the properties to Leoncia’s estate.

• Effect of Nullity of Partition on Subsequent Sale: Whether the declaration of nullity of the Extrajudicial Partition automatically renders void a co-heir’s subsequent sale of her own undivided share to other co-heirs.

• Damages: Whether petitioners are entitled to an award of damages on their counterclaim.

• Effect of Nullity of Partition on Subsequent Sale: The nullity of the Extrajudicial Partition did not void the sale by Dionisia of her undivided share. Dionisia was a compulsory heir of Leoncia; upon Leoncia’s death, Dionisia acquired by operation of law a pro indiviso interest in the entire estate. Her ownership right over that undivided share vested at the moment of death, not from the extrajudicial partition. As a co-owner, she possessed the full right under Article 493 of the Civil Code to alienate, assign, or mortgage her undivided part. The Deed of Absolute Sale was therefore valid and effective to the extent of her proportionate hereditary share. The nullity of the partition affected only the instrument’s distribution mechanics, not the underlying hereditary rights of the signatories. Accordingly, the Navarro vendees became lawful pro indiviso co-owners of a 1,701-sq.m. portion representing Dionisia’s share, together with the other heirs of Leoncia. The Court distinguished Bautista v. Bautista and instead applied the principle in Segura v. Segura, which recognized that an invalid partition does not prevent vendors from disposing of their respective undivided shares. The vendees were declared co-owners and entitled to participate in the repartition.

• Damages: The counterclaim for damages was correctly dismissed for lack of basis. Respondents Zenaida and Melanio were merely enforcing their rightful inheritance after having been unjustly excluded from the partition. No bad faith or malice was established in their filing of the complaint.

• Voidness of Partition Excluding Compulsory Heirs — An extrajudicial partition executed with the intention of excluding a compulsory heir is void ab initio under Article 1409(1) of the Civil Code, as its object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, and good customs. It has no force and effect from the beginning as if it had never been entered into, and the action or defense for declaration of its inexistence does not prescribe under Article 1410. The heirs’ right to participate and receive their lawful shares cannot be defeated by a fraudulent or incomplete partition.

• Right of Co-owner to Alienate Undivided Share — Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of his pro indiviso part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it. The effect of alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the vendor upon the termination of the co-ownership. A co-heir who sells her undivided share transfers only her own hereditary portion, and the vendee becomes a pro indiviso co-owner with the other heirs. The nullity of a prior extrajudicial partition does not impair this right because the vendor’s title derives from succession, not from the void instrument.

• Ordinary Civil Action for Nullity Without Prior Determination of Heirship — In Treyes v. Larlar, the Court En Banc ruled that when no special proceeding for the settlement of a decedent’s estate or for determination of heirship is pending, compulsory or intestate heirs may file an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument and to recover property acquired via succession, without first obtaining a separate judicial declaration of their status. The ruling on heirship in such an action is binding only between and among the parties and limited to the cause of action of the ordinary case.

• “Veritably, a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent, is fraudulent and vicious. It has no force and effect from the beginning as if it had never been entered into and it cannot be validated either by time or ratification making an action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract imprescriptible in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code.”

• “Nevertheless, while the partition of the estate of Leoncia is null and void, the subsequent sale made by Dionisia of her share in favor of the Navarro Vendees is valid, but only with respect to her proportionate share, contrary to the findings of the lower courts. It cannot be denied that Dionisia has acquired her respective share in the properties of Leoncia from the moment of the latter's death and that, as owner thereof, she can very well sell her undivided share in the estate.”

• “Dionisia may therefore sell her undivided interest in Leoncia's estate and this disposition shall affect only her pro indiviso share.”

• Treyes v. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020 — Applied; established that compulsory heirs may file an ordinary civil action for nullity and recovery of property without a prior special proceeding for determination of heirship, with the ruling binding only inter partes. This validated the procedural footing of the complaint below.

• Constantino, et al. v. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., 718 Phil. 575 (2013) — Followed; held that an extrajudicial settlement executed to exclude co-heirs from their rightful share is void and inexistent for having an object contrary to law.

• The Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao v. Prudencio, et al., 794 Phil. 462 (2016) — Followed; decreed an extrajudicial partition void under Article 1409(1) when signatories knowingly represented themselves as the only heirs despite the existence of other heirs, and noted that no co-owner can be compelled to remain in co-ownership indefinitely.

• Bautista v. Bautista, 556 Phil. 40 (2007) — Distinguished; the Court declined to apply the nemo dat principle to void Dionisia’s sale, clarifying that Bautista did not stand for an unqualified rule that all subsequent transfers are automatically void, and instead followed the reasoning in Segura v. Segura.

• Segura v. Segura, 247-A Phil. 449 (1988) — Applied; recognized that with an invalid deed of partition, vendors could still validly dispose of their respective undivided shares in the land, making vendees pro indiviso co-owners with the other heirs.

• Article 980, Civil Code — Children of the deceased inherit in equal shares in their own right. This established Rodrigo’s right to a one-sixth share equal to each of his siblings.

• Article 493, Civil Code — Each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it; the alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted in the division of the co-ownership. Applied to uphold the validity of Dionisia’s sale of her undivided share.

• Articles 1003 and 1005, Civil Code — Governed the succession of Paciencia, who died single and without issue; her estate was to be divided among her surviving brothers and sisters, with Zenaida and Josefina inheriting by representation of Rodrigo.

• Article 1409(1), Civil Code — Contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law are inexistent and void from the beginning. This was the basis for nullifying the extrajudicial partition that excluded compulsory heirs.

• Article 1410, Civil Code — An action or defense for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. This rendered the respondents’ challenge to the 1961 partition timely.

• Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court — Governing extrajudicial settlement of estates; a partition not binding on heirs who did not participate or receive their shares.

• Section 1, Rule 69, Rules of Court — Complaints for partition of real estate; used to order a repartition of the subject properties in accordance with intestate succession.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred.