Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Heirs of William Sevilla vs. Sevilla. Art. 1330

This case involved a dispute over property inherited by the children of Filomena Almirol de Sevilla. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a deed of donation executed by Felisa Almirol giving her share of one of the properties to Leopoldo Sevilla, finding no evidence of fraud or undue influence. [2] However, the Court ruled that a subsequent deed of extrajudicial partition was void because Felisa no longer had authority over the property after donating her share. [3] The Court affirmed the lower court's decision with the modification of declaring the deed of partition void.

Uploaded by

Ash Manguera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Heirs of William Sevilla vs. Sevilla. Art. 1330

This case involved a dispute over property inherited by the children of Filomena Almirol de Sevilla. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a deed of donation executed by Felisa Almirol giving her share of one of the properties to Leopoldo Sevilla, finding no evidence of fraud or undue influence. [2] However, the Court ruled that a subsequent deed of extrajudicial partition was void because Felisa no longer had authority over the property after donating her share. [3] The Court affirmed the lower court's decision with the modification of declaring the deed of partition void.

Uploaded by

Ash Manguera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Garcia, Maria Francheska M.

-- 15-0725

Heirs of William Sevilla vs. Sevilla


G.R. No. 150179. April 30, 2003
Topic: Mistake or Error; Mistake of Fact

FACTS:
On December 10, 1973, Filomena Almirol de Sevilla died intestate leaving 8 children, namely:
William, Peter, Leopoldo, Felipe, Rosa, Maria, Luzvilla and Jimmy, all surnamed Sevilla.
Filomena left the following properties; Parcel I, Parcel II, Parcel III, Parcel IV. Parcel I was
co-owned with Filomena’s siblings, Honorata and Felisa Almirol, meanwhile, the remaining parcels were
the conjugal properties of Filomena and her late-husband. During their lifetime, Honorata and Felisa
lived in the house of Filomena, together with and in the care of their nephew, the respondent, Leopoldo
Sevilla and his family.
In 1982, Honorata died and transmitted her ⅓ share over Parcel I to her heirs, Felisa Almirol and
the heirs of Filomena, who thereby acquired the property in the proportion of ½ share each.
In 1985, Felisa executed a last will and testament devising her ½ share over Parcel I to the
spouses Leopoldo Sevilla and Belen Leysen. Additionally, in 1986, Felisa executed another document
“Donation Inter Vivos” ceding to Leopoldo Sevilla her share over Parcel I, it was accepted by Leopoldo
in the same document.
In 1986, Felisa and Peter Sevilla, in his behalf and in behalf of the heirs of Filomena, executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, identifying and adjudicating the ⅓ share of Honorato to the heirs of
Filomena and to Felisa.
In 1990, the children of Filomena and the heirs of William, Jimmy and Maria Sevilla filed the
instant case against Leopoldo, Peter and Luzvilla Sevilla, for annulment of the Deed of Donation and the
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, Accounting, Damages, with prayer for Receivership and for Partition of
the properties of the late Filomena. In their complaint, the petitioners alleged that the Deed of Donation
was tainted with fraud since Felisa was of unsound mind and, that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was
void since it was executed without their knowledge and consent.
In 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City rendered a decision upholding the validity of
the Deed of Donation and declaring the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition unenforceable. In 2000, the Court
of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Deed of Donation executed by Felisa Almirol in favor of Leopoldo Sevilla
was valid?
2. Whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was valid?

RULING:
1. YES, it was valid. There is fraud when, through the insidious words or machinations of one of the
contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not
have agreed to. There is undue influence when a person takes advantage of his power over the
will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice.
a. There is a presumption of consent when one enters into a contract. Fraud, committed in
any of the mean enumerated, must be established full, clear and convincing evidence by
the party that alleges its existence.
In the present case at bar, the testimony of the notary public that notarized the Deed of Donation
that Felisa was of sound mind is controlling, especially since the petitioners did not even attempt
to overcome such a claim and only offered vague testimonies to prove their claim.
2. NO, it is void ab initio due to the lack of authority of Felisa to partition the properties. In the case at
bar, at the time Felisa executed the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition she was no longer the owner of ½ of
the share of Parcel I since she already donated her share to Leopoldo. A donation inter vivos is
immediately operative and final. Felisa no longer had the capacity to give consent to or execute the deed
of partition inasmuch she was neither the owner or authorized representative of Leopoldo, the owner.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
48956, affirming ​in toto ​the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 6, in Civil Case
No. 4240, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated September 3,
1986 is declared void, and the name of Rosa Sevilla is ordered included in the dispositive portion of the
trial court’s judgment.

You might also like