Scribd
Upload
124 views1 page

Cruz V Cruz

Uploaded by

Mark
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
124 views1 page

Cruz V Cruz

Uploaded by

Mark
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/ 1

Reported by: Ladim, Mark Joseph R.

(3D)

Cruz v. Cruz
G.R. No. 211153, 28 Feb 2018 [Del Castillo, J.]

Facts Respondents Angelito, Concepcion, Serafin (all surnamed Cruz) alleged in its complaint filed
: before the RTC that: (1) Respondents – together with their siblings, petitioner Amparo and Antonia
(all surnamed Cruz) inherited a parcel of land (subject property) from their late parents, Spouses
Felix and Felisa Cruz; (2) In 1986, the siblings executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate
(1986 deed) covering the subject property, on the agreement that each heir shall receive an equal
portion of the subject property as mandated by law; (3) In 1998, respondents discovered that
Antonia was allocated two (2) lots, as against one (1) each for the respondents which, which
contravened the 1986 Deed; (4) Antonia and Amparo perpetrated fraud by inducing Concepcion –
who was illiterate – to sign the 1986 deed, which was written in English language, a language to
which Concepcion is not familiar with, without previously reading and explaining the contents
therein.

The RTC dismissed the complaint holding that: (1) actual fraud is not substantiated; and (2) that
respondent's cause of action has not prescribed. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and held that:
(1) The 1986 deed be annulled and set aside due to the existence of fraud; and (2) the petition is
barred by prescription, applying the 4-year prescriptive period from the discovery of fraud. Hence
this petition.
Issue: Whether the 1986 Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement is null and void. (AFFIRMATIVE)

Held: This is a case of exclusion in legal succession where co-heirs were deprived of their rightful share
to the estate of their parents who died intestate – by virtue of a defective deed of extrajudicial
settlement or partition which granted a bigger share to one of the heirs, and was prepared in such a
way that the other heirs would be deprived of discovering and knowing its contents.

The right of accretion is applied in the instant case. - Under Art. 980 of the New Civil Code
(NCC), the children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares. In this case, two of Concepcion's co-heirs renounced their shares in the
subject property. Their shares, therefore, shall accrue to the remaining heirs in equal shares as well,
pursuant to Arts. 1015, 1018-1020, of the NCC.

The 1986 Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement is VOID because Concepcion was effectively
deprived of her inheritance; the action to have it annulled does not prescribe. - In Segura v.
Segura, it was held that “no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court).” As the partition
was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court (in
Segura) to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed. The deed of extrajudicial
partition in the case at bar being invalid, the action to have it annulled does not prescribe. In this
case, Concepcion was effectively deprived of her true inheritance on account of her illiteracy and
not so much that she was defrauded. Therefore, the CA is correct when it set aside the 1986 Deed.
However, the CA erred when it applied the 4-year prescriptive period – when it should have ruled
that the action to have the 1986 Deed annulled does not prescribe given that the same was a total
nullity.

You might also like