G.R. No. 81344 February 7, 1990
Irene Benedicto, Cion Benedicto, Dominador Benedicto, Estela Benedicto, Matilde Benedicto and Eslana Benedicto, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Gregorio Ramos, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves Lot 308, originally owned by spouses Catalino Ramos and Agatona Avendano. Upon their death, their children Maria, Gregorio, and Marciana Ramos became co-owners. Maria’s children (the petitioners) inherited her share. Marciana died single and intestate in 1976. Respondent Gregorio Ramos filed a complaint for partition, claiming one-half of Marciana’s one-third share, with the other half to go to petitioners as heirs of Maria.
Petitioners opposed, alleging that on January 16, 1966, Marciana mortgaged her share to spouses Teodoro Roxas and Irene Benedicto for P3,000, evidenced by a “Kasulatan ng Sanglaan na Mayroong Panagot.” They claimed the debt remained unpaid and that Teodoro Roxas paid Marciana’s P1,500 funeral expenses. Gregorio contested the mortgage’s validity and genuineness, arguing it was fictitious and, if genuine, had prescribed. The mortgage was registered only on August 19, 1976, over ten years after execution and after Marciana’s death.

ISSUE

Whether an action for partition of the decedent’s estate is premature due to the existence of an alleged unpaid mortgage debt, which the petitioners argue must be settled first under Article 1078 of the Civil Code and Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that partition was proper as the alleged mortgage debt had prescribed, thus there was no valid obligation to settle from the estate.
The legal logic is anchored on prescription. Under Article 1142 of the Civil Code, an action to foreclose a mortgage prescribes in ten years. The mortgage was executed in January 1966. Gregorio Ramos filed the partition complaint on March 9, 1977. By this date, the right to foreclose had prescribed. Consequently, the mortgage could no longer be enforced against the property. The Court further noted that the underlying loan itself, being a written contract, also prescribed in ten years. Therefore, at the time of the partition suit, the decedent Marciana Ramos had no subsisting debt or obligation. The petitioners’ reliance on Article 1078 (estate owned in common subject to payment of debts) and Rule 74 (partition allowed if no debts) was misplaced because the precondition—an existing debt—was absent. The finding of prescription by the lower courts was conclusive. With no valid debt, the partition could proceed to adjudicate the heirs’ respective shares.