G.R. No. L-79958 October 28, 1988
EMILIANA BAUTISTA, as Heir of the late MANUEL BAUTISTA and EVANGELINE BAUTISTA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUSTICES CAROLINA C. GRINO-AQUINO, et al., and MANOLITO BAUTISTA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Emiliana Bautista (second wife of Manuel Bautista) and Evangeline Bautista (their daughter) sought to annul a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and subsequent transactions involving a parcel of land. The property was originally registered under TCT No. 2210 in the name of Manuel Bautista, having been inherited by him from his father. After the death of Manuel’s first wife, Juliana Nojadera, the private respondents (children from the first marriage) executed an Extrajudicial Partition on December 22, 1966, partitioning this property among themselves as part of Juliana’s estate, with Manuel appearing to waive his share. This led to the cancellation of Manuel’s title and the issuance of new titles in the respondents’ names, followed by a series of sales among themselves.
Manuel Bautista denied signing the partition document. The parties submitted the signature for NBI examination, which concluded it was authentic. The trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the partition, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Can the property of the surviving spouse be lawfully included in an extrajudicial partition of the estate of the deceased spouse?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and declared the Extrajudicial Partition and all subsequent titles null and void ab initio.
The legal logic is clear and foundational. An extrajudicial settlement under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court applies exclusively to properties that constitute the estate of the decedent. The stipulated and proven fact was that the subject land was the exclusive property of Manuel Bautista, inherited from his own father and registered solely in his name. It never formed part of the estate of his predeceased wife, Juliana Nojadera. Therefore, including this property in a partition of her estate was a legal impossibility. The partition was void from the beginning as it deprived the lawful owner, Manuel, of his property without due process.
Furthermore, the transaction constituted a prohibited partition of a future inheritance under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, as it attempted to dispose of Manuel’s property during his lifetime under the guise of settling his wife’s estate. The Court also found that the series of quick sales among the respondents after the partition indicated a scheme to place the property beyond the reach of lawful heirs, notably Evangeline Bautista, whose preterition as a compulsory heir was attended by bad faith. Since the root partition was void, all derivative transactions and titles were likewise void. Prescription did not bar the action, as an action for partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and the petitioners timely asserted their rights upon discovery of the fraudulent deed. The Court ordered the restoration of the original title in Manuel Bautista’s name.