G.R. No. 118680 ; March 5, 2001
MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE, CARMEN, MERCEDES & RAMON, all surnamed RODRIGUEZ, ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ, CHAN LUNG FAI, MATEO TAN TE, TE ENG SUY, LORETA TE, VICTORIO S. DETALIA, JEROME DEIPARINE, PETRONILO S. DETALIA, HUBERT CHIU YULO, PATERIO N. LAO, LORENSITA M. PADILLA, IMMACULATE CONCEPCION COLLEGE AND LILIAN EXPRESS, INC. and TIO TUAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Elena Rodriguez Pedrosa was the legally adopted child of spouses Miguel Rodriguez and Rosalina Rodriguez. Upon Miguel’s death in 1972, petitioner and Rosalina extrajudicially settled his estate. Private respondents, Miguel’s siblings, filed an action to annul the adoption in 1972, which was dismissed by the trial court in 1974. While their appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, the siblings, together with Rosalina acting as sole representative of Miguel’s heirs, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition in 1983 concerning the estates of Miguel and their sister Pilar. This partition allocated specific parcels to Miguel’s heirs but excluded petitioner. Based on this deed, new titles were issued, and portions were sold to various respondents. In 1986, the appeal questioning the adoption was jointly dismissed, upholding its validity. When petitioner later claimed her share, she was refused. She then filed a complaint in 1987 to annul the 1983 partition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the extrajudicial settlement and partition executed in 1983 is valid and binding upon petitioner, who was excluded from the proceedings despite being a co-heir.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the partition is void with respect to petitioner. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership and the requirements for a valid extrajudicial settlement under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. Upon Miguel’s death, his estate was inherited in equal shares by his compulsory heirs: his surviving spouse Rosalina and his adopted child, petitioner. They became co-owners of the hereditary property. A partition executed without the consent of all co-owners is void ab initio with respect to the excluded heir. The Court emphasized that Rosalina could not represent petitioner’s interest in the partition without her consent, as their interests were adverse; Rosalina herself participated in the partition to the exclusion of petitioner. The requirement under Rule 74 for an extrajudicial settlement among heirs mandates that all heirs must participate or be represented with authority. Since petitioner was neither a participant nor represented, the settlement is invalid as to her share. The Court rejected the defenses of prescription and estoppel. The action to declare the nullity of a void partition does not prescribe. Furthermore, petitioner’s act of seeking a more equitable share did not constitute ratification of the void deed. The Court also clarified that the two-year period in Rule 74 for reopening a settlement refers to claims against the distributed estate, not to an action to declare a nullity for lack of consent from a co-owner. Consequently, the partition and all subsequent transfers deriving from it are void insofar as petitioner’s hereditary share is concerned. The case was remanded for proper partition.