GR 43607; (February, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43607; February 16, 1938
ERIBERTO ALFORQUE, as judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased Ricario Veloso, and JUAN VELOSO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. GABINO R. VELOSO, in his own behalf and as administrator of the estate of the deceased Josefa Garces, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Rafael Veloso died in 1897, leaving a will that instituted his nine legitimate children (including plaintiffs Juan and Ricario Veloso and defendant Gabino R. Veloso) and one acknowledged natural child as his heirs. His widow, Josefa Garces, was granted a usufruct over his properties. In 1906, the heirs, including Josefa Garces, entered into an extrajudicial deed of partition (Exhibit B) of Rafael’s estate. This deed adjudicated specific properties to Josefa Garces in full ownership, not merely usufruct. For over 24 years, she exercised acts of ownership over these properties, and some heirs even sold parts of their shares to her. After Josefa’s death, the plaintiffs (heirs of Rafael) filed an action seeking to recover the properties adjudicated to Josefa, arguing they passed to them upon her death as her usufruct had terminated. They contended the partition was void for not conforming to the will, which only granted Josefa a usufruct.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial deed of partition executed by the heirs and the widow in 1906 is valid and binding, thereby precluding the heirs from later impugning it to claim the properties adjudicated to the widow in full ownership.
RULING
Yes, the partition is valid and binding. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The right to inherit is renounceable. The heirs, including the plaintiffs’ predecessors, freely and voluntarily agreed to the partition, adjudicating properties to Josefa Garces in full ownership. By their subsequent acts of ownership over their respective shares for over 24 years and their failure to challenge the partition during Josefa’s lifetime, they are now estopped from impugning it. The partition, though not in strict conformity with the will’s provision for a usufruct, constituted a valid renunciation and modification of their hereditary rights by mutual agreement. The defendants were absolved from the complaint.
AI Generated by Armztrong.