GR 48155; (November, 1942) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48155 & G.R. No. 48156 ; November 28, 1942
JOSE NARCISO Y ANGELES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FLORENTINO MAURICIO, defendant-appellee. ( G.R. No. 48155 )
JOSE NARCISO Y ANGELES ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICENTE MAURICIO, defendant-appellee. ( G.R. No. 48156 )
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, Jose Narciso y Angeles et al., filed complaints alleging that a deceased person executed sales of her properties in favor of the defendants-appellees, Florentino Mauricio and Vicente Mauricio. The complaints allege that these sales were fictitious. It is further alleged that the deceased died intestate without any descendant or ascendant, and that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are her collateral (intestate) heirs. The defendants filed a demurrer and a motion to dismiss, which, by legal implication, admitted the truth of the allegations in the complaints for the purpose of testing their legal sufficiency.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs, as intestate heirs, have a cause of action to seek the partition of the properties allegedly sold under fictitious contracts by the deceased.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants and held that the complaints stated a valid cause of action.
1. Since the complaints allege the sales are fictitious, and this is deemed admitted by the demurrer and motion to dismiss, the sales are legally non-existent, not merely voidable or null. Consequently, there is no contract to annul. The properties subject of these non-existent sales remain part of the estate of the deceased.
2. Given the admitted allegations that the deceased died intestate without direct heirs and that the plaintiffs and defendants are her collateral heirs, they are all entitled to succeed to her properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the main relief prayed for: the partition of the described properties among the lawful heirs (the plaintiffs and the defendants) in accordance with the law of intestate succession.
3. The Court cited Article 1257 of the Civil Code, which states that contracts bind only the parties and their heirs, except when rights and obligations are non-transmissible. The resolution of the validity of the sales, if necessary when the cases are decided on the merits, would only be incidental to the primary action for partition.