REBECCA VIADO NON, JOSE A. NON and DELIA VIADO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIA N. VIADO, CHERRI VIADO and FE FIDES VIADO, respondents.
FACTS
The dispute involves a house and lot in Quezon City, originally owned by the spouses Julian and Virginia Viado. Upon Virginia’s death in 1982, the property was transmitted to her heirs: her husband Julian and their children Nilo, Rebecca, Leah, and Delia. After Julian’s death in 1985, tensions arose between petitioners (Rebecca and Delia) and respondents (the widow and children of Nilo, who also died) regarding ownership. Petitioners filed an action for partition, asserting co-ownership.
Respondents claimed absolute ownership based on two documents executed on August 26, 1983: a Deed of Donation where Julian donated his conjugal share to Nilo, and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement where Julian, Leah (via Nilo’s power of attorney), and Rebecca waived their hereditary shares from Virginia’s estate in favor of Nilo. These instruments were registered only on January 7, 1988, after the deaths of Julian, Nilo, and Leah. Petitioners attacked the documents, alleging forgery, undue influence, and fraud in their execution, and further argued that Delia’s preterition in the settlement invalidated it.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which upheld the validity of the Deed of Donation and Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, thereby adjudicating the property to respondents and terminating the co-ownership.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core issues raised by petitioners were factual, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence regarding the documents’ validity. Both lower courts found petitioners’ evidence, consisting mainly of self-serving testimonies, insufficient to prove forgery, undue influence, or fraud. The Court emphasized that Rebecca Viado, a teacher, could not plausibly claim she signed the extrajudicial settlement under a mistaken belief it was merely for administration. The five-year delay in registering the documents did not invalidate them, as registration is a ministerial act that creates constructive notice but does not affect validity between the parties.
Regarding Delia’s preterition, the Court agreed with the appellate court that while her exclusion from the settlement constituted preterition, it did not, absent proof of fraud and bad faith, justify annulling the title derived from the settlement. The proper remedy, correctly ordered by the Court of Appeals, was not rescission but payment to Delia of the value of her hereditary share under Article 1104 of the Civil Code. Thus, the remand to the trial court to determine this value was proper. The instruments validly consolidated ownership in Nilo, and upon his death, it rightfully passed to his heirs, the respondents.
