G.R. No. 181508 ; October 2, 2013
OSCAR CONSTANTINO, MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and CASIMIRA MATURINGAN, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF PEDRO CONSTANTINO, JR., represented by ASUNCION LAQUINDANUM, Respondents.

FACTS

Pedro Constantino, Sr. owned an unregistered parcel of land (240 sq m) in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Upon his death, he was survived by six children: Pedro Jr. (grandfather of respondents), Antonia (died without issue), Clara (died without issue), Bruno (survived by six children, including petitioner Casimira), Eduardo (survived by daughter Maura), and Santiago (survived by five children, including petitioner Oscar).
In 1999, respondents (great-grandchildren of Pedro Sr., representing Pedro Jr.’s line) filed a complaint against petitioners (grandchildren of Pedro Sr.) to nullify a document titled “Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” dated August 10, 1992, and the subsequent Tax Declarations issued in the names of petitioners Oscar Constantino and Casimira Maturingan, which canceled the old tax declaration in Pedro Sr.’s name. Respondents alleged the document was simulated and petitioners misrepresented themselves as the sole heirs of Pedro Sr., excluding other heirs.
Petitioners defended the validity of the “Pagmamana” as a mutual agreement among descendants. They counter-alleged that respondents had no cause of action because respondents’ lawful share in Pedro Sr.’s estate had already been transferred to them via a “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver” dated December 5, 1968, executed by the heirs of Pedro Jr. (Angelo, Maria, Arcadio, and Mercedes), which adjudicated unto themselves a separate 192 sq m lot by also misrepresenting they were the only legitimate heirs of Pedro Sr. Petitioners claimed the heirs acquiesced to this 1968 deed on the understanding that respondents would no longer share in the partition of the remaining 240 sq m lot subject of the 1992 “Pagmamana.”
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, applying the doctrine of in pari delicto. It ruled that both parties were equally at fault—respondents through their 1968 Deed and petitioners through their 1992 “Pagmamana”—as both excluded other heirs (Antonia, Clara, and Eduardo). The RTC held respondents, as successors-in-interest (privies in estate) to the signatories of the 1968 Deed, were bound by it and thus estopped from claiming a share in the 240 sq m lot.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC. It found the 192 sq m lot covered by the 1968 Deed belonged to Pedro Jr., not to Pedro Sr.’s estate, due to a typographical error in the document. Therefore, the CA held the doctrine of in pari delicto was inapplicable, as respondents’ 1968 settlement did not involve property of Pedro Sr.’s estate and thus did not prejudice the other heirs. The CA declared the 1992 “Pagmamana” void for excluding compulsory heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s decision and in declaring the “Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” void.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The Court held that the 1992 “Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” is void. An extrajudicial settlement among heirs requires the unanimous consent of all heirs. The document was executed only by the heirs of Santiago and Bruno Constantino, to the exclusion of the heirs of Pedro Jr., Antonia, Clara, and Eduardo. The exclusion of compulsory heirs renders the settlement invalid. Petitioners failed to prove that the excluded heirs had waived their rights or consented to the partition.
The Court rejected the application of the in pari delicto doctrine. For this doctrine to apply, both parties must have participated in the same illegal act. The Court found the factual premise incorrect. The 1968 “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver” pertained to a 192 sq m lot that belonged to Pedro Jr., not to the estate of Pedro Sr. This was supported by testimony and the CA’s finding of a typographical error. Since this deed did not involve property of the hereditary estate of Pedro Sr., it did not prejudice the other heirs of Pedro Sr. Therefore, respondents were not in equal fault with petitioners. Petitioners’ 1992 “Pagmamana,” which partitioned Pedro Sr.’s estate to the exclusion of other heirs, was an entirely separate and void act.
Consequently, the tax declarations derived from the void “Pagmamana” have no legal effect. The rights of all heirs to the estate of Pedro Constantino, Sr. must be respected, and the proper partition of the 240 sq m lot should include all his compulsory heirs.