G.R. No. 228854 , March 17, 2021
NIEVES NAVARRO, IN HER CAPACITY AS ONE OF THE VENDEES OF A PORTION OF THE ESTATE OF DIONISIA CAYABYAB AND AS ONE OF THE HEIRS OF VICTORIA CAYABYAB, AND IRENE NAVARRO, IN HER CAPACITY AS ONE OF THE HEIRS OF VICTORIA CAYABYAB, PETITIONERS, VS. ZENAIDA CAYABYAB HARRIS AND ROBERT E. HARRIS, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS HEIRS OF RODRIGO CAYABYAB AND JOSEFINA BAUTISTA CAYABYAB; MELANIO CAYABYAB AND MARGARITA LAMBINO, THE HEIRS OF INOCENCIA CAYABYAB; VENERANDA CAYABYAB-PASTRANA, JOSE CAYABYAB AND VERONICA SIAPNO, YOLANDA CAYABYAB, AND FELIX CAYABYAB AND MYRNA PADUA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS HEIRS OF REMEGIO CAYABYAB, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Leoncia Tamondong, married to Buenaventura Cayabyab, owned two parcels of land. They had five children: Remegio, Victoria, Rodrigo, Dionisia, and Paciencia. Rodrigo died in 1954, leaving a wife, Josefina, and a daughter, Zenaida. Leoncia died in 1944. On September 16, 1961, an Extrajudicial Partition of Leoncia’s estate was executed by the surviving heirs: Buenaventura, Remegio, Victoria, Dionisia, and Paciencia, to the exclusion of Rodrigo’s heirs. The partition allocated specific portions of the properties to the participating heirs. Subsequent transactions, including a 1984 sale by Dionisia of her share to some of Victoria’s children (the Navarro Vendees) and a 1995 Confirmation of Subdivision, were based on this partition. In 2001, forty years after the partition, the heirs of Rodrigo (Zenaida and Josefina) and Melanio Cayabyab (who claimed to be Leoncia’s son) filed a Complaint for Annulment of the Extrajudicial Partition and all resulting transactions, alleging they were excluded as compulsory heirs. The Navarros countered, arguing prescription and challenging Melanio’s filiation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the Extrajudicial Partition, declaring it void for excluding Rodrigo’s heirs, and ordered a new partition. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The Navarros elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Extrajudicial Partition dated September 16, 1961 is void for excluding the compulsory heirs of Rodrigo Cayabyab, thereby rendering the action for its annulment imprescriptible.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court ruled that the Extrajudicial Partition is void. Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, a partition executed without the participation of one or more compulsory heirs is not binding upon the excluded heirs. Since the heirs of Rodrigo, a compulsory heir of Leoncia, did not participate in nor receive their share from the partition, the partition is void as to them. A void contract produces no legal effect and is deemed inexistent from the beginning. Consequently, an action for the declaration of its inexistence does not prescribe. Therefore, the action filed by Rodrigo’s heirs in 2001, though forty years after the partition, was not barred by prescription. The Court also upheld the finding that Melanio Cayabyab was not an heir of Leoncia, as his birth certificate was simulated and he was in fact the son of Remegio. The transactions stemming from the void partition, including the Deed of Absolute Sale and subsequent titles, were likewise annulled. The estate of Leoncia was ordered to be partitioned anew among the legitimate heirs.