G.R. No. 258887 , July 31, 2023.
LUZ DELOS SANTOS, MINORS FRANCIS DELOS SANTOS, CATHERINE DELOS SANTOS, AND LORENCE DELOS SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. DEMY ALMA M. DELOS SANTOS, MONTANO M. DELOS SANTOS JOINED BY HIS WIFE ANALIZA G. DELOS SANTOS, IRENE ANGELA D. CLEMENTE JOINED BY HER HUSBAND ANGELO CLEMENTE, AND SEATIEL M. DELOS SANTOS JOINED BY HIS WIFE MICHELLE R. DELOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves the conjugal properties of Spouses Emerenciano Delos Santos and Adalia Delos Santos. After Adalia’s death in 1996, Emerenciano married Luz Delos Santos, with whom he had three children: Francis, Catherine, and Lorence. In 2009, Emerenciano and Luz, representing the minor children, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver (EJSW) concerning the subject properties, misrepresenting themselves as the sole heirs of Adalia. Emerenciano adjudicated to himself one-half of the properties as his conjugal share and then conveyed the entirety to his children with Luz. Subsequently, new titles and tax declarations were issued. After Emerenciano’s death in 2011, his children from his first marriage (Demy, Montano, Irene, and Seatiel) discovered the conveyances and filed a complaint for annulment of the EJSW and related deeds, claiming they were deprived of their rightful shares as legal heirs of Adalia. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the deeds, recognizing the respondents as legal heirs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Is a separate proceeding necessary before the trial court can acknowledge respondents’ heirship?
2. Did the courts a quo err in nullifying the EJSW and the Deed of Waiver, Quitclaim and Transfer of Residential Buildings, as well as the TCTs and TDs issued by virtue of the nullified deeds?
3. Was respondents’ cause of action already barred by laches and prescription?

RULING

1. No, a separate proceeding is not necessary to acknowledge respondents as Adalia’s legal heirs. Respondents, as Adalia’s children, are legal heirs by operation of law. The RTC had jurisdiction to rule on the matter, especially since the petitioners themselves raised questions about the respondents’ succession rights, and the issue of heirship was voluntarily submitted and evidence was presented.
2. The EJSW and Deed of Waiver are void insofar as they excluded the respondents from their rightful shares in Adalia’s estate. The properties were conjugal, and upon Adalia’s death, her half formed part of her estate, to which her legal heirs (respondents and Emerenciano) were entitled. The conveyances that excluded co-heirs are void. However, the conveyances pertaining to Emerenciano’s undivided share should be recognized as valid, subject to proper liquidation and partition. The courts a quo erred in annulling the deeds in their entirety; the nullity applies only to the portion pertaining to Adalia’s estate.
3. No, the respondents’ cause of action was not barred by laches and prescription. An action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. The respondents timely asserted their rights upon discovering the conveyances after their father’s death.