GR 36078; (March, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 36078 ; March 11, 1933
VALERIANA VELAYO BERNARDO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL SIOJO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Valeriana Velayo Bernardo, is the maternal aunt of Maximina Aguirre, who died without descendants. The lands in dispute originally belonged to Valeriana’s parents and were inherited by Maximina. Upon Maximina’s death, she bequeathed the lands to her father, Pablo Aguirre (2/3) and her husband, Miguel Siojo (1/3). Pablo Aguirre later filed a partition suit against Siojo, which was settled by a compromise agreement where Siojo would retain possession of all lands in exchange for paying Pablo Aguirre P3,250. This agreement falsely stated that Valeriana was present and consented, renouncing her rights. Valeriana was not a party to that suit or agreement. Subsequently, Siojo sold portions of some parcels to Pablo Aguirre, who then sold them to Valeriana. During cadastral proceedings, Siojo obtained Torrens titles for the lands in his name alone. Valeriana filed this action for partition, claiming a 5/6 share as a reservatario (reservee) under Article 811 of the Civil Code, and for an accounting of fruits.
ISSUE
Whether Valeriana Velayo Bernardo, as a reservatario, has a right to demand partition of the lands and to seek an accounting of their fruits from Miguel Siojo, despite the Torrens titles issued in his name.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. Valeriana, as the sole reservatario under Article 811 of the Civil Code, acquired a vested right to the reservable property upon the death of the descendant (Maximina Aguirre) without issue. The compromise agreement between Pablo Aguirre and Siojo, to which Valeriana was not a party, could not validly extinguish her reservatory right. The Torrens titles issued to Siojo did not bar her action. While the titles were indefeasible, they were obtained through constructive fraud because Siojo, in his cadastral application, failed to disclose Valeriana’s existing interest as a reservatario. This omission constituted fraud sufficient to allow Valeriana to assert her right against the registered owner. The court ordered partition, declaring Valeriana entitled to 5/6 of the lands, and remanded the case for an accounting of fruits.
AI Generated by Armztrong.