G.R. No. 81344 February 7, 1990
IRENE BENEDICTO, CION BENEDICTO, DOMINADOR BENEDICTO, ESTELA BENEDICTO, MATILDE BENEDICTO and ESLANA BENEDICTO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND GREGORIO RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the partition of Lot 308, originally owned by spouses Catalino Ramos and Agatona Avendano. Upon their death, their children—Maria Ramos, Gregorio Ramos, and Marciana Ramos—became co-owners. Maria’s children (the petitioners) inherited her share upon her death. Marciana died single and intestate in 1976. Respondent Gregorio Ramos, Marciana’s surviving brother, filed a complaint for partition, claiming a one-half share of Marciana’s one-third interest in the lot, with the other half going to the petitioners as heirs of their mother Maria.
The petitioners opposed the partition, alleging that Marciana had mortgaged her share to them in 1966 to secure a P3,000.00 loan, which remained unpaid. They argued that this outstanding debt of the deceased made the action for partition premature, citing legal provisions requiring settlement of debts before partition. Gregorio Ramos contested the mortgage’s validity and argued that even if genuine, the right to foreclose had prescribed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the existence of an alleged unpaid mortgage debt on the decedent’s share of the property legally precludes or renders premature an action for judicial partition of said property.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that partition was proper and not premature. The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the mortgage debt could no longer be enforced due to prescription. Under Article 1142 of the Civil Code, an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage prescribes in ten years. The mortgage was executed in January 1966. The complaint for partition was filed in March 1977, and the attempted extrajudicial foreclosure occurred in December 1977—both dates beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. Consequently, at the time of the partition suit, the mortgage right and the underlying loan obligation were extinguished by prescription.
The legal logic is clear: a debt that has prescribed is no longer a recoverable obligation of the estate. The petitioners’ reliance on Article 1078 of the Civil Code and Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, which condition partition on the payment of the decedent’s debts, is misplaced when the claimed debt is legally unenforceable. Since the prescribed mortgage constituted neither a valid debt nor an encumbrance on the property, there was no legal impediment to partitioning Marciana’s estate among her legal heirs. The Court thus affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the partition of the property between Gregorio Ramos and the petitioners.