G.R. No. 9234; September 19, 1914
VALENTINA DE TORRES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NARCISO DE TORRES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Valentina de Torres, the plaintiff, is the daughter of the late Sulpicio de Torres. On December 19, 1911, Sulpicio de Torres executed a private document recognizing Valentina as his natural daughter, which was ratified before a notary. Sulpicio de Torres died intestate on December 28, 1911. On January 10, 1912, the plaintiff executed an instrument of partition (Exhibit A) with the defendantsNarciso de Torres (her uncle and brother of the deceased), and Mariano Obispo and Cesareo Rabina (nephews of the deceased)dividing the estate of Sulpicio de Torres among them. The plaintiff alleged that she agreed to the partition because the defendants, taking advantage of her ignorance, falsely represented that they had an equal right to the inheritance as she was merely a natural daughter and not entitled to the entire estate. During trial, the plaintiff testified under oath that her parents, both single at the time of her birth, subsequently married. The defendants’ counsel, present during this testimony, did not contradict or deny this statement. The defendants, in their answer, claimed the partitioned lands belonged exclusively to defendant Mariano Obispo, having been acquired from the Spanish Government. The trial court declared the partition null and void and ordered the defendants to return the lands to the plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether the agreement of partition (Exhibit A) executed between the plaintiff and the defendants is valid.

RULING:
No, the agreement of partition is null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The plaintiff, Valentina de Torres, is the legitimized natural daughter of Sulpicio de Torres. Her uncontradicted testimony established that her parents, single at her birth, subsequently married. Under Article 122 of the Civil Code, a natural child legitimized by the subsequent marriage of its parents enjoys the same rights as legitimate children. Consequently, as the sole legitimate descendant of the deceased, she is his exclusive legal heir. The defendants, being more remote relatives (a brother and nephews of the deceased), are excluded from the inheritance under Article 921 of the Civil Code, and no right of representation applies. Furthermore, the partition is void under Article 1081 of the Civil Code, which states that “a division made with a person who was believed to be an heir without being so shall be void.” The plaintiff, an uneducated woman, erroneously believed the defendants were co-heirs due to their misrepresentations. Therefore, the defendants, having no right to the estate, must restore the properties to the plaintiff, the lawful owner and sole heir.