G.R. No. L-17818 January 25, 1967
TIRSO T. REYES, as guardian of the minors Azucena Flordelis and Tirso, Jr., all surnamed Reyes y Barretto, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETTO-DATU, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Bibiano Barretto died in 1936, leaving a will that instituted Salud Barretto (mother of the plaintiffs’ wards) and Lucia Milagros Barretto as his heirs, with the usufruct of a fishpond reserved for his widow, Maria Gerardo. A project of partition was signed by Maria Gerardo (for herself and as guardian of the minor Milagros) and Salud Barretto, and was approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1939. Salud took possession of her share and secured new titles. After Maria Gerardo’s death in 1948, it was discovered Salud was not the legitimate daughter of Bibiano and Maria Gerardo, a fact affirmed by the Supreme Court in a prior case. The plaintiffs (children of Salud) then filed an action to recover a one-half share in the fishpond. The defendant, Milagros Barretto, counterclaimed, seeking to recover all properties Salud received from Bibiano’s estate, arguing the project of partition was void because Salud was not a true heir. The lower court dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiffs to deliver the properties to Milagros, declaring the partition null under Article 1081 of the old Civil Code and applying an implied trust under Article 1456 of the new Civil Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the project of partition and the subsequent decree of distribution of Bibiano Barretto’s estate are null and void because Salud Barretto was not a legitimate child/heir.
2. Whether Milagros Barretto’s action to contest the partition and decree is barred by the statute of limitations.
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ action for partition of the fishpond should proceed.

RULING

1. The project of partition and the decree of distribution are not null and void. Article 1081 of the old Civil Code does not apply because Salud Barretto was instituted as a testamentary heir in Bibiano’s will; the article refers to one believed to be an heir without being so, not to a named testamentary heir. Bibiano was free to dispose of the free portion of his estate to Salud. There was no preterition, as Milagros was not omitted from the will. The partition was also not an invalid compromise on civil status under Article 1814, as there was no dispute over Salud’s status at the time. The decree of distribution, once final, vests title and is binding as a judgment in rem unless set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud.
2. Milagros Barretto’s action to contest the partition and decree is barred by the statute of limitations. The four-year period for annulment of judgment (based on fraud) under Section 43 of Act No. 190 began to run from the finality of the decree in 1939 or, at the latest, from when she reached majority in 1944, and expired long before her counterclaim in 1956. Allegations of a verbal promise by the plaintiff guardian to reconvey properties do not bind the minor wards and do not interrupt the prescriptive period.
3. The plaintiffs’ action for partition of the fishpond should be given due course. The lower court’s order for the plaintiffs to reconvey the properties to Milagros is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court to proceed with the action for partition of the fishpond (Lot No. 4, Plan Psu-4709) and for an accounting of its fruits. The denial of Milagros’s right to an accounting is affirmed.