G.R. No. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957
MARIA VELARDE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Maria Velarde and Luis Velarde, filed nine separate complaints in the Court of First Instance of Manila against several defendants. They alleged they were the niece and nephew, respectively, and the only intestate heirs of Rosalia Velarde, who died on January 6, 1950. They claimed ownership of several parcels of land in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, registered in Rosalia’s name. The plaintiffs contended that Rosalia, while physically and mentally incapacitated and through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation by the defendants, signed Deeds of Absolute Sale in English without consideration. The defendants subsequently registered these deeds and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title in their names. The complaints sought to annul the deeds, cancel the defendants’ titles, revive Rosalia’s titles, appoint a receiver for accounting, and award attorney’s fees.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on grounds of improper venue, pendency of another action, and the plaintiffs’ lack of legal capacity to sue. At the time the Manila complaints were filed, Special Proceeding No. 476 for the probate of Rosalia’s will and Intestate Proceeding No. 497 (later withdrawn) were pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, involving the same properties. The plaintiffs had filed oppositions and interventions in those proceedings. The trial court, through Judge Tiburcio Tancinco, issued an order on August 21, 1952, dismissing all nine cases. The plaintiffs’ motion to set aside this order was denied, prompting their appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Court of First Instance of Manila was the proper venue for the actions; (2) whether the actions were barred by the pendency of special proceedings for the settlement of Rosalia Velarde’s estate in Nueva Ecija; and (3) whether the plaintiffs, as intestate heirs, had the legal capacity to sue for the annulment of the deeds of sale executed by the deceased.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order of dismissal.
1. On venue and pendency of another action: The Court held that the actions should have been filed in Nueva Ecija. The properties were located there, and the parties were residents of that province. Furthermore, the matter of who the rightful heirs of Rosalia Velarde were could and should be determined in the pending testate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 476) in Nueva Ecija. Filing separate actions in Manila was unnecessary and improper.
2. On legal capacity to sue: The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the legal capacity to challenge the validity of the deeds of sale. Rosalia Velarde had no forced heirs and, therefore, had the absolute right to dispose of her properties. The plaintiffs, not being parties to the contracts and not being forced heirs, could not sue to annul the contracts as representatives of the deceased. The right to annul a contract under Article 1300 of the Civil Code belongs only to the contracting parties or their heirs to whom rights and obligations under the contract are transmitted. Since Rosalia voluntarily conveyed the properties (even if for a false consideration), she transmitted no right of action to annul to her heirs. The Court cited precedents, including Concepcion vs. Sta. Ana, which held that a heir who is not forced cannot institute an action to annul or rescind a contract made by the decedent to defraud that heir.
3. The Court also addressed the appellants’ argument regarding a prior order by Judge Gatmaitan denying a motion to dismiss in four cases. It held that Judge Tancinco’s dismissal order was based on a separate motion filed by different defendants (Mariano de Guzman, et al.) and was proper. Since the causes of action and legal questions in all nine cases were common, the dismissal inured to the benefit of all defendants.