The Supreme Court has denied the consolidated petitions of Felix G. Cruz, affirming the Court of Appeals (CA) decision and resolution that upheld the validity of an extrajudicial partition and settlement of estate executed by his brothers Robin and Osias Cruz over two parcels of land in Davao City. The Court ruled that Felix failed to establish a right superior to that of his brothers over the subject properties.
The Case
Luis and Rosita Cruz had six children: Felix, Robin, Osias, Henry, Doris, and Judy. On December 11, 2004, Judy died single and intestate, leaving two parcels of land in Davao City — the first lot of 690 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-265567, and the second lot of 536 square meters covered by TCT No. T-265123.
On May 16, 2005, Rosita executed a Waiver of Rights relinquishing her rights, interests, and participation over both lots in favor of Robin and Osias. Luis did the same on May 31, 2005. On that same day, Robin and Osias entered into an Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement of Estate, distributing the two lots between themselves. New titles were issued on July 19, 2005: the first lot was placed under Robin's name under TCT No. T-387176, and the second lot under Osias' name under TCT No. T-387177. Doris also executed a waiver on May 9, 2005, and Felix and Henry followed on October 4, 2007 — all in favor of Robin and Osias. The waiver instruments were admittedly prepared by Felix himself, as the family's lawyer.
Rosita died on July 13, 2009. On December 17, 2012, Felix filed a Complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial partition and settlement of estate, cancellation of the titles issued to Robin and Osias, and other reliefs. Felix argued that the subject properties remained part of Rosita's estate upon her death, and that he was entitled to a share as a co-heir. He invoked Article 1410 of the Civil Code, which provides that an action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case against Osias and later against Robin, finding that Felix failed to comply with a condition precedent — that he exerted earnest efforts toward a compromise before filing suit against family members. Felix's various amended complaints were denied. The CA affirmed the RTC's orders. Felix then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through consolidated petitions.
The Issue
Whether Felix Cruz had a valid legal basis to nullify the extrajudicial partition and settlement of estate executed by Robin and Osias, and to claim a share in the subject properties as an heir of their mother Rosita.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petitions. In its dispositive portion, the Court ordered: "ACCORDINGLY, the consolidated Petitions are DENIED. The April 16, 2021 Decision and July 26, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08618-MIN, CA-G.R. CV No. 04942-MIN, and CA-G.R. SP No. 09848-MIN are AFFIRMED."
The Court also ruled that the RTC properly proceeded to hear Osias' compulsory counterclaim — one that arose out of the same transaction as Felix's complaint — even after the main complaint was dismissed.
By the Numbers
- December 11, 2004 — Judy Cruz died single and intestate
- 690 square meters — area of the first lot (TCT No. T-265567)
- 536 square meters — area of the second lot (TCT No. T-265123)
- May 16, 2005 — Rosita executed her Waiver of Rights
- May 31, 2005 — Luis executed his waiver; Robin and Osias executed the Extrajudicial Partition
- July 19, 2005 — New titles (TCT Nos. T-387176 and T-387177) issued to Robin and Osias
- October 4, 2007 — Felix and Henry executed their waivers
- July 13, 2009 — Rosita died
- December 17, 2012 — Felix filed his Complaint (Civil Case No. 34,818-2012)
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that the waivers executed by Luis and Rosita, though denominated as "Waivers of Rights," were in substance donations inter vivos — that is, donations made during the lifetime of the donors. The Court found that the language of the instruments showed the intent of Luis and Rosita to donate the properties to Robin and Osias, that the donations resulted in a reduction of the donors' patrimony and an increase in the donees' patrimony, that the waivers were contained in public documents acknowledged before a notary public, and that Robin and Osias' execution of a notarized Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition constituted acceptance in a public instrument made known to the donors.
The Court further held that Felix is estopped — or legally barred — from impugning Robin and Osias' valid titles, given that he himself admitted to preparing the waiver instruments for himself and his siblings Doris and Henry. The Court stated that Felix "cannot disclaim the instrument's true import by characterizing it as a donation of future inheritance." The Court concluded that Felix "failed to establish a right superior to that of respondents over the subject properties."
On the matter of Osias' compulsory counterclaim, the Court held that with the dismissal of the main complaint having attained finality, the RTC properly proceeded to hear the counterclaim, which could stand for independent adjudication and did not depend on the survival of Felix's main complaint.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 269039-41, Second Division, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopes, concurred in by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Chairperson), and Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Antonio T. Kho, Jr., and Celso L.B. Villanueva.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.