Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta, 657 SRA 555 (2011)

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR. vs. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M.
URETA
G.R. No. 165748, September 14, 2011
Art. 842 of the Civil Code refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will and has no application
to a disposition by Deed of Sale.
Preterition is the total omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance—it consists in the silence of
the testator with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning
him at all, or by not giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting
him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case.
To reduce the inheritance taxes, Alfonso Ureta executed four Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of
land in favor of his children Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife, Valeriana Dela
Cruz, and made it appear that he had sold some of his lands to his children. The Deed of Sale executed
in favor of Policronio covered six parcels of land, which are the properties in dispute in this case.
When Alfonso died, Liberato acted as the administrator of his father’s estate. Alfonso’s heirs executed
a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which included all the lands that were covered by the four deeds of
sale that were previously executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes. Conrado, Policronio’s eldest son,
representing the Heirs of Policronio, signed the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-
heirs.
After their father’s death, the Heirs of Policronio found tax declarations in his name covering the six
parcels of land. They obtained a copy of the Deed of Sale executed by Alfonso in favor of Policronio.
Not long after, the Heirs of Policronio allegedly learned about the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
involving Alfonso’s estate.
Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and as such, excluded from the
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio sought to amicably settle the matter with the
Heirs of Alfonso. The Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of
Possession, Annulment of Documents, Partition, and Damages against the Heirs of Alfonso before the
RTC.
(1) Is Article 842 of the Civil Code applicable? (2) Can preterition apply in the instant case?
(1) Article 842 is inapplicable.
The Heirs of Policronio further argued that even assuming that the Heirs of Alfonso have an interest in
the Deed of Sale, they would still be precluded from questioning its validity. They posited that the
Heirs of Alfonso must first prove that the sale of Alfonso’s properties to Policronio substantially
diminished their successional rights or that their legitimes would be unduly prejudiced, considering
that under Article 842 of the Civil Code, one who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate
provided that he does not contravene the provisions of the Civil Code with regard to the legitime of
said heirs. Having failed to do so, they argued that the Heirs of Alfonso should be precluded from
questioning the validity of the Deed of Sale.
The Court disagrees.
Article 842 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 842. One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor
of any person having capacity to succeed.
One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the
provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs.
This article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will. What is involved in the case at
bench is not a disposition by will but by Deed of Sale. Hence, the Heirs of Alfonso need not first prove
that the disposition substantially diminished their successional rights or unduly prejudiced their
legitimes.
(2) Preterition cannot apply.
The Heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the partition or
the lack of authority of their representative results, at the very least, in their preterition and not in the
invalidity of the entire deed of partition. Assuming there was actual preterition, it did not render the
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition voidable. Citing Article 1104 of the Civil Code, they aver that a partition
made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, but the heirs shall be
proportionately obliged to pay the share of the person omitted. Thus, the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition should not have been annulled by the CA. Instead, it should have ordered the share of the
heirs omitted to be given to them.
The Heirs of Alfonso also argued that all that remains to be adjudged is the right of the preterited heirs
to represent their father, Policronio, and be declared entitled to his share. They contend that remand
to the RTC is no longer necessary as the issue is purely legal and can be resolved by the provisions of
the Civil Code for there is no dispute that each of Alfonso’s heirs received their rightful share. Conrado,
who received Policronio’s share, should then fully account for what he had received to his other co-
heirs and be directed to deliver their share in the inheritance.
These arguments cannot be given credence.
Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable. It has already been determined that the Heirs of
Policronio gave their consent to the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and they have not been excluded
from it. Nonetheless, even granting that the Heirs of Policronio were denied their lawful participation
in the partition, the argument of the Heirs of Alfonso would still fail.
Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code is as follows:
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line,
whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall
annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual,
without prejudice to the right of representation.
Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance. 1âwphi1 It
consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testament,
either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in the hereditary property but
without expressly disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case. 57 Preterition is
thus a concept of testamentary succession and requires a will. In the case at bench, there is no will
involved. Therefore, preterition cannot apply.

Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta, 657 SRA 555 (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta, 657 SRA 555 (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta, 657 SRA 555 (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR. vs. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M.

(1) Article 842 is inapplicable.

The Court disagrees.

Article 842 of the Civil Code provides:

(2) Preterition cannot apply.

These arguments cannot be given credence.

Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code is as follows:

You might also like