Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Neri v. Heirs of Yusop (G.R. No. 194366, October 10, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Lorie Jean Udarbe
    1. During her lifetime, Anunciacion Neri acquired several homestead properties with her second husband Enrique. After Anunciacion died, Enrique and some of their children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sold the properties to the Uys. 2. Years later, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale. They argued the sale was void as Enrique had no authority to sell the minor children's shares and some heirs had no notice. 3. The RTC ruled in favor of annulling the sale but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court then found the sale invalid as to some heirs but valid as to others who ratified, and ordered the return of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Neri v. Heirs of Yusop (G.R. No. 194366, October 10, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Lorie Jean Udarbe
    93 views2 pages
    1. During her lifetime, Anunciacion Neri acquired several homestead properties with her second husband Enrique. After Anunciacion died, Enrique and some of their children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sold the properties to the Uys. 2. Years later, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale. They argued the sale was void as Enrique had no authority to sell the minor children's shares and some heirs had no notice. 3. The RTC ruled in favor of annulling the sale but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court then found the sale invalid as to some heirs but valid as to others who ratified, and ordered the return of

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. During her lifetime, Anunciacion Neri acquired several homestead properties with her second husband Enrique. After Anunciacion died, Enrique and some of their children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sold the properties to the Uys. 2. Years later, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale. They argued the sale was void as Enrique had no authority to sell the minor children's shares and some heirs had no notice. 3. The RTC ruled in favor of annulling the sale but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court then found the sale invalid as to some heirs but valid as to others who ratified, and ordered the return of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    Neri v. Heirs of Yusop (G.R. No. 194366, October 10, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Lorie Jean Udarbe
    1. During her lifetime, Anunciacion Neri acquired several homestead properties with her second husband Enrique. After Anunciacion died, Enrique and some of their children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sold the properties to the Uys. 2. Years later, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale. They argued the sale was void as Enrique had no authority to sell the minor children's shares and some heirs had no notice. 3. The RTC ruled in favor of annulling the sale but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court then found the sale invalid as to some heirs but valid as to others who ratified, and ordered the return of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    194366, October 10, 2012


    NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALICIA D. NERI-MONDEJAR, VISMINDA D. NERI-CHAMBERS, ROSA D. NERI-
    MILLAN, DOUGLAS D. NERI, EUTROPIA D. ILLUT-COCKINOS AND VICTORIA D. ILLUT-PIALA, Petitioners,
    v.
    HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY AND JULPHA* IBRAHIM UY, Respondents.
    PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

    FACTS:
    During her lifetime, Anunciacion Neri and her second husband Enrique, acquired several homestead
    properties located in Davao del Norte. Anunciacion died intestate, hence Enrique, as natural guardian of
    his minor children Rosa and Douglas, together with their other children, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda,
    executed an extrajudicial settlement over the homestead properties and thereafter sold the same to late
    spouses Uy for ₱80,000.00.

    On June 11, 1996, the children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of the sale before the RTC. It
    was later included Eutropia and Victoria as the children of Anunciacion from her first marriage.

    RTC: Ruled in favor of petitioners. While the sale occurred beyond the 5-year prohibitory period, the
    sale is still void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that Enrique
    had no judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.

    CA: REVERSED. While Eutropia and Victoria had no knowledge about the sale, the properties have been
    in possession of spouses Uy for 17 years. Laches have set in because of the inaction of the petitioners for
    a long period of time.

    ISSUES:
    1. WON the extrajudicial settlement is valid.
    2. WON Enrique has the power to represent his minor children Rosa and Douglas in the sale.
    3. WON the sale is valid.
    4. WON the action has prescribed.

    HELD:
    1. NO.
    Sec. 1, Rule 74 of the ROC provides that no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person
    who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. In the case, Eutropia and Victoria were not
    given notice of the said sale.

    2. NO.
    Enrique was merely clothed with powers of administration which includes all acts for the preservation of
    the property and the receipt of fruits according to the natural purpose of the thing.

    A father or mother, as the natural guardian of the minor under parental authority, does not have the
    power to dispose or encumber the property of the latter. Such power is gra nted by law only to a judicial
    guardian of the wards property and even then only with courts prior approval secured in accordance
    with the proceedings set forth by the Rules of Court. (Art. 320 and 326, CC; Sec. 7, Rule 93)

    3. YES.
    However, the disputed sale entered into by Enrique in behalf of his minor children without the proper
    judicial authority, is unenforceable, unless ratified by them upon reaching the age of majority, in
    accordance with Articles 1317 and 1403(1) of the CC.

    Ratification – One under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some unauthorized act or
    defective proceeding, which without his sanction would not be binding on him. It is this voluntary
    choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and
    becomes the authorized act of the party so making the ratification

    Once ratified, expressly or impliedly such as when the person knowingly received benefits from it, the
    contract is cleansed from all its defects from the moment it was constituted, as it has a retroactive effect

    In the case at bar, Rosa had ratified the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with absolute deed of sale
    basing from her testimonies. The same, however, is not true with respect to Douglas for lack of evidence
    showing ratification.

    Hence, the extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid and not binding on Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas.
    Consequently, spouses Uy or their substituted heirs became pro indiviso co-owners of the homestead
    properties with Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, who retained title to their 1/16 shares.

    As such, it is only fair, just and equitable that the amount paid for their shares equivalent to ₱5,000.00
    each be returned to spouses Uy with legal interest.

    4. NO.
    Article 1410, CC states that an action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does
    not prescribe. However, the action to recover property held in trust prescribes after 10 years from the
    time the cause of action accrues, which is from the time of actual notice in case of unregistered deed.

    In the case at bar, Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas claimed to have knowledge of the disputed sale after
    the death of Enrique in 1994 – the complaint being filed in 1997.

    You might also like