7/27/2019 Heirs of Conti v CA.doc

1/1

Heirs of Conti v. CA (G.R. No. 118464. December 21, 1998)

BELLOSILLO, J:

Facts: Lourdes Sampayo and Ignacio Conti were the co-owners of the property inlitigation consisting of a 539-square meter lot at the corner of Zamora and

Abellanosa Streets, Lucena City. After Lourdes Sampayo died, privaterespondents filed an action for partition and damages before the RTC of LucenaCity against Ignacio Conti. After trial on the merits, the court declaredrespondents as the rightful heirs of Lourdes Sampayo and ordered both parties tosubmit a project of partition of the residential house and lot for confirmation bythe trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision rulingthat a prior and separate judicial declaration of heirship was not necessary andthat private respondents became co-owners of the portion of the property ownedand registered in the name of Lourdes Sampayo upon her death and,consequently, entitled to the immediate possession thereof and all otherincidents/rights of ownership as provided for by law including the right todemand partition under Art. 777 of the Civil Code.

Issue/s:

(1) WON a prior settlement of the entire estate is essential before heirs cancommence any action in behalf of deceased.(2) WON private respondents could establish co-ownership by way ofsuccession as collateral heirs of Sampayo

Held:

(1) No. prior settlement of the estate is not essential before the heirs cancommence any action originally pertaining to the deceased as we explained inQuison v. Salud, Claro Quison died in 1902. It was proven at the trial that thepresent plaintiffs are next of kin and heirs, but it is said by the appellants thatthey are not entitled to maintain this action because there is no evidence that

any proceedings have been taken in court for the settlement of the estate ofClaro Quison, and that without such settlement, the heirs cannot maintain thisaction. There is nothing in this point. As well by the Civil Code as by the Code ofCivil Procedure, the title to the property owned by a person who dies intestatepasses at once to his heirs. Such transmission is, under the present law, subjectto the claims of administration and the property may be taken from the heirs forthe purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not prevent animmediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself tohis heirs. Without some showing that a judicial administrator had been appointedin proceedings to settle the estate of Claro Quison, the right of the plaintiffs tomaintain this action is established.

(2) Yes. There are two (2) simultaneous issues in an action for partition. First,whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to bepartitioned, and second, if answered in the affirmative, the manner of thedivision of the property, i.e., what portion should go to which co-owner. Thus, inthis case, we must determine whether private respondents, by preponderance ofevidence, have been able to establish that they are co-owners by way ofsuccession as collateral heirs of the late Lourdes Sampayo as they claim to be, asister, a nephew or a niece. These, private respondents were able to prove in thetrial court as well as before respondent Court of Appeals