513 Phil. 264
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
It will be noted that the judgment in Civil Case No. 19-896-89 was rendered on August 13, 1990 while the waiver of her proprietary rights in favor of the plaintiffs was only on February 2, 1991.Parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration.
Clearly, the obligation of Eleanor Siapno to Damiana Into already existed at the time the waiver of her hereditary rights was executed in favor of her co-heirs.
The execution, therefore, of the waiver by Eleanor Siapno, naturally, prejudiced the right of Damiana Into which was already in existence.
"Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law" (Art. 6, New Civil Code).
There cannot be any doubt that Damiana Into had a right to the properties of Siapno which is recognized by law.
Article 1051 of the New Civil Code also provides that "The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings."
Construing the said provision of law, in view of the pendency of the intestate proceedings of the estate of the late Victorio Valle, the waiver of her hereditary rights in favor of her co-heirs should have been by petition filed with this court which has acquired jurisdiction over Special Proceedings No. 63 (Intestate Estate of Victorio Valle).
Nevertheless, since Eleanor Valle Siapno has not yet received her share of the estate of the late Victorio Valle, the claim of Damiana Into should have been filed with the intestate estate proceeding and not the auction sale of a portion of the property which is still very much a part of the subject of Special Proceedings No. 63.
In the light of the foregoing, while it is hereby ordered that the present case be dismissed, the nullity of the questioned auction sale and the provisional sheriff's sale is also hereby ordered.
SO ORDERED.[9]
In their motion, the plaintiffs contended that the repudiation by Eleanor Siapno of her share in the estate was for consideration and not gratuitous. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, Article 6 of the New Civil Code has no application.Respondents appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 46382. On May 5, 2000, the CA promulgated its Decision, portions of which read:
This Court is of the view that whether or not there was consideration, there was an act of repudiation and, therefore, the requirements of the law should have been observed.
The order of dismissal stands.
The defendants, in their motion for reconsideration, cited Section 7(f), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, among others, which reads:
"Properties shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner:
. . .In the light of the said provision of law, the order declaring as null and void the auction sale and the provisional sheriff's sale is hereby set aside and reconsidered.
(f) The interest of the party against whom attachment is issued in property belonging to the estate of the decedent, whether as heir, legatee, or devisee, by serving the executor or administrator or other personal representative of the decedent with a copy of the order and notice that said interest is attached. A copy of said order of attachment and of said notice shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court in which said estate is being settled and served upon the heir, legatee or devisee concerned."
SO ORDERED.[10]
After due study, the Court finds merit in the appeal.Hence, the present petition on the following grounds:
In ruling for the dismissal of the complaint below, the lower court committed grave, but correctible conclusions and applications of law, which directly bear on the validity of its judgment.
Firstly, the lower court erred in ruling that Eleanor Valle Siapno's alleged repudiation of her inheritance is invalid, having been improperly made. A close scrutiny of the act of Eleanor, taking into consideration the statements appearing in her "Waiver of Hereditary Shares and/or Rights" (p. 8, Records) shows that she did not repudiate her inheritance, but had actually accepted the same, but had waived its enjoyment in exchange for valuable consideration which she had already received and enjoyed. (Id., at 10) Furthermore, even if such act may be construed as a repudiation of her inheritance, the same has been validly made through a public document pursuant to Article 1051 of the Civil Code, which states:"Article 1051. The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by a petition duly presented to the court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings."It is undeniable that Eleanor's act was made through a document duly signed by her and executed before notary public Hermenegildo Monja, (p. 11, Records) which sufficiently qualifies the same as a public document. It must be noted that nowhere in the abovequoted article is it required that in case of the pendency of testamentary or intestate proceedings, any repudiation of inheritance must be made exclusively by petition in the estate court. Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according to its plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms. (Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 819 [1997])
Furthermore, the fact that the RTC of Davao had ruled Eleanor Valle Siapno as a judgment debtor of Damiana Into prior to her waiver of inheritance does not render the subsequent levy and auction sale of the subject properties as a valid measure, not even vis-a-vis the prescription under Rule 57, Section 7(f) of the Rules of Court, which is hereby reproduced:Sec. 7. Attachment of real and personal property; recording thereof. – Properties shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner:Taken in its proper context, the abovequoted rule of procedure presents merely the remedy of a claiming party to attach the interests of a defending party in the properties belonging to the estate of a decedent. In no way, however, does the said provision set forth the rule that such inchoate interests of a person may be duly levied upon and sold to satisfy the execution of a judgment debt. It must be noted that an heir's right of ownership over the properties of the decedent is merely inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. (Estate of Hilario M. Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 541 [1996]) This means that the impending heir has yet no absolute dominion over any specific property in the decedent's estate that could be specifically levied upon and sold at public auction. Any encumbrance of attachment over the heir's interests in the estate, therefore, remains a mere probability, and cannot summarily be satisfied without the final distribution of the properties in the estate.
. . .
(f) The interest of the party against whom attachment is issued in property belonging to the estate of the decedent, whether as heir, legatee, or devisee, by serving the executor or administrator or other personal representative of the decedent with a copy of the order and notice that said interest is attached. A copy of said order of attachment and of said notice shall be filed in the office of the clerk of court in which said estate is being settled and served upon the heir, legatee or devisee concerned.
If the property sought to be attached is in custodia legis, copy of the order of attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice of the attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice of the attachment served upon the custodian of such property.
From the foregoing, it appears that plaintiffs-appellants have good reason to object from the premature dismissal of its action below. As prospective heirs of the properties of the late Victorio Valle, they certainly have the capacity to sue against any perceived impropriety or railroaded disposition of the properties under settlement proceedings, as their inheritance stand to be depleted by the execution even before the final decree of partition or distribution in the partition proceedings is issued. They have a right to be heard, and to present evidence to advance their rights. For this reason, the Court finds that the proceedings below regarding the appellant's action for declaration of the nullity of the sheriff's sale should be allowed to proceed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED, and the appealed orders of the Regional Trial Court of Davao are hereby SET ASIDE. The said RTC is hereby ordered to REINSTATE the plaintiffs-appellants' complaint, and to proceed with the trial of the same.
SO ORDERED.[11]
In their Comment, respondents contend that: the Waiver is not the waiver contemplated by Article 1051 of the Civil Code; the document is in fact an acknowledgment of the extent of her hereditary rights and interest to the estate of Eleanor's deceased father; Eleanor has not actually repudiated her inheritance but had actually accepted the same and waived its enjoyment in exchange of a monetary consideration which she had already received long before the execution of the Waiver; the fact that Eleanor is adjudged as a judgment debtor of petitioner does not justify the subsequent levy and auction sale of the properties wherein the judgment debtor has a right or interest on, using Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; the right of heirs to specific distributive shares of inheritance does not become finally determinable until all the debts of the estate are paid, per Jimoga-on vs. Belmonte;[13] until then their rights are inchoate and cannot be enforced, subject to the existence of a residue after payment of the debts; the heirs have yet no absolute dominion over any particular and definite property in the estate of the decedent which can be specifically attached, levied and sold; Section 7(f), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court requires that the attachment of the interest of the party against whom attachment is issued in property belonging to the estate of the decedent is effected by service of said writ of attachment and notice to the executor or administrator or other personal representative, and, by filing a copy thereof in the Office of the Clerk of Court in which the estate is being settled; the attachment and levy were not properly registered or annotated in the certificate of title; the obligation of Eleanor or the judgment against her was not known to them prior to the execution of the Waiver; the reinstatement of the complaint before the RTC, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao City does not interfere with the judgment of RTC, Branch 14, Davao City; the complaint in Branch 2 does not seek the reversal of the judgment of Branch 14; what is prayed for in respondents' complaint is the invalidation of the act of the Sheriff in selling the real properties of the decedent, Victorio Valle; it appears in the "Sheriff's Provisional Certificate of Sale" that he "sold at public auction the said real properties to the highest bidder;" RTC, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao City has jurisdiction to nullify the auction sale of the sheriff and therefore the CA did not err when it ordered the reinstatement of respondents' complaint.[14]
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the "Waiver of Hereditary Shares and/or Rights" executed by Eleanor Valle Siapno is valid and that it was properly made. It is not in accord with law (Articles 6; 1050; 1051 and 1082 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) and the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Eleanor Valle Siapno's interest in the assets of the estate of her late father, Victorio Valle as an heir is merely inchoate and therefore may not be levied upon and sold. It is not in accord with Section 7(f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (now Section 7(e) of Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) and the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.
- The Court of Appeals erred in granting the appeal and denying the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and in ordering the RTC of Tagum, Davao . . ."to REINSTATE the plaintiffs-appellants' complaint, and to proceed with the trial of the same . . ," because this is not accord with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court and this is tantamount to allowing the RTC, Branch 2 of Tagum (now Tagum City), Province of Davao del Norte to interfere with the levy on attachment and levy on execution of the interests of Eleanor Valle Siapno in the assets of the estate of her late father, of the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC, Branch 14 in the City of Davao, which is a coordinate court.[12]
The first and second issues go into the merits of the complaint for "Declaration of Nullity of Sheriff's Sale and/or Recovery of Hereditary Shares, Damages and Attorney's fees." It is gathered from the pleadings filed by the parties that the issues involve the determination of the following questions, although not exclusive: (1) Was SP Proc. No. 63 already instituted when the decision in Civil Case No. 19-896-89 was issued on August 13, 1990?; (2) If in the affirmative, was there a duly constituted administrator in SP Proc. No. 63 at that time?; (3) Did the Sheriffs in executing the final decision in Civil Case No. 19-896-89 notify the administratrix and the RTC (Branch 2), Tagum, Davao City in SP Proc. No. 63 of the final decision in Civil Case No. 19-896-89 in favor of petitioner and against Eleanor?; (4) Were the Sheriffs properly notified of the Waiver executed by Eleanor?; (5) Did the writ of attachment issued by RTC, Branch 14, Davao City, validly attach the properties pursuant to the Rules of Court?; (6) Was Eleanor duly notified of the decision against her in Civil Case No. 19-896-89?; (7) Was Eleanor in good faith when she executed the Waiver in favor of the other heirs of the late Victorio Valle?; (8) Was the Waiver submitted to the RTC in SP Proc. No. 63? If in the affirmative, when?; (9) Was there a proper and valid levy on the properties?; (10) Under the "Sheriff's Provisional Certificate of Sale," what was actually sold at public auction by the sheriffs – the rights, interests, title, claims and participation pro-indiviso of Eleanor over the real properties subject of SP Proc. No. 63, as stated in the early portion of the "Sheriff's Provisional Certificate of Sale," or, the six parcels of land enumerated and described in said document, as stated in the latter portion of the said certificate of sale?; (11) Were Eleanor's interests in the assets of the Estate of Victorio Valle already defined by the court in SP Proc. No. 63 on the date of execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 19-896-89? Evidently, these matters cannot be resolved by this Court at the first instance. It is not a trier of facts.[16] Such questions may be determined by the RTC only after a full- blown trial of the case
- Whether or not the "Waiver of Hereditary shares and/or Rights" executed by Eleanor Valle Siapno is valid and that it was properly made;
- Whether or not Eleanor Valle Siapno's interests in the assets of the Estate of her late father, Victorio Valle, as an heir is merely inchoate and therefore may not be levied upon and sold;
- Whether or not the granting of the appeal and ordering the RTC of Tagum by the Court of Appeals to reinstate the Respondents' complaint and to proceed with the trial of the same [is] tantamount to allowing the RTC, Branch 2 of Tagum (now Tagum City), Province of Davao del Norte, to interfere with the levy on attachment and levy on execution of the interests of Eleanor Valle Siapno in the assets of the estate of her late father of the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC Branch 14 of the City of Davao, which is a coordinate court.[15]
A cause of action is the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his behalf. An action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prosecution or redress of a wrong.A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[20]
The cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate – person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged.
SEC. 3. Representative Parties.- A trustee of an express trust, a guardian, executor or administrator, or a party authorized by statute, may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended; but the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order such beneficiary to be made a party. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.Accordingly, in Ramos vs. Ramos,[22] the Court held that the heirs of a decedent have no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the estate, if the latter is represented by an executor or administrator.
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.and for orderly administration of justice, the administratrix should be allowed by the RTC to implead the Estate of the deceased Victorio Valle. However, this holds true only if, at this time, the Estate has not been finally settled in that debts have been paid and the heirs given their respective shares. In the event that the Estate has been settled, then the Heirs to whom the real properties or portions thereof, subject of the auction sale, had been adjudged by the probate court would have the legal personality to be included as plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2671.