THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179859 August 9, 2010
IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
BASILIO SANTIAGO,
MA. PILAR SANTIAGO and CLEMENTE SANTIAGO,
Petitioners,
-
versus -
ZOILO S. SANTIAGO, FELICIDAD SANTIAGO-RIVERA, HEIRS OF
RICARDO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF CIPRIANO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS SANTIAGO,
Respondents.
FILEMON SOCO, LEONILA SOCO, ANANIAS SOCO, URBANO SOCO,
GERTRUDES SOCO AND HEIRS OF CONSOLACION SOCO,
Oppositors.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Basilio Santiago (Basilio) contracted three marriages—the
first to Bibiana Lopez, the second to Irene Santiago, and the third to Cecilia
Lomotan. Basilio and his first wife bore
two offsprings, Irene and Marta, the mother of herein oppositors Felimon,
Leonila, Consolacion, Ananias, Urbano, and Gertrudes, all surnamed Soco.
Basilio and his second wife had six offsprings, Tomas,
Cipriano, Ricardo, respondents Zoilo and Felicidad, and petitioner Ma. Pilar,
all surnamed Santiago.
Basilio and his third wife bore three children, Eugenia
herein petitioner Clemente, and Cleotilde, all surnamed Santiago.[1]
After Basilio died testate on September 16, 1973, his
daughter by the second marriage petitioner Ma. Pilar filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan[2] a petition for the probate of Basilio’s will,
docketed as SP No. 1549-M. The will was
admitted to probate by Branch 10 of the RTC and Ma. Pilar was appointed
executrix.
The will contained the following provisions, among others:
4. Ang mga ari-arian ko na nasasaysay sa itaas
ay INIWAN, IPINAGKAKALOOB, IBINIBIGAY, at IPINAMAMANA ko sa aking mga nasabing
tagapagmana sa ilalim ng gaya ng sumusunod:
x x x x
c) ang aking anak na si Ma. Pilar ang magpapalakad at mamamahala
ng balutan na nasa Santiago, Malolos, Bulacan, na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(y);
d) Sa pamamahala ng bigasan, pagawaan ng pagkain ng hayop at
lupa’t bahay sa Maynila, ang lahat ng solar sa danay ng daang Malolos-Paombong
na nasa Malolos, Bulacan, kasali at kasama ang palaisdaan na nasa likuran
niyon, ay ililipat sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente; nguni’t ang kita ng
palaisdaan ay siyang gagamitin nila sa lahat at anomang kailangang gugol,
maging majora o roperacion [sic], sa lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na
nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c);
e) Ang lupa’t bahay
sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa
pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi
upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga
anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod x x x.
f) Ang bigasan, mga
makina at pagawaan ng pagkain ng hayop ay ipinamamana ko sa aking asawa,
Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo, Cipriano, Felicidad,
Eugenia, Clemente, at Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Ngunit, sa loob ng dalawampong (20) taon mula
sa araw ng aking kamatayan, hindi nila papartihin ito at pamamahalaan ito ni
Clemente at ang maghahawak ng salaping kikitain ay si Ma. Pilar na siyang
magpaparte. Ang papartihin lamang ay ang
kita ng mga iyon matapos na ang gugol na kakailanganin niyon, bilang reparacion,
pagpapalit o pagpapalaki ay maawas na.
Ninais ko ang ganito sa aking pagmamahal sa kanila at pagaaring
ibinubuhay ko sa kanila lahat, bukod sa yaon ay sa kanila ding kapakinabangan
at kabutihan.
g) Ang lahat ng lupa,
liban sa lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila, ay ipinapamana ko sa aking nasabing
asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na Tomas, Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo,
Cipriano, Felicidad, Eugenia, Clemente at Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Datapwa’t, gaya din ng mga bigasan, makina at
gawaan ng pagkain ng hayop, ito ay hindi papartihin sa loob ng dalawampong (20)
taon mula sa aking pagpanaw, at pamamahalaan din nila Ma. Pilar at
Clemente. Ang mapaparte lamang ay ang
kita o ani ng nasabing mga pag-aari matapos bayaran ang buwis at/o patubig at
iba pang mga gugol na kailangan. Si Ma.
Pilar din ang hahawak ng ani o salaping manggagaling dito. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)[3]
The oppositors-children of Marta, a daughter of Basilio and
his first wife, were, on their motion, allowed to intervene.[4]
After the executrix-petitioner Ma. Pilar filed a “Final
Accounting, Partition and Distribution in Accordance with the Will,”[5] the
probate court approved the will by Order of August 14, 1978 and directed the
registers of deeds of Bulacan and Manila to register the certificates of title
indicated therein.[6] Accordingly, the
titles to Lot Nos. 786, 837, 7922, 836 and 838 in Malolos, Bulacan and Lot No.
8-C in Manila were transferred in the name of petitioners Ma. Pilar and
Clemente.[7]
The oppositors thereafter filed a Complaint-in-Intervention[8]
with the probate court, alleging that Basilio’s second wife was not Irene but a
certain Maria Arellano with whom he had no child; and that Basilio’s will
violates Articles 979-981 of the Civil Code.[9]
The probate court dismissed the Complaint-in-Intervention,
citing its previous approval of the “Final Accounting, Partition, and
Distribution in Accordance with the Will.”[10]
The oppositors-heirs of the first marriage thereupon filed a
complaint for completion of legitime before the Bulacan RTC, docketed as Civil
Case No. 562-M-90,[11] against the heirs of the second and third marriages.
In their complaint, oppositors-heirs of the first marriage
essentially maintained that they were partially preterited by Basilio’s will
because their legitime was reduced.[12] They thus prayed, inter alia, that an
inventory and appraisal of all the properties of Basilio be conducted and that
Ma. Pilar and Clemente be required to submit a fresh accounting of all the incomes
of the properties from the time of Basilio’s death up to the time of the filing
of Civil Case No. 562-M-90.[13]
RTC-Branch 17 decided Civil Case No. 562-M-90 (for
completion of legitime) in favor of the oppositors-heirs of the first marriage.
On appeal (docketed as CA G.R. No. 45801), the Court of
Appeals, by Decision of January 25, 2002,[14] annulled the decision of
RTC-Branch 17, holding that the RTC Branch 17 dismissal of the
Complaint-in-Intervention in SP No. 1549-M and its August 14, 1978 Order
approving the probate of the will constitute res judicata with respect to Civil
Case No. 562-M-90.[15] Thus the
appellate court disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision in Civil Case No.
562-M-90 is hereby ANNULLED on the ground of res judicata. Let the Decree of Distribution of the Estate
of Basilio Santiago remain UNDISTURBED.
SO ORDERED.[16] (emphasis in the original; underscoring
supplied)
Oppositors-heirs of the first marriage challenged the
appellate court’s decision in CA G.R. No. 45801 by petition for review,
docketed as G.R. No. 155606, which this Court denied.[17] The denial became final and executory on
April 9, 2003.[18]
In the interregnum, or on October 17, 2000, respondent-heirs
of the second marriage filed before the probate court (RTC-Branch 10) a Motion
for Termination of Administration, for Accounting, and for Transfer of Titles
in the Names of the Legatees.[19] Citing
the earlier quoted portions of Basilio’s will, they alleged that:
x x x x the twenty (20) year period within which subject
properties should be under administration of [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente
Santiago expired on September 16, 1993.
Consequently, [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago
should have ceased as such administrator[s] way back on September 16, 1993 and
they should have transferred the above said titles to the named legatees in the
Last Will and Testament of the testator by then. Said named legatees in the Last Will and
Testament are no[ne] other than the following:
x x x x
Said [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago should have
also rendered an accounting of their administration from such death of the
testator up to the present or until transfer of said properties and its
administration to the said legatees.
x x x x[20]
Respondents prayed that petitioners be ordered:
1) To surrender
the above-enumerated titles presently in their names to [the] Honorable Court
and to transfer the same in the names of the designated legatees in the Last
Will and Testament, to wit:
1) asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na
2) Tomas
3) Zoilo
4) Ma. Pilar
5) Ricardo
6) Cipriano
7) Felicidad
8) Eugenia
9) Clemente at
10) Cleotilde
(all surnamed SANTIAGO)
2) To peacefully
surrender possession and administration of subject properties, including any
and all improvements thereon, to said legatees.
3) To render an
accounting of their administration of said properties and other properties of
the testator under their administration, from death of testator Basilio
Santiago on September 16, 1973 up to the present and until possession and
administration thereof is transferred to said legatees.[21]
Opposing the motion, petitioners argued that with the
approval of the Final Accounting, Partition and Distribution in Accordance with
the Will, and with the subsequent issuance of certificates of title covering
the properties involved, the case had long since been closed and
terminated.[22]
The probate court, finding that the properties in question
would be transferred to petitioners Ma. Pilar and Clemente for purposes of
administration only, granted the motion, by Order of September 5,
2003,[23] disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Termination
of Administration, for Accounting, and for Transfer of Titles in the Names of
the Legatees dated October 3, 2000 filed by some heirs of the testator Basilio
Santiago xxx is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the administratrix [sic] Ma. Pilar Santiago and Mr.
Clemente Santiago are hereby DIRECTED, as follows:
a.) To surrender
the above-enumerated titles presently in their names to this Honorable Court
and to transfer the same in the names of the designated legatees in the Last
Will and Testament, to wit: 1.) asawa, Cecilia Lomotan at mga anak na 2.) Tomas 3). Zoilo 4.) Ma. Pilar
5.) Ricardo 6.) Cipriano 7.) Felicidad 8.) Eugenia 9.) Clemente and 10.)
Cleotilde all named SANTIAGO.
b.) To peacefully
surrender possession and administration of subject properties including any and
all improvements thereon, to said legatees; and
c.) To render an
accounting of their administration of subject properties, including any and all
improvements thereon, to said legatees; and
d.) To submit an
accounting of their administration of the above-mentioned estate of the
testator or all the above said lots including the rice mill, animal feeds
factory, and all improvements thereon from August 14, 1978 up to the present.
e.) To submit a
proposed Project of Partition, indicating how the parties may actually
partition or adjudicate all the above said properties including the properties
already in the name of all the said legatees xxx.
x x x x.
Further, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan are hereby
DIRECTED to cancel and consider as no force and effects Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. T-249177 (RT-46294) [Lot
No. 786], T-249175 (RT-46295) [Lot No. 837], T-249174 (RT-46296) [Lot No.
7922], T-249173 (RT-46297) [Lot No. 836], and T-249176 (RT-46293) [Lot No. 838]
in the names of Ma. Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago and to issue new ones
in the lieu thereof in the names of Cecilia Lomotan-Santiago, Tomas Santiago,
Zoilo Santiago, Ma. Pilar Santiago, Ricardo Santiago, Cipriano Santiago,
Felicidad Santiago, Eugenia Santiago, Clemente Santiago, and Cleotilde
Santiago.
Moreover, the Register of Deeds of Manila is hereby DIRECTED
to cancel and consider as no force and effect Transfer Certificate of Title No.
131044 [Lot No. 8-C] in the names of Ma. Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago
and to issue new ones in lieu thereof in the names of the Heirs of Bibiana
Lopez, the Heirs of Irene Santiago, and the Heirs of Cecilia Lomotan.
The Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by Filemon, Leonila,
Ma. Concepcion, Ananias, Urbano and Gertrudes, all surnamed Soco, dated
December 3, 2002, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.[24]
Respecting petitioners’ argument that the case had long been
closed and terminated, the trial court held:
x x x x [I]t is clear from the Last Will and Testament that
subject properties cannot actually be partitioned until after 20 years from the
death of the testator Basilio Santiago x x x x.
It is, therefore, clear that something more has to be done after the
approval of said Final Accounting, Partition, and Distribution. The testator Basilio Santiago died on
September 16, 1973, hence, the present action can only be filed after September
16, 1993. Movant’s cause of action
accrues only from the said date and for which no prescription of action has set
in.
The principle of res judicata does not apply in the present
probate proceeding which is continuing in character, and terminates only after
and until the final distribution or settlement of the whole estate of the
deceased in accordance with the provision of the will of the testator. The Order dated August 14, 1978 refers only
to the accounting, partition, and distribution of the estate of the deceased
for the period covering from the date of the filing of the petition for probate
on December 27, 1973 up to August 14, 1978.
And in the said August 14, 1978 order it does not terminate the
appointment of petitioner[s] Ma. Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago as
executrix and administrator, respectively, of the estate of the deceased
particularly of those properties which were prohibited by the testator to be
partitioned within 20 years from his death.
Since then up to the present, Ma. Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago
remain the executor and administrator of the estate of the deceased and as
such, they are required by law to render an accounting thereof from August 14,
1978 up to the present; there is also now a need to partition and distribute
the aforesaid properties as the prohibition period to do so has elapsed.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)[25]
Petitioners, together with the oppositors, filed a motion for
reconsideration,[26] which the probate court denied, drawing them to appeal to
the Court of Appeals which docketed it as CA G.R. No. 83094.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the probate
court,[27] hence, the petition[28] which raises the following grounds:
I.
“CAN THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSE ITSELF”
A. THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT BINDING ITSELF WITH ITS PREVIOUS DECISION INVOLVING THE
SAME PARTIES AND SAME PROPERTIES;
B. THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RTC AS IT AGREED WITH THE RTC THAT THIS CASE IS
NOT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA;
C. IN C.A.-G.R.
NO. 45801, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS RES JUDICATA; IN
C.A.-G.R. CV NO. 83094, THERE WAS NO RES JUDICATA.
II.
“GRANTING THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ALL THE COMPETENCE
AND JURISDICTION TO REVERSE ITSELF, STILL THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE RTC’S ORDER TO TRANSFER THE MANILA PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO.
131004 TO THE NAMES OF CECILIA LOMOTAN, TOMAS, ZOILO, MA. PILAR, RICARDO,
CIPRIANO FELICIDAD, EUGENIA, CLEMENTE AND CLEOTILDE, ALL SURNAMED
SANTIAGO.”[29] (emphasis in the
original)
The petition lacks merit.
Petitioners’ argument that the decision of the appellate
court in the earlier CA-G.R. NO. 45801 (upheld by this Court in G.R. No.
155606) constitutes res judicata to the subsequent CA G.R. No. 83094 (the
subject of the present petition for review) fails.
Res judicata has two aspects, which are embodied in Sections
47 (b) and 47 (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[30] The first, known as “bar by prior judgment,”
proscribes the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or
cause of action already settled in a prior action.[31] The second, known as
“conclusiveness of judgment,” ordains that issues actually and directly
resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the
same parties involving a different cause of action.[32]
Both aspects of res judicata, however, do not find
application in the present case. The
final judgment regarding oppositors’ complaint on the reduction of their
legitime in CA-G.R. NO. 45801 does not dent the present petition, which solely
tackles the propriety of the termination of administration, accounting and
transfer of titles in the names of the legatees-heirs of the second and third
marriages. There is clearly no
similarity of claim, demand or cause of action between the present petition and
G.R. No. 155606.
While as between the two cases there is identity of parties,
“conclusiveness of judgment” cannot likewise be invoked. Again, the judgment in G.R. No. 155606 would
only serve as an estoppel as regards the issue on oppositors’ supposed
preterition and reduction of legitime, which issue is not even a subject, or at
the very least even invoked, in the present petition.
What is clear is that petitioners can invoke res judicata
insofar as the judgment in G.R. No. 155606 is concerned against the oppositors
only. The records reveal, however, that
the oppositors did not appeal the decision of the appellate court in this case
and were only impleaded pro forma parties.
Apparently, petitioners emphasize on the directive of the
appellate court in CA G.R. No. 45801 that the decree of distribution of the
estate of Basilio should remain undisturbed.
But this directive goes only so far as to prohibit the interference of
the oppositors in the distribution of Basilio’s estate and does not pertain to
respondents’ supervening right to demand the termination of administration,
accounting and transfer of titles in their names.
Thus, the Order of September 5, 2003 by the probate court
granting respondents’ Motion for Termination of Administration, for Accounting,
and for Transfer of Titles in the Names of the Legatees is a proper and
necessary continuation of the August 14, 1978 Order that approved the
accounting, partition and distribution of Basilio’s estate. As did the appellate court, the Court notes
that the August 14, 1978 Order was yet to become final pending the whole
settlement of the estate. And final
settlement of the estate, in this case, would culminate after 20 years or on
September 16, 1993, when the prohibition to partition the properties of the
decedent would be lifted.
Finally, petitioners object to the inclusion of the house
and lot in Manila, covered by TCT No. 131044, among those to be transferred to
the legatees-heirs as it would contravene the testator’s intent that no one is
to own the same.
The Court is not persuaded.
It is clear from Basilio’s will that he intended the house and lot in
Manila to be transferred in petitioners’ names for administration purposes
only, and that the property be owned by the heirs in common, thus:
e) Ang lupa’t bahay
sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa
pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi
upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga
anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod sa medaling salita,
ang bahay at lupang ito’y walang magmamay-ari bagkus ay gagamitin habang
panahon ng sinomang magnanais sa aking kaapuapuhan na tumuklas ng karunungan sa
paaralan sa Maynila at katabing mga lunsod x x x x[33] (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
But the condition set by the decedent on the property’s
indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation. On this point, the Court agrees with the
ruling of the appellate court, viz:
For this Court to sustain without qualification,
[petitioners]’s contention, is to go against the provisions of law,
particularly Articles 494, 870, and 1083 of the Civil Code, which provide that
the prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership can only last for twenty
(20) years x x x x
x x x x
x x x x Although the
Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the indivision of a property for more
than twenty years, it would be contrary to public policy to sanction
co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code x x x x[34]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.