1. Johnn Rabadilla, as a compulsory heir of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, assumed the obligations imposed by the codicil along with the rights to the property. Thus, Maria Villacarlos has a legal right to demand fulfillment of the obligation from Johnn.
2. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of spouses Ricardo and Teresita Tanedo. While the initial sale of future inheritance was invalid, the subsequent deed of sale and registration in favor of the private respondents was valid. Ownership vested in them because they registered first in good faith.
3. The petition should be dismissed as the errors attributed
Law School Survival Guide: Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales, Evidence, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Criminal Procedure: Law School Survival Guides
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
1. Johnn Rabadilla, as a compulsory heir of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, assumed the obligations imposed by the codicil along with the rights to the property. Thus, Maria Villacarlos has a legal right to demand fulfillment of the obligation from Johnn.
2. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of spouses Ricardo and Teresita Tanedo. While the initial sale of future inheritance was invalid, the subsequent deed of sale and registration in favor of the private respondents was valid. Ownership vested in them because they registered first in good faith.
3. The petition should be dismissed as the errors attributed
1. Johnn Rabadilla, as a compulsory heir of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, assumed the obligations imposed by the codicil along with the rights to the property. Thus, Maria Villacarlos has a legal right to demand fulfillment of the obligation from Johnn.
2. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of spouses Ricardo and Teresita Tanedo. While the initial sale of future inheritance was invalid, the subsequent deed of sale and registration in favor of the private respondents was valid. Ownership vested in them because they registered first in good faith.
3. The petition should be dismissed as the errors attributed
1. Johnn Rabadilla, as a compulsory heir of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, assumed the obligations imposed by the codicil along with the rights to the property. Thus, Maria Villacarlos has a legal right to demand fulfillment of the obligation from Johnn.
2. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of spouses Ricardo and Teresita Tanedo. While the initial sale of future inheritance was invalid, the subsequent deed of sale and registration in favor of the private respondents was valid. Ownership vested in them because they registered first in good faith.
3. The petition should be dismissed as the errors attributed
Johnny Rabadilla v. CA and Maria y Bellezailla!arlo"
Aleja Belleza (testatrix/decedent) instituted Dr Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in- interest and father of Johnn, as de!isee o!er "ot #$%&, a parcel of land in Bacolod' (t )as )ith condition that Jorge Rabadilla *ust deli!er #++ piculs of sugar to ,aria -illacarlos (sister of testatrix) e!er ear during the latter.s lifeti*e' /he codicil pro!ides that the obligation is i*posed not onl on the instituted heir but also to his successors-in-interest and that in case of failure to deli!er, ,aria -illacarlos shall seize the propert and turn it o!er to the testatrix.s 0near descendants'0 Dr' Rabadilla died and )as sur!i!ed b his )ife and children, one of )ho* is Johnn' 1ri!ate respondent, alleging failure of the heirs to co*pl )ith their obligation, 2led a co*plaint )ith the R/3 praing for the recon!eance of the subject propert to the sur!i!ing heirs of Aleja (decedent)' During the pre-trial, a co*pro*ise agree*ent )as concluded bet)een the parties )herein the lessee of the propert assu*ed the deli!er of #++ piculs of sugar to pri!ate respondent4 ho)e!er, onl partial deli!er )as *ade' /he trial court dis*issed the co*plaint for lac5 of cause of action stating that, 67hile there *a be the non-perfor*ance of the co**and as *andated, exaction fro* the* (the petitioners), si*pl because the are the children of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/o)ner of the lot in 8uestion, does not )arrant the 2ling of the present co*plaint'9 /he 3A, re!ersed the decision and held that the institution of Dr' Rabadilla is in the nature of a *odal institution and a cause of action in fa!or of pri!ate respondent arose )hen petitioner failed to co*pl )ith their obligation under the codicil, and in ordering the re!ersion of "ot #$%& to the estate of testatrix' /hus, the present petition' (::;< 7hether or not ,aria -illacarlos has a legall de*andable right against Johnn Rabadilla, )ho is one of the co*pulsor heirs of Dr' Rabadilla' =<"D ><:' (t is a general rule under the la) on succession that successional rights are trans*itted fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedent and co*pulsor heirs are called to succeed b operation of la)' /he legiti*ate children and descendants, in relation to their legiti*ate parents, and the )ido) or )ido)er, are co*pulsor heirs' /hus, the petitioner, his *other and sisters, as co*pulsor heirs of the instituted heir, Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter b operation of la), )ithout need of further proceedings, and the successional rights )ere trans*itted to the* fro* the *o*ent of death of the decedent, Dr' Jorge Rabadilla' ;nder Article ??@ of the Ae) 3i!il 3ode, inheritance includes all the propert, rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished b his death' 3onfor*abl, )hate!er rights Dr' Jorge Rabadilla had b !irtue of subject 3odicil )ere trans*itted to his forced heirs, at the ti*e of his death' And since obligations not extinguished b death also for* part of the estate of the decedent4 corollaril, the obligations i*posed b the 3odicil on the deceased Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, )ere li5e)ise trans*itted to his co*pulsor heirs upon his death' (n the said 3odicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza de!ised "ot Ao'#$%& to Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof )ould be deli!ered to the herein pri!ate respondent e!er ear' ;pon the death of Dr' Jorge Rabadilla, his co*pulsor heirs succeeded to his rights and title o!er said propert, and the also assu*ed his obligation to deli!er the fruits of the lot in!ol!ed to ,aria -illacarlos' :uch obligation of the instituted heir reciprocall corresponds to the right of pri!ate respondent o!er the usufruct, the ful2ll*ent or perfor*ance of )hich is no) being de*anded b the latter through the institution of the case at bar' /herefore, ,aria -illacarlos has a cause of action against Johnn Rabadilla and the trial court erred in dis*issing the co*plaint belo)' #G.R. $o. 10%%&2. January 22, 199'( )a*edo vs. CA and +,-.+/+ R0CAR1- M. )AR/1- A$1 )/R/+0)A BAR/RA )AR/1- BA3/: Cn Cctober &+, #%@&, "azaro /aDedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in fa!or of his eldest brother, Ricardo /aDedo, and the latterEs )ife, /eresita Barera )hereb he con!eed to the latter one hectare of )hate!er share ( shall ha!e o!er "ot Ao' #%# of the cadastral sur!e of Ferona, 1ro!ince of /arlac the said propert being his 6future inheritance9 fro* his parents' ;pon the death of his father ,atias, "azaro executed an 6AGda!it of 3onfor*it9 dated Bebruar &H, #%H+ to 6re-aGr*, respect, ac5no)ledge and !alidate the sale *ade in #%@&'0 Cn Januar #$, #%H#, "azaro executed another notarized deed of sale in fa!or of pri!ate respondents co!ering his 6undi!ided CA< /7<"-< (#/#&) of a parcel of land 5no)n as "ot #%#' Cn June ?, #%H&, pri!ate respondents recorded the Deed of :ale in their fa!or in the Registr of Deeds and the corresponding entr )as *ade in the /3/. (n Bebruar #%H#, Ricardo learned that "azaro sold the sa*e propert to his ("azaro.s) children, petitioners herein, through a deed of sale dated Dece*ber &%, #%H+' Cn June ?, #%H&, pri!ate respondents recorded the Deed of :ale in their fa!or in the Registr of Deeds' 1etitioners on Jul #@, #%H& 2led a co*plaint for rescission (plus da*ages) of the deeds of sale executed b "azaro in fa!or of pri!ate respondents co!ering the propert inherited b "azaro fro* his father' /he trial court decided in fa!or of pri!ate respondents, holding that petitioners failed 6to adduce a preponderance of e!idence to support (their) clai*'9 Cn appeal, the 3ourt of Appeals aGr*ed the decision of the trial court' (::;<: #' (s the sale of future inheritance !alidI &' 7as the subse8uent execution of a deed of sale to Ricardo /anedo on Jan #$, #%H# and registration )ith the Registr of Deeds !alidI $' ,a this 3ourt re!ie) 2ndings of the respondent 3ourt (trial court) inJ a' holding that the buers acted in good faith in registering the said subse8uent deed of sale4 and b' failing to consider petitioner.s e!idenceI =<"D $' At the outset, let it be clear that the 6errors9 )hich are re!ie)able b this 3ourt in this petition for re!ie) on certiorari are onl those allegedl co**itted b the respondent 3ourt of Appeals and not directl those of the trial court, )hich is not a part here' )he 2a""i3n4en5 o6 error"7 in 5he 8e5i5ion 9uo5ed above are 5here6ore 5o5ally 4i"8la!ed, and 6or 5ha5 rea"on, 5he 8e5i5ion "hould be di"4i""ed. Bu5 in order 5o 3ive 5he 8ar5ie" "ub"5an5ial :u"5i!e ;e have de!ided 5o delve in5o 5he i""ue" a" above re<"5a5ed' /he errors attributed b petitioners to the latter (trial) court )ill be discussed onl insofar as the are rele!ant to the appellate courtEs assailed Decision and Resolution' #' 1ursuant to Article #$K? of the 3i!il 3ode, 6(n)o contract *a be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressl authorized b la)'9 3onse8uentl, said contract *ade in #%@& is not !alid and cannot be the source of an right nor the creator of an obligation bet)een the parties' &' >es' (t is !alid' /he :upre*e 3ourt denied this petition4 aGr*ing the decisions of the trial court and 3ourt of Appeals )hich are in fa!or of the defendants, :pouses Ricardo and /eresita /anedo' (n deter*ining )hich of these t)o deeds should be gi!en eLect is the registration of the sale in fa!or of pri!ate respondents )ith the register of deeds on June ?, #%H&' Article #MKK of the 3i!il 3ode go!erns the preferential rights of !endees in cases of *ultiple sales, as follo)sJ 6Art' #MKK' (f the sa*e thing should ha!e been sold to diLerent !endees, the o)nership shall be transferred to the person )ho *a ha!e 2rst ta5en possession thereof in good faith, if it should be *o!able propert' +hould i5 be i44ovable 8ro8er5y, 5he o;ner"hi8 "hall belon3 5o 5he 8er"on a!9uirin3 i5 ;ho in 3ood 6ai5h =r"5 re!orded i5 in 5he Re3i"5ry o6 ,ro8er5y' :hould there be no inscription, the o)nership shall pertain to the person )ho in good faith )as 2rst in the possession4 and, in the absence thereof, to the person )ho presents the oldest title, pro!ided there is good faith'9 /he propert in 8uestion is land, an i**o!able, and follo)ing the abo!e-8uoted la), o)nership shall belong to the buer )ho in good faith registers it 2rst in the registr of propert' /hus, although the deed of sale in fa!or of pri!ate respondents )as later than the one in fa!or of petitioners, o)nership )ould !est in the for*er because of the undisputed fact of registration' Cn the other hand, petitioners ha!e not registered the sale to the* at all'
Law School Survival Guide: Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales, Evidence, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Criminal Procedure: Law School Survival Guides
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.