Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
456
456
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
457
458
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
does not necessarily prove that the realties are their conjugal
properties.
Same; Inheritance Tax; Payment of the inheritance tax, per se,
does not settle the estate of a deceased person.Neither can
Sebastians claim that Joaquins estate could have already been
settledin1965afterthepaymentoftheinheritancetaxbeupheld.
Paymentoftheinheritancetax,per se,doesnotsettletheestateofa
deceased person. As provided in Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of
CourtSECTION1.When order for distribution of residue made.
When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration,
theallowancetothewidow,andinheritancetax,ifany,chargeable
totheestateinaccordancewithlaw,havebeenpaid,thecourt,on
the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person
interestedintheestate,andafterhearinguponnotice,shallassign
theresidueoftheestatetothepersonsentitledtothesame,naming
them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and
suchpersonsmaydemandandrecovertheirrespectivesharesfrom
theexecutororadministrator,oranyotherpersonhavingthesame
inhispossession.Ifthereisacontroversybeforethecourtastowho
arethelawfulheirsofthedeceasedpersonorastothedistributive
share to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. No
distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations
above mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the
distributees,oranyofthem,giveabond,inasumtobefixedbythe
court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such
time as the court directs. Thus, an estate is settled and distributed
among the heirs only after the payment of the debts of the estate,
funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the
widow,andinheritancetax.Therecordsofthesecasesdonotshow
thatthesewerecompliedwithin1965.
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
459
460
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Inaddition,heprayedthatanorderbeissued(a)confirming
anddeclaringthenamedcompulsoryheirsofJoaquinwho
would be entitled to participate in the estate; (b)
apportioning and allocating unto the named heirs their
aliquotsharesintheestateinaccordancewithlaw;and(c)
entitlingthedistributeestherighttoreceiveandenterinto
possessionthosepartsoftheestateindividuallyawardedto
them.
OnSeptember26,1994,theRTCissuedanordersetting
the petition for initial hearing and directing Eduardo to
causeitspublication.
On December 28, 1994, Sebastian filed his comment,
generally admitting the allegations in the petition, and
conceding to the appointment of Eduardo as special
administrator.
Joseph,Gloria,andTeresafiledtheiranswer/opposition.
Theyallegedthatthetwosubjectlotsbelongtotheconjugal
partnership of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucias
deathinApril1924,theybecamethepro indivisoownersof
the subject properties. They said that their residence was
builtwiththeexclusivemoneyoftheirlatefatherJose,and
theexpensesoftheextensionstothehousewereshouldered
by Gloria and Teresa, while the restaurant (Manongs
Restau
_______________
7Also,MariaTeresaAgtarapViria.
461
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
461
462
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
LOT
NO.
745B
1
745B
2
TOTAL
P13,330,000.00
AREA/SQ.M.
1,335sq.m.
ZONAL
VALUE
P5,000.00
AMOUNT
P6,675,000.00
1,331sq.m.
P5,000.00
P6,655,000.00
IIBUILDINGSANDIMPROVEMENTS:
WHEREFORE,thenetassetsoftheestateofthelateJOAQUIN
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
463
P1,181,548.30
P1,181,548.30
P1,181,548.30
P1,181,548.30
P1,181,548.30
P1,181,548.30
TheshareofMilagrosAgtarapascompulsoryheirintheamount
of P1,181,548.30 and who died in 1996 will go to Teresa Agtarap
and Joseph Agtarap, Walter de Santos and half brothers Eduardo
andSebastianAgtarapinequalproportions.
TERESAAGTARAP
JOSEPHAGTARAP
WALTERDESANTOS
SEBASTIANAGTARAP
EDUARDOAGTARAP
P236,291.66
P236,291.66
P236,291.66
P236,291.66
P236,291.66
JoseAgtarapdiedin1967.Hiscompulsoryheirsareasfollows:
COMPULSORYHEIRS:
1)GLORIA(deceased)representedbyWalterdeSantos
P295,364.57
2)JOSEPHAGTARAP
P295,364.57
3)TERESAAGTARAP
P295,364.57
4)PRISCILLAAGTARAP
P295,364.57
Hence,PriscillaAgtarapwillinheritP295,364.57.
AddingtheirsharefromMilagrosAgtarap,thefollowingheirsof
thefirstmarriagestandtoreceivethetotalamountof:
464
464
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
HEIRSOFTHEFIRSTMARRIAGE:
1)JOSEPHAGTARAPP236,291.66sharefromMilagrosAgtarap
P295,364.57ascompulsoryheirof
P531,656.23JoseAgtarap
2)TERESAAGTARAPP236,291.66sharefromMilagrosAgtarap
P295,364.57ascompulsoryheirof
P531,656.23JoseAgtarap
3)WALTERDESANTOSP236,291.66sharefromMilagros
Agtarap
P295,364.57ascompulsoryheirof
P531,656.23JoseAgtarap
HEIRSOFTHESECONDMARRIAGE:
a)CARIDADAGTARAPdiedonAugust25,1999
P7,088,750.00asconjugalshare
P1,181,458.30ascompulsoryheir
TotalofP8,270,208.30
b)SEBASTIANAGTARAPP1,181,458.38ascompulsory
heir
P236,291.66sharefrom
Milagros
c)EDUARDOAGTARAPP1,181,458.38ascompulsoryheir
P236,291.66sharefromMilagros
d)MERCEDESasrepresentedbyAbelardoDagoroasthe
survivingspouseofacompulsoryheir
P1,181,458.38
REMAININGHEIRSOFCARIDADAGTARAP:
1)SEBASTIANAGTARAP
2)EDUARDOAGTARAP
MERCEDESAGTARAP(PredeceasedCaridadAgtarap)
Insum,SebastianAgtarapandEduardoAgtarapstandtoinherit:
SEBASTIANP4,135,104.10sharefromCaridadGarcia
P1,181,458.30ascompulsoryheir
P236,291.66sharefromMilagros
P5,522,854.06
465
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
465
herebypartitionedasfollows:
The two (2) properties, together with their improvements,
embraced by TCT No. 38254 and TCT No. 38255, respectively, are
firsttobedistributedamongthefollowing:
Lucia
Mendietta
_______________
9Id.,atpp.429433.
10Id.,atpp.434438.
466
466
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Joaquin
Agtarap
Jesus
Agtarap
Milagros
Agtarap
Jose
Agtarap
Then,JoaquinAgtarapsestate,comprisingthreefourths(3/4)of
thesubjectpropertiesanditsimprovements,shallbedistributedas
follows:
Caridad
Garcia
1/6oftheestate.Butsinceshediedin1999,hershare
shall be inherited by her children namely Mercedes
Agtarap(representedby
467
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
467
Milagros
Agtarap
Jose
Agtarap
Mercedes
Agtarap
Sebastian
Agtarap
Eduardo
Agtarap
SO ORDERED.11
_______________
11Rollo(G.R.No.177192),pp.3336;(G.R.No.177099),pp.3033.
468
468
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Aggrieved,SebastianandEduardofiledtheirrespective
motionsforreconsideration.
In its Resolution dated March 27, 2007, the CA denied
both motions. Hence, these petitions ascribing to the
appellatecourtthefollowingerrors:
G.R. No. 177192
1. The Court of Appeals erred in not considering the
aforementionedimportantfacts12 whichalteritsDecision;
2.TheCourtofAppealserredinnotconsideringthenecessity
ofhearingtheissueoflegitimacyofrespondentsasheirs;
3. The Court of Appeals erred in allowing violation of the law
andinnotapplyingthedoctrinesofcollateralattack,estoppel,and
res judicata.13
_______________
12SebastianclaimsthattheCAignoredthefollowingfacts:
1. Sebastians reply, dated October 1, 1996, questioning the
legitimacy of oppositors Joseph and Teresa Agtarap and intervenor
AbelardoDagoroasheirs;
2.Sebastians motion, dated January 3, 1997, to exclude Joseph,
Teresa,andAbelardoDagoroasheirs;
3.Sebastiansreplytotheoppositiontothemotiontoexclude,with
a copy of TCT No. 8026 in the name of Milagros and Jose Agtarap,
showing that the latters wife is Presentacion and not Priscilla as
claimedbyJosephandTeresa;
4.TheOrder,datedOctober23,2000,denyingSebastiansmotionto
exclude for his failure to present clear and convincing evidence on his
allegations,andwithoutahearingconductedonthelegitimacyissue;
5.ThemarriagecontractsofJoseAgtarap,submittedbyJosephand
Teresa,whicharenotadmissibleinevidence;
6.ThebriefbelatedlyfiledbyJosephandTeresawasareplybrief;
and
7.ThefailureofAbelardoDagoroandWalterdeSantostooppose
themotion to exclude, which operated as an implied admission of the
allegationstherein.
13Rollo(G.R.No.177192),p.6.
469
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
469
14Rollo(G.R.No.177099),pp.5758.
470
470
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
471
472
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
anintestateoratestateproceedingthequestionofinclusion
in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property
withoutprejudicetothefinaldeterminationofownershipin
aseparateaction.18Second,iftheinterestedpartiesareall
heirs to the estate, or the question is one of collation or
advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of
jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third
parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competenttoresolveissuesonown
_______________
16Heirs of Oscar R. Reyes v. Reyes,G.R.No.139587,November22,
2000,345SCRA541.
17 Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15; Baybayan v. Aquino,
No. L42678, April 9, 1987, 149 SCRA 186; Morales v. Court of First
Instance of Cavite,G.R.No.L47125,December29,1986,146SCRA373;
Cuizon v. Ramolete,L51291,May29,1984,129SCRA495.
18 Coca v. Pizarras Vda. de Pangilinan, G.R. No. L27082, January
31,1978,171Phil.246,252;Lachenal v. Salas, L42257, June 14, 1976,
71SCRA262,266.
473
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
473
_______________
19Coca v. Pizarras Vda. de Pangilinan, supra;Pascual v. Pascual, 73
Phil.561(1942);Alvarez v. Espiritu,L18833,August14,1965,14SCRA
892;Cunanan v. Amparo,80Phil.227;MoransCommentsontheRules
ofCourt,1970Ed.,p.473.
20 Regalado, F.D. Remedial Law Compendium. Vol. II, Eighth
RevisedEdition(2000),p.11.
21Rollo(G.R.No.177099),pp.389390.
474
474
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Agtarap,TCTNo.10864,inthenameofJoaquinAgtarap,
marriedtoLuciaGarciaMendietta,wasissuedforaparcel
ofland,identifiedasLotNo.745oftheCadastralSurveyof
Pasay, Cadastral Case No. 23, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record
No. 1368, consisting of 8,872 square meters. This same lot
wascoveredbyTCTNo.5577(32184)22issuedonApril23,
1937,alsointhenameofJoaquinAgtarap,marriedtoLucia
GarciaMendietta.
The findings of the RTC and the CA show that Lucia
died on April 24, 1924, and subsequently, on February 9,
1926, Joaquin married Caridad. It is worthy to note that
TCTNo.5577(32184)containedanannotation,whichreads
Thus,pertheorderdatedApril28,1937ofHon.Sixtode
la Costa, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal,thephrasecon Lucia Garcia Mendiet[t]awascrossed
out and replaced by en segundas nuptias con Caridad
Garcia, referring to the second marriage of Joaquin to
Caridad. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that prior to the
replacement of Caridads name in TCT No. 32184, Lucia,
upon her demise, already left, as her estate, onehalf (1/2)
conjugal share in TCT No. 32184. Lucias share in the
property covered by the said TCT was carried over to the
properties covered by the certificates of title derivative of
TCTNo.32184,nowTCTNos.
_______________
22Id.,atpp.391393.
23Id.,atp.391.
475
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
475
476
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
aninstrumentforthedeprivationofownership.26Thus,the
fact that the properties were registered in the name of
Joaquin Agtarap, married to Caridad Garcia, is not
sufficientproofthatthepropertieswereacquiredduringthe
spouses coverture.27 The phrase married to Caridad
GarciaintheTCTsismerelydescriptiveofthecivilstatus
ofJoaquinastheregisteredowner,anddoesnotnecessarily
provethattherealtiesaretheirconjugalproperties.28
NeithercanSebastiansclaimthatJoaquinsestatecould
havealreadybeensettledin1965afterthepaymentofthe
inheritancetaxbeupheld.Paymentoftheinheritancetax,
per se, does not settle the estate of a deceased person. As
providedinSection1,Rule90oftheRulesofCourt
SECTION 1.When order for distribution of residue made.
When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration,
theallowancetothewidow,andinheritancetax,ifany,chargeable
totheestateinaccordancewithlaw,havebeenpaid,thecourt,on
the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person
interestedintheestate,andafterhearinguponnotice,shallassign
theresidueoftheestatetothepersonsentitledtothesame,naming
them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and
suchpersonsmaydemandandrecovertheirrespectivesharesfrom
theexecutororadministrator,oranyotherpersonhavingthesame
inhispossession.Ifthereisacontroversybeforethecourtastowho
arethelawfulheirsofthedeceasedpersonorastothedistributive
share to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversyshallbeheardanddecidedasinordinarycases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the
obligationsabovementionedhasbeenmadeorprovidedfor,unless
thedistributees,oranyofthem,giveabond,inasumtobefixedby
the
_______________
26Joaquino v. Reyes,G.R.No.154645,July13,2004,434SCRA260,273.
27Jocson v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.55322,February16,1989,170SCRA
333,345.
28Magallon v. Montejo, G.R. No. L73733, December 16, 1986, 146 SCRA
282,292.
477
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
477
478
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
31Id.,atpp.419420.
32Id.,atp.21.
33CIVILCODE ,Art.970.
Art. 970.Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by
virtueofwhichtherepresentativeisraisedtotheplaceandthedegree
of the person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter
wouldhaveifhewerelivingorifhecouldhaveinherited.
479
VOL.651,JUNE8,2011
479
480
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED