Succession

General Provisions

Balus v. Balus
January 15, 2010 | J. Peralta

Petitioner(s): Celestino Balus

Respondent(s): Saturnino Balus and Leonarda Balus Vda. de Calunod

Doctrine: The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of death. The inheritance
of a person consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his
death, as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): Pinag aawayan nila di naman pala sa kanila
FACTS: Before Rufo Balus died, he lost ownership over a parcel of land that he mortgaged to a bank
through a foreclosure sale, wherein the bank was the sole bidder. Rufo’s children, after his death and
aware of the foreclosure but unaware of the consolidation of ownership, executed an “Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate” whereby they adjudicated to each other ⅓ of the property, and expressed their
intention to redeem the property as soon as possible. However, 2 of the siblings (Saturnino and
Leonarda) instead bought the property from the bank, which the third sibling (Celestino) was occupying.
Thus, the vendee-siblings sued the sibling in possession.

HELD: The sale to Saturnino and Leonarda stands, and therefore Celestino must vacate the same.
Celestino was anchoring his claim on the Extrajudicial Settlement, wherein they apportioned to each other
⅓ of the property as co-owners. In reality, however, the property never passed to them by succession. a
new title was issued in the bank’s name before Rufo died on July 6, 1984. Hence, there is no question
that the bank acquired exclusive ownership of the property during the lifetime of Rufo. since Rufo lost
ownership of the property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed
parcel of land no longer formed part of the estate to which his heirs may lay claim. None of them ever
inherited the subject lot from their father.

FACTS
● Celestino and Saturnino and the children of Sps. Balus. Sebastiana (wife) died in September
1978 while Rufo (husband) died in July 1984.
● On January 3, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land he owned, as security for a loan obtained from
the Rural Bank of Maigo (bank).
● Rufo failed to pay his loan. Thus, the property was foreclosed and was subsequently sold to the
bank as the sole bidder at the public auction. The property was not redeemed. Thus, a new title
was issued in the name of the bank sometime after the execution of the definite deed of sale in
January 1984, but before the death of Rufo.
● In October 1989, Celestino and Saturnino executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (ESE)
adjudicating to each of them a specific one-third portion of the subject property.
● The ESE also contained provisions wherein the parties admitted knowledge of the fact that their
father mortgaged the property to the bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the
soonest possible time.
● Three years after, Saturnino and Leonarda (another sibling) bought the property from the bank. In
October 1992, a deed of sale was executed by the bank in their favor. Meanwhile, Celestino
continued in possession of the lot.
● Thus, Saturnino and Leonarda filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against
Celestino.
● The RTC held that the right of Celestino to purchase from Saturnino and Leonarda his share in
the property was recognized by the provisions of the ESE, which was executed before Saturnino
and Leonarda bought the property from the bank. Thus, it ordered Saturnino and Leonarda to
execute a deed of sale in favor of Celestino for ⅓ of the property in question.
● The CA reversed the decision of the RTC, and ordered Celestino to immediately surrender
possession of the property to Saturnino and Leonarda. It held that when none of the parties

Perez|A2022
09/15/20
Succession
General Provisions
redeemed the property within the redemption period, and allowed the consolidation of ownership
in the name of the bank, their co-ownership was extinguished.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N – the co ownership between Celestino, Saturnino, and Leonarda persisted even
after the lot was purchased by the bank, and even after it was eventually bought back by the
Saturnino and Leonarda therefrom- NO
● Both parties are arguing on the wrong premise that, at the time of the execution of the ESE, the
subject property formed part of the estate of their deceased father to which they may lay claim as
his heirs.
● The property was exclusively owned by Rufo (their father) at the time that it was mortgaged in
1979.
● There is also no dispute that a new title was issued in the bank’s name before Rufo died on July
6, 1984. Hence, there is no question that the bank acquired exclusive ownership of the property
during the lifetime of Rufo.
● The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of death. The inheritance of
a person consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of
his death, as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.
● In the present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the property during his lifetime, it only follows
that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of the estate to
which his heirs may lay claim. None of them ever inherited the subject lot from their father.

ISSUE #2: WN the ESE is an independent contract which gives Celestino the right to enforce his
claim to a portion of the disputed lot? NO
● There was nothing in the ESE to indicate any express stipulation for the parties to continue with
their supposed co-ownership of the contested lot.
● On the contrary, a plain reading thereof would not in any way support Celestino’s contention that
it was his and his sibling’s intention to but the property from the bank and continue what they
believed to be co-ownership thereof.
● It appears from the recitals in the ESE that, at the time of the execution thereof, the parties were
not yet aware that the subject property was already exclusively owned by the bank. The
ignorance of that fact does not five them the right to unilaterally declare themselves as co-owners
of the property.

RULING: The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Perez|A2022
09/15/20