Rebusquillo and Orosco v. Sps.

Domingo and Gualvez

G.R. No. 204029, June 4, 2014

FACTS: 

Petitioner was one of the seven children of deceased, Eulalio Abarientos and
Victoria Villareal. Both of them died intestate. The deceased left a parcel of land in
Legazpi City. In 2001, respondent Emelinda (daughter of petitioner), made petitioner
sign two documents on the pretext that the documents were needed to facilitate the
titling of the lot. However in 2003, Avelina realized that what she signed was an Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of respondents. Petitioner
then filed an action to annul the two documents before the RTC. In the
respondents’ answer, they admitted the execution of the affidavit and deed, but they
argued that it was with the consent of all the heirs of Eulalio and Victoria, and that such
was agreed to be done to facilitate the titling of the property. Respondents further
argued that the petitioner received the amount of Php 50,000 for the sale.

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision and
said that the affidavit and the sale were valid.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication and the sale are valid.

HELD: 

No, both the affidavit and the deed of sale are void.

An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir of
the decedent (Section 1, Rule 74, ROC). As admitted by respondents, Avelina was not
the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as admitted by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of
the co-heirs by right of representation of his mother. Without a doubt, Avelina had
perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit that she is the only daughter and sole
heir of spouses Eulalio and Victoria. The falsity of this claim renders her act of
adjudicating to herself the inheritance left by her father invalid.

In effect, Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute
ownership of the subject property to respondents. As she was not the sole heir of
Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self- Adjudication is void, the subject property is still subject
to partition. Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the subject property
but only an aliquot portion. What she could have transferred to respondents was only
the ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent from the admissions of respondents
and the records of this case that Avelina had no intention to transfer the ownership, of
whatever extent, over the property to respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale is
nothing more than a simulated contract as provided by Articles 1345 and 1346 of the
Civil Code.