ERLINDA PILAPIL AND HEIRS OF DONATA BRIONES vs.

HEIRS OF MAXIMINO BRIONES publication requirement of the notice in newspapers is precisely for the purpose of
GR No. 150175 | February 5, 2007 | Chico-Nazario, J. (Mikee) informing all interested parties in the estate of the deceased of the existence of the
settlement proceedings, most especially those who were not named as heirs or creditors in
*Sobrang pangit ng pagkasulat ng decision, tried my best! the petition, regardless of whether such omission was voluntarily or involuntarily made.

Summary: Maximino died, so his wife Donata became administratrix. As the supposed sole The CFI Order was the result of the intestate proceedings instituted by Donata before the
heir, she was awarded ownership of Maximino’s properties. When she died, Maximino’s trial court. As this Court pointed out in its earlier Decision, the manner by which the CFI
heirs filed a complaint against Donata’s heirs for partition, annulment, and recovery of judge conducted the proceedings enjoys the presumption of regularity, and encompassed
possession, alleging that Donata fraudulently registered in her name Maximino’s in such presumption is the order of publication of the notice of the intestate
properties. SC already held that fraud was not proven; thus, the presumptions of regularity proceedings. A review of the records fails to show any allegation or concrete proof that the
and validity as to the CFI SpecPro Order must be sustained. In this MR, SC upheld its CFI also failed to order the publication in newspapers of the notice of the intestate
position, further admonishing Rs that the settlement of estate was an in rem proceeding, proceedings. Neither can this Court find any reason or explanation as to why
and they should’ve acted immediately upon seeing the published notice. Maximino’s siblings could have missed the published notice of the intestate proceedings of
their brother.
Facts:
Ps are the heirs of the late Donata Briones, while Rs are the heirs of the late Maximino Although Donata may have alleged before the CFI that she was her husband’s sole heir, it
Briones. Maximino and Donata were married with no children. Maximino predeceased was not established that she did so knowingly, maliciously and in bad faith. Letters of
Donata, so when he died, Donata instituted intestate proceedings to settle his estate. CFI- Administration were issued in favor of Donata as early as July 8, 1952, and the CFI order
Cebu issued Letters of Administration to Donata. On January 15, 1960, CFI issued an Order was issued only on January 15, 1960. The intestate proceedings for the settlement
awarding ownership of the real properties to Donata. On June 27, she had the Order of Maximino’s estate were thus pending for almost eight years, and it is the burden of Rs to
recorded in the Register of Deeds, thus receiving TCTS under her name. establish that their parents or grandparents, Maximino’s surviving siblings, had absolutely
no knowledge of the said proceedings all these years.
Donata died on November 1, 1977. P Erlinda, a niece, instituted a petition for the
administration of the intestate estate of Donata. She and her husband were appointed as Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Donata’s misrepresentation constitutes fraud that
administrators. The other heirs opposed Erlinda’s claim of exclusive ownership over 3 would impose upon her the implied trust provided in NCC 1456, this Court still cannot
parcels of land, allegedly based on Deeds of Donation, but in this case, they all appear to be sustain Rs’ contention that their right to recover their shares in Maximino’s estate
on the same side (di na daw alam ng Court ano nangyari sa away-away nila). is imprescriptible. It is already settled in jurisprudence that an implied trust, as opposed to
an express trust, is subject to prescription and laches.
Silverio, a nephew of Maximino, filed a petition for Letters of Administration for
Maximino’s estate, but this was opposed by P Erlinda and Gregorio. The latter two claimed Since an implied trust is an obligation created by law (NCC 1456), then Rs had 10 years
the said properties were already under their administration as part of the intestate estate within which to bring an action for reconveyance of their shares in Maximino’s properties
of Donata. (as per NCC 1144). This period is to be reckoned from date of registration. In the case at
bar, Donata was able to register and secure certificates of title over the disputed properties
So the heirs of Maximino filed a complaint against the heirs of Donata for partition, in her name on June 27, 1960. Rs filed their Complaint for partition, annulment, and
annulment, and recovery of possession of real property. They alleged that Donata, as recovery of possession only on March 3, 1987, almost 27 years after the registration of the
administratrix of Maximino’s estate, through fraud and misrepresentation and without said properties in the name of Donata. Therefore, Rs’ action for recovery of possession of
their knowledge, succeeded in registering in her name Maximino’s properties. the disputed properties had clearly prescribed.

RTC: in favor of Maximino’s heirs; ordered P to reconvey to Maximino’s heirs the properties
Lastly, Donata’s alleged fraud and misrepresentation may have rendered the CFI Order
CA: affirmed RTC voidable, but not void on its face. Hence, the said Order which already became final and
SC: reversed CA; dismissed Complaint for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession executory can only be set aside by direct action to annul and enjoin its enforcement. It
of real property cannot be the subject of a collateral attack as is being done in this case. Rs’ Complaint was
one for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of the disputed properties. The
SC held that Maximino’s heirs failed to prove that Donata managed, through fraud, to have annulment sought in the Complaint was not that of the CFI Order but of the certificates of
the real properties belonging to Maximino’s estate registered in her name. In the absence title over the properties issued in Donata’s name.
of fraud, no implied trust was established between Donata and the heirs of Maximino
under NCC 1456. The CFI Order declaring Donata as sole and exclusive heir is presumed to
have been fairly and regularly issued.

THIS IS AN MR.

Issues:
[most relevant] WON there was fraud in Donata’s application for Letters of Administration
– MAYBE but no proof so NO
WON an implied trust under NCC 1456 existed – NO

Ratio:
The Court does not change its position that there was insufficient evidence to establish that
Donata committed fraud. She was able to secure her TCTs by virtue of the CFI Order in the
special proceedings. In the absence of proof to the contrary, said proceedings should be
accorded the presumptions of regularity and validity pursuant to Secs. 3(m) and (n) of Rule
131.

The CFI order in question reads as:

ORDER
This is with reference to the Motion of the Administratrix, dated January 5,
1960, that she be declared the sole heir of her deceased
husband, Maximino Suico Briones, the latter having died without any
legitimate ascendant nor descendant, nor any legitimate brother or
sister, nephews or nieces.

At the hearing of this incident today, nobody appeared to resist the motion,
and based on the uncontradicted testimony of Donata G. Ortiz that she was
the nearest surviving relative of the deceased Maximino Suico Briones at the
time of the latters death, and pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the new
Civil Code of the Philippines, the Court hereby declares the aforesaidDonata G.
Ortiz the sole, absolute and exclusive heir of the estate of the
deceased Maximino Suico Briones, and she is hereby entitled to inherit all the
residue of this estate after paying all the obligations thereof, which properties
are those contained in the Inventory, dated October 2, 1952.

Cebu City, January 15, 1960.

While it is true that since the CFI was not informed that Maximino still had surviving
siblings and so the court was not able to order that these siblings be given personal
notices of the intestate proceedings, it should be borne in mind that the settlement of
estate, whether testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem, and that the publication in the
newspapers of the filing of the application and of the date set for the hearing of the same,
in the manner prescribed by law, is a notice to the whole world of the existence of the
proceedings and of the hearing on the date and time indicated in the publication. The