G.R. No. 94918. September 2, 1992.] Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters.

Their
father died in 1955 and since then his estate
DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES, consisting of several valuable parcels of land in Pasig,
MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR., EVELYN SUAREZ-DE Metro Manila has lot been liquidated or partitioned. In
LEON and REGINIO I. SUAREZ, Petitioners, v. THE 1977, petitioners widowed mother and Rizal Realty
COURT OF APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO, Corporation lost in the consolidated cases for
VIOLETA RAYMUNDO, MA. CONCEPCION VITO and rescission of contract and for damages, and were
VIRGINIA BANTA, Respondents. ordered by Branch 1 of the then Court of First
Villareal Law Offices, for Petitioners. Instance of Rizal (now Branch 151, RTC of Pasig) to
Nelson Loyola for Private Respondent. pay, jointly and severally, herein respondents the
aggregate principal amount of about P70,000 as
SYLLABUS
damages. 1

1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; LEGITIME;

PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN, The judgment against petitioners mother and Rizal

DIFFERENT AND ADVERSE FROM THEIR MOTHER. Realty Corporation having become final and

The legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the executory, five (5) valuable parcel of land in Pasig,

legitime of each child. The proprietary interest of Metro Manila, (worth to be millions then) were levied

petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 in favor of the

different from and adverse to that of their mother. private respondents as the highest bidder for the

Petitioners became co-owners of the property not amount of P94,170.000. Private respondents were

because of their mother but through their own right then issued a certificate of sale which was

as children of their deceased father. Therefore, subsequently registered or August 1, 1983.

petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting

the action to annul the auction sale to protect their On June 21, 1984 before the expiration of the

own interest. redemption period, petitioners filed a reinvindicatory

action 2 against private respondents and the
DECISION
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, thereafter docketed as Civil

NOCON, J.: Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction sale
and the recovery of the ownership of the levied
The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not private pieces of property. Therein, they alleged, among
respondents can validly acquire all the five (5) parcels others, that being strangers to the case decided
of land co-owned by petitioners and registered in the against their mother, they cannot be held liable
name of petitioners deceased father. Marcelo Suarez, therefor and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which
whose estate has not been partitioned or liquidated, they are co-owners, can neither be levied nor sold on
after the said properties were levied and publicly sold execution.
en masse to private respondents to satisfy the
personal judgment debt of Teofista Suarez, the On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal issued
surviving spouse of Marcelo Suarez, mother of herein to private respondents a final deed of sale 3 over the
petitioners. properties.
The undisputed facts of the case are as
follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined by herein
petitioners filed with Branch 151 a Motion for

1|Succession /1st
Reconsideration 4 of the Order dated October 10, 155 a Motion for reconsideration of the Order 5 dated
1984, claiming that the parcels of land are co-owned September 24, 1986. In an Order dated June 10, 1987,
by them and further informing the Court the filing and 6 Branch 155 lifted its previous order of dismissal and
pendency of an action to annul the auction sale (Civil directed the issuance of alias summons.
Case No. 51203), which motion however, was denied. Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals
seeking to annul the orders dated February 25, 1985,
On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary injunction 7 May 19, 1989 8 and February 26, 1990 9 issued in
was issued enjoining private respondents from Civil Case No. 51203 and further ordering respondent
transferring to third parties the levied parcels of land Judge to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203. The appellate
based on the finding that the auctioned lands are co- court rendered its decision on July 27, 1990, 10 the
owned by petitioners. dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente granted and the questioned orders dated February
Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 a Motion to 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26, 1990 issued
Dismiss for failure on the part of the petitioners to in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled, further
prosecute, however, such motion was later denied by respondent Judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case
Branch 155, Regional Trial Court, Pasig. No. 51203." 11

On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. Hence, this appeal.
51203 an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss complaint for
failure to prosecute. This was granted by Branch 155 Even without touching on the incidents and issues
through an Order dated May 29, 1986, raised by both petitioner and private respondents and
notwithstanding petitioners pending motion for the the developments subsequent to the filing of the
issuance of alias summons to be served upon the complaint, We cannot but notice the glaring error
other defendants in the said case. A motion for committed by the trial court.
reconsideration was filed but was later denied.
It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue
On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued in Civil on the validity of the execution and the manner of
Case Nos. 21736-21739 an Order directing Teofista publicly selling en masse the subject properties for
Suarez and all persons claiming right under her to auction. To start with, only one-half of the 5 parcels of
vacate the lots subject of the judicial sale; to desist land should have been the subject of the auction
from removing or alienating improvements thereon; sale.
and to surrender to private respondents the owners
duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the
documents. law applicable at the time of the institution of the
case.
Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari to annul the Orders of "The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
Branch 151 dated October 10, 1984 and October 14, moment of the death of the decedent."
1986 issued in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739.
Article 888 further provides:
On December 4, 1986 petitioners filed with Branch

2|Succession /1st
"The legitime of the legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary
estate of the father and of the mother.

The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half,

subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the
surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.

Article 892 par. 2 likewise provides:

"If there are two or more legitimate children or

descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to
a portion equal to the legitime of each of the
legitimate children or descendants."
Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving
spouse is equal to the legitime of each child.

The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and

auctioned property is different from and adverse to
that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of
the property not because of their mother but through
their own right as children of their deceased father.
Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from
instituting the action to annul the auction sale to
protect their own interest.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals

dated July 27, 1990 as well as its Resolution of August
28, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and set aside; and
Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine
that portion which belongs to petitioners and to annul
the sale with regard to said portion.

SO ORDERED.

3|Succession /1st