Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 242 views

    Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Yvon Baguio
    The Supreme Court ruled that a will that was not probated has no legal effect and cannot confer rights. The case involved a dispute over ownership of an apartment building between the registered owner, Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, and respondents who claimed rights under Juanito Rodriguez's last will and testament. However, this will was never probated. As such, it did not pass any property and the partition agreement based on it was invalid. The Court also upheld the deed of sale executed by Juanito in favor of Cresenciana before his death, as Juanito remained the owner who could freely dispose of the property. The issue of the deed's validity would need to be resolved in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Yvon Baguio
    242 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a will that was not probated has no legal effect and cannot confer rights. The case involved a dispute over ownership of an apartment building between the registered owner, Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, and respondents who claimed rights under Juanito Rodriguez's last will and testament. However, this will was never probated. As such, it did not pass any property and the partition agreement based on it was invalid. The Court also upheld the deed of sale executed by Juanito in favor of Cresenciana before his death, as Juanito remained the owner who could freely dispose of the property. The issue of the deed's validity would need to be resolved in a separate case.

    Original Title

    1.-Rodriguez-vs.-Rodriguez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a will that was not probated has no legal effect and cannot confer rights. The case involved a dispute over ownership of an apartment building between the registered owner, Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, and respondents who claimed rights under Juanito Rodriguez's last will and testament. However, this will was never probated. As such, it did not pass any property and the partition agreement based on it was invalid. The Court also upheld the deed of sale executed by Juanito in favor of Cresenciana before his death, as Juanito remained the owner who could freely dispose of the property. The issue of the deed's validity would need to be resolved in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    242 views1 page

    Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Yvon Baguio
    The Supreme Court ruled that a will that was not probated has no legal effect and cannot confer rights. The case involved a dispute over ownership of an apartment building between the registered owner, Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, and respondents who claimed rights under Juanito Rodriguez's last will and testament. However, this will was never probated. As such, it did not pass any property and the partition agreement based on it was invalid. The Court also upheld the deed of sale executed by Juanito in favor of Cresenciana before his death, as Juanito remained the owner who could freely dispose of the property. The issue of the deed's validity would need to be resolved in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ (now deceased), substituted by SUSANA A. LLAGAS vs.

    EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ, BELEN RODRIGUEZ and BUENAVENTURA RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No.


    175720, September 11, 2007
     
    FACTS: Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment located at San Jose Street, Guadalupe
    Nuevo, Makati City. On October 27, 1983, he executed a Huling Habilin at Testamento giving
    petitioner Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, his live-in partner, apartments D and E, and his children
    Benjamin Rodriguez (deceased husband of respondent Evangeline Rodriguez), apartment A,
    respondent Buenaventura Rodriguez, apartment B, and respondent Belen Rodriguez, apartment C.
    Juanito later on executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of petitioner who
    registered it in her name. Cresenciana then filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against
    respondents who, without her knowledge and consent, leased the units to some other persons
    who failed to vacate the premises and pay the rentals thereof.
    Respondents in their answer claimed ownership over the property by succession, and
    alleged that petitioner is only the registered owner, not the lawful owner of the property because
    the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and void. They filed an action to assail the validity of the
    sale arguing that petitioner exerted undue influence over Juanito, who at the time was seriously ill,
    to agree to the sale of the property for only P20,000.00 after knowing that only two apartments
    were given to her in the Huling Habilin at Testamento. The MTC in the unlawful detainer case ruled
    in respondent’s favor. On appeal by petitioner, the RTC reversed the MTC decision, in that
    petitioner’s certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the property. The RTC also
    held that the MTC erred in relying heavily on Juanito’s last will and testament which was not
    probated hence has no effect and no right can be claimed therein. Respondents filed a petition for
    review before the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the RTC decision and reinstated
    that of MTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether or not a will which was not probated has effect or can confer a right.

    HELD: NO. The Court held that respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling
    Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been
    probated.  Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated.  This cannot be
    dispensed with and is a matter of public policy.  Article 838 of the Civil Code mandates that “no
    will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with
    the Rules of Court.”  As the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement which was executed
    pursuant to the last will of Juanito cannot be given effect.  Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party
    to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession. 
    Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito
    Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the time of
    his death.  Thus, as owner of the property, he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his
    lifetime.  Now, whether or not the disposition was valid is an issue that can be resolved only in the
    action filed by respondents with the RTC of Makati City. The action in this case is one of unlawful
    detainer which is summary in nature and hence the validity of the will shall not be subject to a
    collateral attack. The Court’s ruling on the issue of ownership is only provisional to determine who
    between the parties has the better right of possession. Thus, the Court reversed and set aside the
    decision of the CA.

    You might also like