Opulencia v. CA

Natalia Opulencia v.
Court of Appeals
Facts:
Private respondents Aladin Simundac and Miguel Oliven filed a complaint for specific
performance Natalia Opulencia on the ground that the latter executed in their favor a Contract to
Sell of Lot 2125 in exchange for a PhP300,000.00 down payment. However, despite repeated
demands, Opulencia failed to comply with her obligations under the contract.
For the petitioner's part, she explained that the property subject of the contract formed part of the
Estate of Demetrio Carpena (petitioner's father), in respect of which a petition for probate was filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna; that at the time the contract was executed, the
parties were aware of the pendency of the probate proceeding; that the contract to sell was not
approved by the probate court; that realizing the nullity of the contract, she had offered to return
the down payment received from the private respondents, but the latter refused to accept it.
The court ordered the parties to submit their evidence. However, the petitioner, instead of
submitting evidence, filed a demurrer. In essence, defendant maintained that the contract to sell
was null and void for want of approval by the probate court. She further argued that the contract
was subject to a suspensive condition, which was the probate of the will of defendants father,
Demetrio Carpena. Moreover, the petitioner maintained that the contract was null and void for
want of approval of the probate court. Meanwhile, the court a quo granted the demurrer and
dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the appellate court set aside the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. It reasoned that
the contract to sell in question is not covered by Rule 89 of the Revised Rules of Court since it was
made by appellee in her capacity as an heir, of a property that was devised to her under the will
sought to be probated. Thus, while the document inadvertently stated that appellee executed the
contract in her capacity as executrix and administratrix of the estate, a cursory reading of the entire
text of the contract would unerringly show that what she undertook to sell to appellants was one
of the other properties given to her by her late father; and more importantly, that it was not made
for the benefit of the estate but for her own needs as she "suffers difficulties in her living and has
forced to offer the sale of the above-described property, which property was only one among the
other properties given to her by her late father, to anyone who can wait for complete clearance of
the court on the Last Will Testament of her father."
Issue:
Is a contract to sell a real property involved in estate proceedings valid and binding without the
approval of the probate court?
Held:
Yes. Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent's death. The
petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary share the moment her father died. Thus,
the lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the petitioner has the
substantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share in the estate of her late father.
Petitioner contended that "[t]o sanction the sale at this stage would bring about a partial distribution
of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate proceedings." It is not
convincing. The Contract to Sell stipulates that petitioner's offer to sell is contingent on the
"complete clearance of the court on the Last Will Testament of her father." Consequently, although
the Contract to Sell was perfected between the petitioner and private respondents during the
pendency of the probate proceedings, the consummation of the sale or the transfer of ownership
over the parcel of land to the private respondents is subject to the full payment of the purchase
price and to the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings.
Having that said, there is no basis for petitioner's apprehension that the Contract to Sell may result
in a premature partition and distribution of the properties of the estate. Indeed, it is settled that "the
sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the pending administration, in no
wise stands in the way of such administration."

Opulencia v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opulencia v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opulencia v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natalia Opulencia v.

You might also like