4.opulencia vs. CA

WILLS Article 777
Title GR No. 125835

OPULENCIA VS COURT OF APPEALS Date: July 30, 1998
Ponente: Paningbatan, J.
Natalia Carpena Opulencia, petitioner Aladin Simundac and Miguel Olivan, respondents
SUMMARY
Opulencia executed in favor Simundac and Olivan a "Contract to Sell" covering a piece of land and received a
downpayment. Having failed to comply with her obligations under the contract, respondents filed a complaint for specific
performance. Opulencia’s defense that the piece of land formed part of the Estate of her father and in respect of which
a petition for probate was filed with the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. RTC dismissed the complaint because the Contract to Sell
was null and void for want of approval by the probate court, in violation of Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. The Court
of Appeals set aside the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.
DOCTRINE
Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent's death. The heir became the owner
of her hereditary share the moment her father died. Lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to Sell
Nature of the case: A petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the contract to sell
executed by Opulencia in favor of respondents as valid and binding.
FACTS
Opulencia(seller) and the respondents(buyers)entered into a contract to sell involving a parcel of land situated in
Sta.Rosa, Laguna for a price of P150 per square meter. Opulencia received P30,000 as downpayment. The respondents
and petitioner have knowledge that the parcel of land formed part of petitioner’s father’s estate (Demetrio Carpena) in
respect of which a petition for probate was filed with the RTC and that the contract to sell was not approved by the
probate court.
The respondents demanded that Opulencia to perform her contractual obligations with respect to the parcel of land.
When petitioner refused, respondents filed a complaint in the RTC and presented their evidence. Opulencia filed a
Demurrer to Evidence and in essence maintained that the contract to sell was null and void because it was not approved
by the probate court.
RTC – granted the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the complaint. It ruled that when the contract to sell was
consummated, no petition was filed in the Court with notice to the heirs of the time and place of hearing, to show that
the sale is necessary and beneficial. A sale of properties of an estate as beneficial to the interested parties must comply
with the requisites provided by law, (Sec. 7, Rule 89, Rules of Court) which are mandatory, and without them, the contract
to sell would be null and void ab initio.
CA – reversed the decision of the RTC. The Contract to Sell is valid. It is not covered by Rule 89 of the Revised Rules of
Court since it was made by Opulencia in her capacity as an heir of a property that was devised to her under the will
sought to be probated. It stated in the contract that the Opulencia is the lawful owner of the land, suffers difficulties in
her living and has forced to offer the sale of the 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. The CA further ruled that the contract is subject to the outcome of the probate proceedings of the estate.
What the trial court should have done with the complaint was not to dismiss it but to simply put on hold further
proceedings until such time that the estate or its residue will be distributed in accordance with the approved will.
ISSUE/S
I. Whether a contract to sell a real property involved in testate proceedings valid and binding without
approval of court - YES
RATIO
The Contract to Sell is valid. Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court is not applicable, because petitioner entered into
the Contract to Sell in her capacity as an heiress, not as an executrix or administratrix of the estate. In the contract, she
represented herself as the "lawful owner" and seller of the subject parcel of land. She also explained the reason for the
sale to be "difficulties in her living" conditions and consequent "need of cash." These representations clearly evince
that she was not acting on behalf of the estate under probate when she entered into the Contract to Sell.
Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent's death. 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.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
BAYOT

4.opulencia vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.opulencia vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

4.opulencia vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WILLS Article 777

Title GR No. 125835

You might also like