GR 160556; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160556 ; August 3, 2007
TEOFILO BAUTISTA, represented by FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioner, vs. ALEGRIA BAUTISTA, ANGELICA BAUTISTA, PRISCILLA BAUTISTA, GILBERT BAUTISTA, JIM BAUTISTA, GLENDA BAUTISTA, GUEN BAUTISTA, GELACIO BAUTISTA, GRACIA BAUTISTA, PEDRO S. TANDOC and CESAR TAMONDONG, Respondents.
FACTS
Teodora Rosario died intestate in 1970, leaving a parcel of land. Her heirs were her spouse, Isidro Bautista, and their five children: Teofilo, Alegria, Angelica, Pacita, and Gil. In 1981, Isidro and four children—excluding Teofilo—executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, with Isidro waiving his share. Alegria and Angelica subsequently sold their portions to their sister Pacita and her common-law husband, Pedro Tandoc, who obtained a new title. Pacita later sold a half-portion to Cesar Tamondong.
In 1994, Teofilo filed a complaint for annulment of documents, partition, and recovery of ownership, claiming fraud and exclusion from the partition. Respondents Alegria and Angelica claimed they were deceived by Pacita into signing the deed of sale. Respondents Pedro Tandoc and Cesar Tamondong asserted they were buyers in good faith and that the action had prescribed. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Teofilo, declaring the documents void and ordering partition. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
ISSUE
Whether Teofilo’s action to annul the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and subsequent conveyances had prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the RTC decision. The Court held that the action did not prescribe. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the partition. An extra-judicial partition that excludes a compulsory heir is not merely voidable but a total nullity. Following the precedent in Segura v. Segura, such a partition is invalid and does not bind the excluded heir. Consequently, an action to annul a void partition does not prescribe.
Since the partition was void from the beginning, it transmitted no rights to the participating heirs. Therefore, the subsequent sales by Alegria and Angelica to Pacita and Pedro, and by Pacita to Cesar Tamondong, were also invalid under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have). The transferees acquired no rights, regardless of any claim of good faith. The defense of prescription is unavailing against a void act. The Court thus ordered the partition of the property among the legitimate heirs of the spouses Isidro Bautista and Teodora Rosario.