Laws & Jurisprudence
Affidavit Of Self-Adjudication Is Only Proper When The Affiant Is The Sole Heir Of The Decedent
7:52 PM
Petitioners
Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo (Avelina) and Salvador Orosco
(Salvador) filed a Complaint for annulment and revocation of an
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated December 4, 2001 and a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated February 6, 2002 before the RTC.
The
petitioners alleged that Avelina was one of the children of Eulalio
Abarientos (Eulalio) and Victoria Villareal (Victoria). Eulalio died
intestate on July 3, 1964, survived by his wife Victoria, six
legitimate children, and one illegitimate child. His wife Victoria
eventually died intestate on June 30, 1983. On his death, Eulalio
left behind an untitled parcel of land in Legazpi City.
In
2001, Avelina was supposedly made to sign two (2) documents by her
daughter Emelinda Rebusquillo-Gualvez (Emelinda) and her son-in-law
Domingo Gualvez (Domingo), respondents in this case, on the pretext
that the documents were needed to facilitate the titling of the lot.
It was only in 2003, so petitioners claim, that Avelina realized that
what she signed was an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of respondents.
As
respondents purportedly ignored her when she tried to talk to them,
Avelina sought the intervention of the RTC to declare null and void
the two (2) documents in order to reinstate TD0141 and so correct the
injustice done to the other heirs of Eulalio.
In
their answer, respondents admitted that the execution of the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Sale was intended to
facilitate the titling of the subject property.
After
trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated January 20, 2009 annulling
the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Avelina on the grounds that (1) with regard to the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, she was not the sole heir of her
parents and was not therefore solely entitled to their estate; and
(2) in the case of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Avelina did not really
intend to sell her share in the property as it was only executed to
facilitate the titling of such property.
Assailing
the trial court’s decision, respondents interposed an appeal with
the CA arguing that the Deed of Sale cannot be annulled being a
public document that has for its object the creation and transmission
of real rights over the immovable subject property. The fact that
Avelina’s testimony was not offered in evidence, so respondents
argued, the signature on the adverted deed remains as concrete proof
of her agreement to its terms. Lastly, respondents contended that the
Complaint filed by petitioners Avelina and Salvador before the RTC is
not the proper remedy provided by law for those compulsory heirs
unlawfully deprived of their inheritance.
Pending the resolution of respondents’ appeal, Avelina died intestate on September 1, 2009 leaving behind several living heirs including respondent Emelinda. he appellate court granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUES:
1.
Is the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Avelina valid?
2.
Does the Deed of Absolute Sale enjoy incontovertibility, it being
reduced to writing and notarized?
RULING:
1.
The affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Avelina is NOT
valid. Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the
affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. The second sentence of
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that
self-adjudication is only warranted when there is only one heir:
Section
1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. –– x
x x If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the
entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the
register of deeds. x x x (emphasis supplied)
As
admitted by respondents, Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In
fact, as admitted by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of the
co-heirs by right of representation of his mother. Without a doubt,
Avelina had perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit that
she is "the only daughter and sole heir of spouses EULALIO
ABARIENTOS AND VICTORIA VILLAREAL."
The
falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the
inheritance left by her father invalid. The RTC did not, therefore,
err in granting Avelina’s prayer to declare the affidavit null and
void and so correct the wrong she has committed.
2.
The fact that the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale was reduced to
writing and notarized does NOT accord it the quality of
incontrovertibility otherwise provided by the parole evidence rule.
The form of a contract does not make an otherwise simulated and
invalid act valid. The rule on parole evidence is not, as it were,
ironclad. Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides the
exceptions:
Section
9. Evidence of written agreements. – x x x
However,
a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a)
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
(b)
The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
(c)
The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
The
term "agreement" includes wills. (emphasis supplied)
The
failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to express the true intent and
agreement of the contracting parties was clearly put in issue in the
present case. Again, respondents themselves admit in their Answer
that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale
were only executed to facilitate the titling of the property. The RTC
is, therefore, justified to apply the exceptions provided in the
second paragraph of Sec. 9, Rule 130 to ascertain the true intent of
the parties, which shall prevail over the letter of the document.
That said, considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has been shown
to be void for being absolutely simulated, petitioners are not
precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement.
G.R.
No. 204029, June 4, 2014
AVELINA
ABARIENTOS REBUSQUILLO [substituted by her heirs, except Emelinda R.
Gualvez] and SALVADOR A. OROSCO, Petitioners, vs. SPS. DOMINGO
and EMELINDA REBUSQUILLO GUALVEZ and the CITY ASSESSOR OF LEGAZPI
CITY,Respondents.
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments