TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of illegitimate children to inherit from their deceased father’s estate, even decades after his death and despite a prior extrajudicial settlement among legitimate children that excluded them. This decision underscores that extrajudicial partitions are not binding on heirs who are not involved or informed. It clarifies that the illegitimate heirs are entitled to their rightful share of the inheritance, including an accounting of income from the estate properties dating back to the father’s death. The Court corrected the lower courts’ computation of the illegitimate children’s legitime, adjusting it to four-fifths of the share of acknowledged natural children as per the Civil Code, which was in effect at the time of the father’s death.

From Shadows to Shares: When Illegitimate Children Claim Their Inheritance

This case revolves around the long-standing dispute over the estate of Donato Pacheco, Sr., who passed away intestate in 1956. At the heart of the matter is the claim of Flora Villanueva, Ruperto Pacheco, Virgilio Pacheco, and the heirs of Donato Pacheco, Jr. (collectively, the respondents), who are the illegitimate children of Donato, Sr. They sought to partition his estate, which was being administered by Daniel and Elpidio Rivera (the petitioners), nephews of Donato, Sr. through his legitimate daughter, Milagros. The petitioners resisted, arguing that an extrajudicial partition executed in 1956 by Donato, Sr.’s legitimate children, Emerenciana and Milagros, already settled the estate. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether this extrajudicial partition barred the illegitimate children’s claim to their inheritance and what their rightful share should be.

The narrative unfolds with Donato, Sr.’s complex family situation: a legal marriage with two children, Emerenciana and Milagros, and an illicit affair producing four more children, the respondents. Upon Donato, Sr.’s death, Emerenciana and Milagros took control of his properties and business. They executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Partition, declaring themselves as the sole heirs. Decades later, the respondents, having established their filiation in prior court proceedings, filed a complaint for partition, seeking their share of the estate. The petitioners, children of Milagros, countered that the action was prescribed, barred by res judicata, and that the extrajudicial partition was valid.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the petitioners’ arguments. It reiterated the principle that actions for partition are imprescriptible, especially when co-ownership is recognized, either expressly or impliedly. The Court emphasized that prescription only begins when a co-owner unequivocally repudiates the co-ownership, which was not the case here. The 1956 extrajudicial partition was deemed not binding on the respondents because they were neither participants nor notified. Quoting established jurisprudence, the Court underscored that “no extra-judicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.” This principle protects the rights of omitted heirs, ensuring fairness and due process in estate settlements.

Article 494 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.

A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.

Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

Furthermore, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision to reckon the accounting of income from the estate properties from the date of Donato, Sr.’s death in 1956. Inheritance rights are transmitted from the moment of death, as stipulated in Article 777 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the respondents, as heirs, are entitled to their share of the income generated by the estate properties from the time of Donato, Sr.’s passing, not just from the filing of the complaint.

However, the Supreme Court corrected a significant error regarding the computation of the respondents’ legitime. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied Article 176 of the Family Code, which provides illegitimate children with half the legitime of legitimate children. The Supreme Court clarified that since Donato, Sr. died in 1956, the Civil Code of 1889, specifically Article 895, should apply. This article differentiates between acknowledged natural children and other illegitimate children. As the respondents were deemed acknowledged illegitimate children (but not natural children in the strict legal sense because Donato Sr. was married to another woman when they were conceived), their legitime is four-fifths (4/5) of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child, not one-half of a legitimate child’s share. This nuanced application of the law demonstrates the Court’s meticulous approach to ensuring legal accuracy based on the applicable period.

To illustrate the difference in legitime calculation:

Finally, the Court affirmed the award of litigation expenses to the respondents, finding that the petitioners acted in bad faith by refusing to acknowledge and satisfy the respondents’ valid inheritance claims, compelling them to litigate. This award serves as a reminder that parties should act in good faith and respect the established legal rights of others, especially in matters of inheritance.

FAQs

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the enduring rights of all heirs, including those born outside of wedlock, in Philippine inheritance law. It highlights the limitations of extrajudicial settlements when not all rightful heirs are included and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific laws in effect at the time of the decedent’s death for determining inheritance shares. The decision reinforces the principle of fairness and inclusivity in estate distribution, ensuring that no heir is unjustly excluded from their legal entitlement.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rivera v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 197310, June 23, 2021