Garcia v. Garcia (G.R. No. 169157. November 14, 2011)
CASE DIGEST: SPOUSES BENJAMIN and NORMA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. ESTER GARCIA, AMADO GARCIA, ADELA GARCIA, ROSA GARCIA and DAVID GARCIA, Respondents. Garcia v. Garcia (G.R. No. 169157. November 14, 2011).
FACTS: Emilio Garcia (Emilio) and Eleuteria Pineda Garcia (Eleuteria) had nine (9) children, namely: Jerameal, Jose, Rita Garcia-Shipley (Rita), respondents Ester, Amado, Adela, Rosa, David and petitioner Benjamin, all surnamed Garcia. Eleuteria died in 1927. Emilio, thereafter, married Monica Cruz (Monica), with whom he had eight (8) children, namely: Irma, Imelda, Rogelio, Emilio, Maurita, Felixberto, Violeta and Rosalinda. On October 26, 1962, Emilio died intestate, survived by his wife Monica Cruz and his children of the first and second marriage. He left, among others, a 1,564-square-meter (sq m) lot ("subject property") located in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City registered in the name of Emilio married to Eleuteria.
Emilios children of the first marriage executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of Rita. Benjamin and Rita then executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, declaring themselves as the sole and only heirs of Emilio and Eleuteria, and adjudicating unto themselves the subject property, 1,000 sq m of which to Rita and the remaining 564 sq m to Benjamin. Pursuant to said Deed, TCT No. 18550 was cancelled and two (2) new TCTs were issued.
Irma and Imelda filed a complaint against Rita and Benjamin for the annulment of title and the partitioning of the property in accordance with the law on intestate succession. The parties, thereafter, entered into a Compromise Agreement under which, as approved by the RTC, the children of the first marriage were to receive 1, 091.90 sq m while the children of the second marriage, including the surviving spouse, were to receive 472.10 sq m. It was further agreed that the shares of Monica and her children were to be taken from Ritas portion of the property.
However, instead of executing the approved compromise agreement, Rita divided her 1,000-sq-m property 555 sq m for herself and 445 sq m for Monica and her children. Consequently, TCT No. 171640 was cancelled and TCT No. 207117 was issued to Monica and her children, while TCT No. 207116 to Rita.
Petitioners, however, opposed the implementation of the writ of execution on two grounds: (1) the compromise agreement did not include the portion of the subject property in the name of Benjamin, thus, should not be considered part of the property ordered by the court to be reconveyed to respondents; and (2) the writ of execution could not cover the portion of the subject property in the name of Norma, since she was not impleaded in the reconveyance case, and as such, is not bound by the decision sought to be executed.
ISSUE: Should portion of the property registered under Benjamin Garcia be included in the application of the compromise agreement though its inclusion was not expressly provided therein?HELD: First, it must be recalled that the compromise agreement came about because of the case for annulment of title instituted by Monica and her children against Benjamin and Rita. Respondents were not parties to the annulment case or to the compromise agreement but their rights to the subject property as heirs of Emilio were recognized. Of the 1,564 sq m property, 1,091 sq m was agreed upon as the total shares of the children of the first marriage which include Rita, Benjamin and respondents, and 472 sq m for Monica and her children. From Ritas 1,000 sq m share, 472 sq m was supposed to be given to Monica and her children. After deducting said area, 528 sq m remained for the children of the first marriage who are entitled to 1,091 sq m. Although it was not specifically stated in the compromise agreement, obviously, the shares of the children of the first marriage should be taken from the remaining 528 sq m of Rita and the 564 sq m of Benjamin. Benjamin's claim that the portion of the property registered in his name is not covered by the compromise agreement, certainly, has no leg to stand on.
Second, the claims of the other heirs of Emilio who were neither parties to the annulment case nor the compromise agreement was based on their rights under the rules on intestate succession. Undoubtedly, these rules apply not only to Rita but also to Benjamin. If we were to sustain Benjamin's claim that the portion of the property registered in his name is excluded, the shares of the omitted heirs will not be completed.
Neither can we sustain petitioners contention that the writ of execution cannot include the portion of the subject property registered in the name of Norma as she was never a party to the reconveyance case. At the time respondents instituted the action for reconveyance, Norma had been the registered owner of a portion of the subject property. As such, she was an indispensable party as her title to the property was affected. While a person not impleaded in the complaint generally cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, in this case, however, evidence clearly shows that Norma had knowledge of the existence and the pendency of the reconveyance case filed by respondents against her husband Benjamin, Rita, and Monica and her children. She is now estopped from claiming that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her and thus not bound by the decision sought to be executed.
FACTS: Emilio Garcia (Emilio) and Eleuteria Pineda Garcia (Eleuteria) had nine (9) children, namely: Jerameal, Jose, Rita Garcia-Shipley (Rita), respondents Ester, Amado, Adela, Rosa, David and petitioner Benjamin, all surnamed Garcia. Eleuteria died in 1927. Emilio, thereafter, married Monica Cruz (Monica), with whom he had eight (8) children, namely: Irma, Imelda, Rogelio, Emilio, Maurita, Felixberto, Violeta and Rosalinda. On October 26, 1962, Emilio died intestate, survived by his wife Monica Cruz and his children of the first and second marriage. He left, among others, a 1,564-square-meter (sq m) lot ("subject property") located in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City registered in the name of Emilio married to Eleuteria.
Emilios children of the first marriage executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of Rita. Benjamin and Rita then executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, declaring themselves as the sole and only heirs of Emilio and Eleuteria, and adjudicating unto themselves the subject property, 1,000 sq m of which to Rita and the remaining 564 sq m to Benjamin. Pursuant to said Deed, TCT No. 18550 was cancelled and two (2) new TCTs were issued.
Irma and Imelda filed a complaint against Rita and Benjamin for the annulment of title and the partitioning of the property in accordance with the law on intestate succession. The parties, thereafter, entered into a Compromise Agreement under which, as approved by the RTC, the children of the first marriage were to receive 1, 091.90 sq m while the children of the second marriage, including the surviving spouse, were to receive 472.10 sq m. It was further agreed that the shares of Monica and her children were to be taken from Ritas portion of the property.
However, instead of executing the approved compromise agreement, Rita divided her 1,000-sq-m property 555 sq m for herself and 445 sq m for Monica and her children. Consequently, TCT No. 171640 was cancelled and TCT No. 207117 was issued to Monica and her children, while TCT No. 207116 to Rita.
Petitioners, however, opposed the implementation of the writ of execution on two grounds: (1) the compromise agreement did not include the portion of the subject property in the name of Benjamin, thus, should not be considered part of the property ordered by the court to be reconveyed to respondents; and (2) the writ of execution could not cover the portion of the subject property in the name of Norma, since she was not impleaded in the reconveyance case, and as such, is not bound by the decision sought to be executed.
ISSUE: Should portion of the property registered under Benjamin Garcia be included in the application of the compromise agreement though its inclusion was not expressly provided therein?HELD: First, it must be recalled that the compromise agreement came about because of the case for annulment of title instituted by Monica and her children against Benjamin and Rita. Respondents were not parties to the annulment case or to the compromise agreement but their rights to the subject property as heirs of Emilio were recognized. Of the 1,564 sq m property, 1,091 sq m was agreed upon as the total shares of the children of the first marriage which include Rita, Benjamin and respondents, and 472 sq m for Monica and her children. From Ritas 1,000 sq m share, 472 sq m was supposed to be given to Monica and her children. After deducting said area, 528 sq m remained for the children of the first marriage who are entitled to 1,091 sq m. Although it was not specifically stated in the compromise agreement, obviously, the shares of the children of the first marriage should be taken from the remaining 528 sq m of Rita and the 564 sq m of Benjamin. Benjamin's claim that the portion of the property registered in his name is not covered by the compromise agreement, certainly, has no leg to stand on.
Second, the claims of the other heirs of Emilio who were neither parties to the annulment case nor the compromise agreement was based on their rights under the rules on intestate succession. Undoubtedly, these rules apply not only to Rita but also to Benjamin. If we were to sustain Benjamin's claim that the portion of the property registered in his name is excluded, the shares of the omitted heirs will not be completed.
Neither can we sustain petitioners contention that the writ of execution cannot include the portion of the subject property registered in the name of Norma as she was never a party to the reconveyance case. At the time respondents instituted the action for reconveyance, Norma had been the registered owner of a portion of the subject property. As such, she was an indispensable party as her title to the property was affected. While a person not impleaded in the complaint generally cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, in this case, however, evidence clearly shows that Norma had knowledge of the existence and the pendency of the reconveyance case filed by respondents against her husband Benjamin, Rita, and Monica and her children. She is now estopped from claiming that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her and thus not bound by the decision sought to be executed.
