The case involving Dr. Nixon Treyes and the estate of his deceased wife, Rosie Larlar Treyes, highlights several important legal issues regarding inheritance, property rights, and judicial processes in the Philippines.
Rosie Larlar Treyes died without a will and left no children, which ordinarily would lead to a settlement of her estate among her surviving relatives, including her husband and siblings. However, rather than participating in the proper legal process for settling the estate, Dr. Treyes took unilateral action. He ignored requests from Rosie’s siblings to participate in a settlement conference and instead executed two affidavits of self-adjudication. By doing so, he declared himself the sole heir to his wife’s estate and transferred ownership of 14 properties into his name through the Registry of Deeds in Marikina, Rizal, and San Carlos, Negros Occidental.
Upon discovering this, Rosie’s siblings filed a legal action seeking to annul the affidavits of self-adjudication, cancel the titles that had been transferred, reconvey ownership of the properties, and partition the estate properly. They also sought damages for Treyes’ actions. Treyes responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case, raising several legal arguments, including improper venue, prescription (the expiration of the right to file the action), and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rejected Treyes’ motion to dismiss on all grounds, leading Treyes to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In his petition, Treyes continued to argue that the case should be dismissed because the venue was improper and that the action had prescribed, meaning it was filed too late. He also claimed that the siblings had not established their right to succession, making their complaint invalid.
The Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the RTC’s decision. First, it ruled that Treyes had waived his right to challenge the venue because he failed to raise the issue in his initial motion to dismiss. Under Philippine law, procedural rules dictate that objections not raised at the first opportunity are deemed waived unless they involve specific issues like jurisdiction. In this case, the venue objection was not one of the exceptions, so it could not be raised later.
Second, the CA rejected Treyes’ argument of prescription, noting that his reliance on Rule 74 of the Rules of Court was misplaced. The Court clarified that the provisions under Rule 74, which impose a two-year prescriptive period for challenging extrajudicial partitions, only apply when all heirs participate or have notice of the settlement. Since Rosie’s siblings were not involved in the self-adjudication and had no notice of it, the prescriptive period did not apply. Instead, the applicable prescriptive period for actions based on implied constructive trust, as per the Civil Code, was 10 years from the issuance of titles, meaning the siblings’ action was timely.
Finally, the Court addressed Treyes’ claim that the siblings lacked the right to file the complaint because they had not established their status as heirs through a judicial proceeding. The Court disagreed, explaining that under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights of heirs are automatically vested at the moment of the decedent’s death. This means that the siblings, as Rosie’s legal heirs, already had an ownership interest in her estate without the need for a prior court declaration of heirship. Consequently, their action for the recovery of property was valid.
This case underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures in estate settlements and highlights the automatic nature of inheritance rights under Philippine law. It also demonstrates that self-declared actions, such as affidavits of self-adjudication, can be successfully challenged when done without the involvement or knowledge of other rightful heirs. Through this decision, the Court upheld the principles of fairness in inheritance law, ensuring that all legitimate heirs have the opportunity to assert their rights over a decedent’s estate.
Real LexEcon 