Santo v Lumbao
2
Sps Virgilio Santos and Esperanza Lati Santos v. Sps. Jose Lumbao and Proserfina Lumbao; G.R. No. 169129; March 28, 2007 Facts: Herein pets are the legitimate and surviving heirs of the late Rita Catoc Santos, who died on October 20, 195. The other pets are the daughters-in-law of Rita. The respondents are the alleged owners of a lot, which they purportedly bought from on two occasions. On the first occasion, Rita sold 100 square meters of her inchoate share in her mother’s estate through a document denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa,” Before her death, Rita allegedly informed the respondents that she could not deliver the title to the subject prop because the entire property inherited by her had not yet been partitioned. The PRs claimed that pets adjudicated and partitioned the subject property already sold to them. They filed a formal demand letter but pets still failed and refused to reconvey the subject property. The trial court denied the complaint. The CA reversed the decision. MR denied. Issue: WON herein pets are legally bound to comply with the "Bilihan ng Lupa" and consequently, reconvey the subject property to herein respondents. Ruling: The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in- interest applies in the present case. Article 131132 of the NCC is the basis of this rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is
description
aaa
Transcript of Santo v Lumbao
Sps Virgilio Santos and Esperanza Lati Santos v. Sps. Jose Lumbao and ProserfinaLumbao; G.R. No. 169129; March 28, 2007
Facts:Herein pets are the legitimate and surviving heirs of the late Rita Catoc Santos, who diedon October 20, 195. The other pets are the daughters-in-law of Rita. The respondents arethe alleged owners of a lot, which they purportedly bought from on two occasions. On thefirst occasion, Rita sold 100 square meters of her inchoate share in her mother’s estatethrough a document denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa,” Before her death, Rita allegedlyinformed the respondents that she could not deliver the title to the subject prop becausethe entire property inherited by her had not yet been partitioned. The PRs claimed that pets adjudicated and partitioned the subject property already sold to them. They filed aformal demand letter but pets still failed and refused to reconvey the subject property. Thetrial court denied the complaint. The CA reversed the decision. MR denied.
Issue:WON herein pets are legally bound to comply with the "Bilihan ng Lupa" and consequently,reconvey the subject property to herein respondents.
Ruling:The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in the present case. Article 131132 of the NCC is the basis of this rule. It isclear from the said provision that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have overthe property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring theproperty, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of theinheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of atransaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited theproperty subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there isprivity of interest between them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and bindingas against them. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract whichinvolves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personalrepresentatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of thecontract. In theend, despite the death of the petitioners’ mother, they are still bound tocomply with the provisions of the "Bilihan ng Lupa,".
