ALVAREZ vs.

THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APELLATE COURT FACTS: Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private respondents, stelita, !lu"inado and #esus, are the children of Rufino who died in $%&' while the other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived by her child, #ovita (#ovito) Alib. Aniceto left his children *ots ++, and -',. Teodora cultivated three hectares of *ot -', as she could not attend to the other portions of the two lots. Rufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a result of the outbrea. of /orld /ar !!. Accordin0 to stelita, fro" the 1#apanese ti"e up to peace ti"e1, they did not visit the parcels of land in 2uestion but 1after liberation1, when her brother went there to 0et their share of the su0ar produced therein, he was infor"ed that Fortunato Santia0o, Fuentebella (3uentevella) and Alvare4 were in possession of *ot ++,. Fortunato 5. Santia0o was issued Transfer Certificate of Title *ot ++,6A. The bi00er portion of *ot ++, was also re0istered in the na"e of Fortunato 5. Santia0o. Santia0o then sold the lots to 7onico 8. Fuentebella,#r. The lots were sold thereafter Rosendo Alvare4.6 The Yaneses filed a co"plaint a0ainst Santia0o, Arsenia 9da. de Fuentebella, Alvare4 and the Re0ister of 5eeds of :e0ros ;ccidental for the 1return1 of the ownership and possession of the lots, and prayed for an accountin0 of the produce of the land fro" $%<< up to the filin0 of the co"plaint, and that the share or "oney e2uivalent due the heirs be delivered to the", and da"a0es. 5urin0 the pendency of the case, Alvare4 sold the lots to 5r. Rodolfo Siason. The CF! ordered Alvare4 to reconvey and deliver the possession of the lots to the Yaneses. However, e=ecution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to one of the lots, as it had been subdivided into two and that that they were 1in the na"e1 of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased the" fro" Alvare4, and that the lot could not be delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was 1not a party per writ of e=ecution.1 The Yaneses filed a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullity of the TCTs issued to Rosendo Alvare4. The court re2uired Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title coverin0 the lots, which order was later nullified by the court in view of a "anifestation filed by Siason. The lower court found Siason as a buyer in 0ood faith, and ordered the heirs of Alvare4 to pay the Yaneses the actua lvalue of the lots, plus da"a0es. The !AC affir"ed e=cept as to da"a0es. 3etitioners contend, a"on0 others, that the liability arisin0 fro" the sale of the lots "ade by Rosendo Alvare4 to 5r.Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvare4 or of his estate, after his death. !SS> : /hether or not the liability or liabilities of Rosendo Alvare4 arisin0 fro" the sale of *ots :os. ++,6A and ++,68 of 7urcia Cadastre to 5r. Rodolfo Siason, if ever there is any, could be le0ally passed or trans"itted by operations ( sic) of law to the petitioners without violation of law and due process

H *5: Yes. >nder our law, the 0eneral rule is that a party?s contractual ri0hts and obli0ations are trans"issible to the successors. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state: Art. ++<. Succession is a "ode of ac2uisition by virtue of which the property, ri0hts and obli0ations to the e=tent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are trans"itted throu0h his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. Art. ++&. The inheritance includes all the property, ri0hts and obli0ations of a person which are not e=tin0uished by his death. Art. $,$$ Contract sta.e effect only between the parties, their assi0ns and heirs e=cept in case where the ri0hts and obli0ations arisin0 fro" the contract are not trans"issible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property received fro" the decedent. 3etitioners bein0 the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvare4, they cannot escape the le0al conse2uences of their father?s transaction, which 0ave rise to the present clai" for da"a0es. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved is of no "o"ent because by le0al fiction, the "onetary e2uivalent thereof devolved into the "ass of their father?s hereditary estate, and hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the pay"ent of the debts of the estate. !t "ust, however, be "ade clear that petitioners are liable only to the e=tent of the value of their inheritance