A.
Preterition RATIO:
2. Reyes Y. Barreto vs. Lucia Milagro Barretto-Datu, G.R. No. L-17818,
January 25, 1967
FACTS:
- Barretto died with a will and his properties were divided among the
heirs through a project partition. The partition was entered between
the heirs- Salud and Milagros
- However, the widow, Gerardo, died with 2 wills. The first one
instituted Salud and Milagros; while the second one left all properties
to Milagros alone.
- The second will was allowed while the first will was revoked; the
ruling was affirmed by the SC
- The petitioner (Reyes) is a legitimate heir of Gerado. She lost the fight
for a share in Gerado’s estate so Reyes filed an action for recovery
based on Baretto’s will giving Gerado a usufructuary right over a
fishpond
- However, Reyes’ petition backfired because Milagros now contends
that the Project of Partition where Salud acquired the fishpond in
question is void ab initio and Salud did not acquire any valid title
thereto, and that the court did not acquire any jurisdiction of the
person of the defendant, who was then a minor.
- The lower courts voided the partition since Salud was not a daughter
of Baretto and Gerado. Further, the Court ordered them to return
the properties received under the project of partition previously
mentioned
- To simplify; since plaintiffs could not get anything from the estate of
the mom (since mom revoked the 1st will), they attacked the
partition under Dad’s estate; however they were unsuccessful since
defendants are now claiming the partition was invalid
- judgment in rem
ISSUE: Whether the Project partition was valid
HELD: Yes
Classified - Internal use
- The old civil code (art.1081) states that: A partition in which a person
was believed to be an heir, without being so, has been included, shall
be null and void.
- Salud had been instituted heir in the late Barretto's will
together with defendant Milagros;
- The legal precept (Article 1081) does not speak of children,
or descendants, but of heirs (without distinction between
forced, voluntary or intestate ones)
- The institution was valid since the ½ share could be obtained from
the free portion
- The fact that Milagros was allotted in her father's will a share
smaller than her legitime DOES NOT invalidate the institution
of Salud as heir, since there was here no preterition, or total
omission of a forced heir.
- It was also alleged that the Partition is invalid because Milagros is a
minor; but Milagros not only was a party by publication, but actually
appeared and participated in the proceedings through her guardian
- Also, Milagros cannot claim that Salud committed Fraud since the 4
year prescription already ran out.
- EVEN IF the Project Partition was invalid; a project of
partition is a merely a proposal for distribution of the estate,
that the court may accept or reject, it is the court alone that
makes the distribution of the estate and determines the
persons entitled thereto and the parts to which each is
entitled
- It is that judicial decree of distribution, once final, that vests
title to those being distributed upon. If the decree was
erroneous or not in conformity with law or the testament, it
should have been corrected by appeal; but once it had
become final, its binding effect is like that of any other
- If a court has validly issued a decree of distribution of the
estate, and the same has become final, the validity or
invalidity of the project of partition becomes irrelevant.