24. QUIRICO L. SATURNINO, petitioner, vs. FELIZA Luz PAULINO, A!

IO "ALE#A,
#UANA LUCAS, NEESIO LUCAS, "oNATA $UILLERO, %n& COURT OF APPEALS,
respon&ents.
FACTS'
Upon the death of Jaime Luz Paulino, on Fe(ru%r) *+, *,-., he was survived by his children
Timoteo Esteban, Macario and eliza, all surnamed Luz Paulinoand a !randson"#uirico L$
%aturnino, son of his deceased dau!hter &ntonia Luz Paulino$ &mon! the properties left by Jaime
Luz Paulino is a /ouse %n& 0ot, situ%te& in 1%rrio No. *-, 2uni3ip%0it) o4 L%o%5, provin3e
o4 I0o3os Norte, %n& 2ore p%rti3u0%r0) 6no7n %s Lot No. **-88 o4 t/e L%o%5 C%&%stre$
'n 'ctober ((, )*+,, his dau!hter eliza Luz Paulino e-ecuted a deed of absolute sale of said
property in favor of the spouses Ma-imo .ale/a and Juana Lucas and 0emesio Lucas and .onata
1uillermo, for the a!!re!ate sum of P),(22$22$
&s said sale was made without his 3nowled!e or consent, #uirico L$ %aturnino o4ered verbally
and in writin! to the vendees to return then and there to them, in actual cash, +5, of the
purchase price of said property, but &e4en&%nts, for themselves and in representation of their
respective husbands who were absent, refused acceptance thereof$
or this reason, #uirico L$ %aturnino instituted this %3tion %5%inst t/e &e4en&%nts 4or
&e0iver) to t/e &e4en&%nt ven&ees () 7%) o4 rei2(urse2ent, to5et/er 7it/ t/e
%2ount o4 P9+ P/i0ippine 3urren3), to 3over t/e e:penses in3urre& in t/e prep%r%tion
o4 t/e &ee& o4 s%0e, %n& st%tin5 t/%t /e 7%s re%&) %n& 7i00in5 to &eposit ot/er
%&&ition%0 su2s t/%t t/e 3ourt 2%) &ee2 ;ust %n& ne3ess%r)$ 'n these averments
plainti4 prayed in the complaint that /ud!ment be rendered in his favor and, amon! others,
declare the sale made by defendant eliza Luz Paulino to her her co"defendants ille!al with
respect to one"6fth of the lot and to declare said one"6fth undivided share of the plainti4$
'n 0ovember )+, )*+,, defendants answered the complaint with counterclaim, wherein it is
alle!ed, amon! other thin!s, that all their inheritance from the deceased Jaime Luz Paulino had
been divided in accordance with %ection ,*7 of the 8ode of 8ivil Procedure and the last verbal
wish of the decedent before his death, !ivin! the residential lot in 9uestion to!ether with the
house of stron! materials constructed thereon to eliza Luz Paulino as her e-clusive and only
share, and leavin! her brothers, Timoteo, Esteban and Macario, and their nephew #uirico
%aturnino to divide all the a!ricultural lands amon! themselves, which division was duly e4ected$
Meanwhile, or on 0ovember )*, )*+,, #uirino L$ %aturnino had 6led a petition for the probate of
the will and testament of Jaime Luz Paulino$
'n or about March )2, )*,2, respondents herein 6led a supplemental answer alle!in! that
plainti4petitioner hereinhas no le!al capacity to sue, because the property in liti!ation
therein is part of the estate which is the sub/ect matter of the probate proceedin!s, in which an
administrator was appointed but no ad/udication had, as yet, been made$
The 8: rendered decision in favor of the petitioner declarin!" the sale made by the defendant
eliza Luz Paulino to her co"defendants null and void with respect to one"6fth ;)5,< of the lot in
9uestion and the plainti4 is declared owner thereof as his undivided share$
'n appeal from this decision, the defendants contended that the lower court had erred in
declarin! the sale of the lot in 9uestion invalid with respect to one"6fth share of the appellee,
amon! others$
&ccordin! to the 8ourt of &ppeals, althou!h the will of the testator has been allowed, no
settlement of accounts has been e4ected, no partition of the properties left by the decedent has
been made, and t/e /eirs /%ve not 0e5%00) re3eive& or (een %&;u&i3%te& or %ssi5ne& %n)
p%rti3u0%r pie3e o4 t/e 2%ss o4 t/eir in/erit%n3e. T/is (ein5 t/e 3%se, %n& pen&in5
su3/ p%rtition, %&;u&i3%tion or %ssi5n2ent to t/e /eirs o4 t/e resi&ue o4 t/e est%te o4
t/e test%tor #%i2e Luz P%u0ino, none o4 /is /eirs 3%n proper0) %00e5e or 30%i2 to /%ve
in/erite& %n) portion o4 s%i& resi&ue, i4 t/ere (e %n), (e3%use /is or /er ri5/t o4
in/erit%n3e re2%ins to (e in t/e n%ture o4 /ope$ 8onse9uently, neither eliza Luz Paulino,
nor any of her coheirs, can le!ally represent the estate of the decedent, or dispose as his or hers
of the property involved in this case$
=ence, this instant petition for review$
Issue' >'0 the ri!ht of inheritance of herein petitioner is in the nature of mere hope$
<e0&'
No. Pendin! ?partition, ad/udication or assi!nment to the heirs? of a deceased estator, their
?ri!ht of inheritance? is not merely? in the nature of hope,? forpursuant to &rticle 7,@ of the
8ivil 8ode of %pain, which was in force in the Philippines at the time of the death of Jaime Luz
Paulino?the ri!hts to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death?
and the heirspursuant to &rticle 77) of the same 8ode?succeed to the deceased in all his
ri!hts and obli!ations by the mere fact of his death$? :n other words, the person concerned is an
heir and he may e-ercise his ri!hts as such, from the very moment of the death of the decedent$
'ne of those ri!hts is that of redemption under &rticle )27@ of the aforesaid code ;&rticle )2AA of
the 8ivil 8ode of the Philippines<$