DR. NIXON L. TREYES v. ANTONIO L. LARLAR, REV. FR. EMILIO L. LARLAR, et.al.

G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020, En Banc (Caguioa, J.)

DOCTRINE
Article 777 of the Civil Code states that the rights of succession are transmitted from
the moment of the death of the decedent. The operation of Article 777 occurs at the very
moment of the decedent's death – the transmission by succession occurs at the precise
moment of death and, therefore, the heir is legally deemed to have acquired ownership of
his/her share in the inheritance at that very moment, and not at the time of declaration of
heirs, or partition, or distribution.

FACTS
Rosie Larlar Treyes, the wife of Dr. Nixon Treyes, died childless and intestate,
leaving behind seven siblings. At the time of her death, Rosie left behind 14 real estate
properties, which she owned together with Dr. Nixon as their conjugal properties.

Dr. Nixon executed two Affidavits of Self- Adjudication, transferring the estate of
Rosie unto himself, claiming that he was the sole heir of his deceased spouse, Rosie. Hence,
the respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint for annulment of the Affidavits of Self-
Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition,
and damages.

Dr. Nixon moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over his person but
a re-service of summons was made upon him. He then filed another Motion to Dismiss
arguing that the private respondents' Complaint should be dismissed on the following
grounds: (1) improper venue; (2) prescription; and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. The RTC denied the same. When the case reached the CA, the case was dealt with
just the same.

In this Petition, Dr. Nixon now argues that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear, try,
and decide the subject matter of the private respondents' Complaint because the
determination of the status of the legal heirs in a separate special proceeding is a
prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property
instituted by the legal heirs.

ISSUE
Whether or not the determination of the status of the legal heirs in a separate
special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property instituted by the legal heirs

RULING
NO. Article 777 of the Civil Code states that the rights of succession are transmitted
from the moment of the death of the decedent. The operation of Article 777 occurs at the
very moment of the decedent's death – the transmission by succession occurs at the precise
moment of death and, therefore, the heir is legally deemed to have acquired ownership of
his/her share in the inheritance at that very moment, and not at the time of declaration of
heirs, or partition, or distribution.

Hence, the Court has held that the title or rights to a deceased person's property are
immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death. The heirs' rights become vested without
need for them to be declared ‘heirs’.

In fact, in partition cases, even before the property is judicially partitioned, the heirs
are already deemed co-owners of the property. Thus, in partition cases, the heirs are
deemed real parties in interest without a prior separate judicial determination of their
heirship. Similarly, in the summary settlement of estates, the heirs may undertake the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the decedent amongst themselves through the
execution of a public instrument even without a prior declaration in a separate judicial
proceeding that they are the heirs of the decedent.

The Civil Code identifies certain relatives who are deemed compulsory heirs and
intestate heirs. They refer to relatives that become heirs by virtue of compulsory
succession or intestate succession, as the case may be, by operation of law.

In the instant case, Article 1001 states that brothers and sisters, or their children,
who survive with the widow or widower, shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance,
while the surviving spouse shall be entitled to the other half.

Hence, subject to the required proof, without any need of prior judicial
determination, the private respondents siblings of Rosie, by operation of law, are entitled
to one-half of the inheritance of the decedent. Thus, in filing their Complaint, they do not
seek to have their right as intestate heirs established, for the simple reason that it is the law
that already establishes that right. What they seek is the enforcement and protection of the
right granted to them under Article 1001 in relation to Article 777 of the Civil Code by
asking for the nullification of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication that disregard and violate
their right as intestate heirs.

To stress once more, the successional rights of the legal heirs of Rosie are not
merely contingent or expectant — they vest upon the death of the decedent. By being legal
heirs, they are entitled to institute an action to protect their ownership rights acquired by
virtue of succession and are thus real parties in interest in the instant case. To delay the
enforcement of such rights until heirship is determined with finality in a separate special
proceeding would run counter to Article 777 of the Civil Code which recognizes the vesting
of such rights immediately — without a moment's interruption — upon the death of the
decedent.
Q: Meg, the wife of Theodore, died childless and intestate, leaving behind seven
siblings. At the time of her death, Meg left behind 14 real estate properties, which
she owned together with Theodore as their conjugal properties. Theodore then
executed two Affidavits of Self- Adjudication, transferring the estate of Rosie unto
himself, claiming that he was the sole heir of Meg. Hence, the Meg’s siblings filed
before the RTC a Complaint for annulment of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication,
cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition, and
damages. Theodore argues that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide
the subject matter of the private respondents' Complaint because the determination
of the status of the legal heirs in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an
ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property instituted by the
legal heirs. Is Theodore correct?

A: NO. Article 777 of the Civil Code states that the rights of succession are transmitted from
the moment of the death of the decedent. The operation of Article 777 occurs at the very
moment of the decedent's death – the transmission by succession occurs at the precise
moment of death and, therefore, the heir is legally deemed to have acquired ownership of
his/her share in the inheritance at that very moment, and not at the time of declaration of
heirs, or partition, or distribution.

Hence, title or rights to a deceased person's property are immediately passed to his or her
heirs upon death. The heirs' rights become vested without need for them to be declared
‘heirs’.

The Civil Code identifies certain relatives who are deemed compulsory heirs and intestate
heirs. They refer to relatives that become heirs by virtue of compulsory succession or
intestate succession, as the case may be, by operation of law. In the instant case, Article
1001 states that brothers and sisters, or their children, who survive with the widow or
widower, shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, while the surviving spouse shall be
entitled to the other half.

Hence, subject to the required proof, without any need of prior judicial determination, the
private respondents siblings of Meg, by operation of law, are entitled to one-half of the
inheritance of the decedent. (Dr. Nixon L. Treyes v. Antonio L. Larlar, Rev. Fr. Emilio L. Larlar,
et.al., G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020, as penned by J. Caguioa)