Lauro G. Vizconde vs CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde and his wife Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde had two children, viz., Carmela and Jennifer. Petitioner's wife, Estrellita, is one of the ve si!lin"s of s#ouses $afael Nicolas and %alud Gonzales-Nicolas. Estre Estrell llita ita #urcha #urchased sed from from his father father,, $afael $afael,, a #arcel #arcel of land land locate located d at Valenzuela, &ulacan and then sold such to %#ouses Chiu, for P,()*,+.)). sin" a #ortion of the #roceeds # roceeds of sale of the Valenzuela Valenzuela #ro#ert/, she !ou"ht a new #arcel of land with im#rovements situated at Vinzon %t., &0 1omes, Para2a3ue. 4he remainin" amount of the #roceeds was used in !u/in" a car while the !alance was de#osited in a !an5. 4he followin" /ear the unfortunate 6Vizconde 7assacre6 came a!out. 8n Novem!er 9, ::, $afael died. 8n 7a/ , ::, $amon led his own #eti #etiti tion on,, doc5 doc5et eted ed as %#. %#. Proc Proc.. No. No. C-+ C-+:: ::,, enti entitl tled ed 6;n 6;n 4he 4he 7att 7atter er 8f 4he 4he Guardiansh Guardianshi# i# 8f %alud G. Nicolas Nicolas and $icardo $icardo G. Nicolas6 and averred averred that their their le"iti le"itime me should should come come from from the collat collation ion of all the #ro#e #ro#erti rties es distri! distri!ute uted d to his childr children en !/ $a $afae faell durin" durin" his lifeti lifetime. me. $a $amon mon stated stated that that herein herein #etiti #etitione oner, r, 7r. 7r. Vizconde, is one of $afael's children 6!/ ri"ht of re#resentation as the widower of deceased le"itimate dau"hter of Estrellita.6 Estrellita.6 $amon also alle"ed that the transfer of the Valenzuela #ro#ert/ in favor of Estrellita !/ her father was "ratuitous and the su!
>?N the Court of =##ealscorrectl/ =##ealscorrectl/ sustained the order of the Pro!ate Court
RULING:
N8. 4he attendant facts herein do not ma5e a case of collation. >e nd that the #ro!ate #ro!ate court, court, as well as res#onde res#ondent nt Court of =##eals, =##eals, committed committed reversi reversi!le !le errors. 0;$%4 4he #ro!ate court erred in orderin" the inclusion of #etitioner in the intestate estate #roceedin". Petitioner, Petitioner, a son-in-law of $afael, is not one of $afael's com#ulsor/ heirs. =rticle 99@ of the Civil Code is clear on this #ointA
%EC8NB 4he #ro!ate court went !e/ond the sco#e of its
41;$B 4he order of the #ro!ate court su!e nd nothin" herein to indicate that the le"itime of an/ of $afael's heirs has !een im#aired to warrant collation. 08$41 4he order of the #ro!ate court #resu##oses that the Para2a3ue #ro#ert/ was "ratuitousl/ conve/ed !/ $afael to Estrellita. $ecords indicate, however, that the Para2a3ue #ro#ert/ was conve/ed for and in consideration of P:)),))).)), @ !/ Premier 1omes, ;nc., to Estrellita. $afael, the decedent, has no #artici#ation therein, and #etitioner who inherited and is now the #resent owner of the Para2a3ue #ro#ert/ is not one of $afael's heirs.7oreover, $afael, in a #u!lic instrument, voluntaril/ and willfull/ waived an/ 6claims, ri"hts, ownershi# and #artici#ation as heir6 in the Para2a3ue #ro#ert/. 0;041 Estrellita, it should !e stressed, died ahead of $afael. ;n fact, it was $afael who inherited from Estrellita an amount more than the value of the Valenzuela #ro#ert/. 1ence, even assumin" that the Valenzuela #ro#ert/ ma/ !e collated, collation ma/ still not !e allowed as the value of the Valenzuela #ro#ert/ has lon" !een returned to the estate of $afael. 4herefore, an/ determination !/ the #ro!ate court on the matter serves no valid and !indin" #ur#ose.
