PACITA, FILOMENO, REMEDIOS, ADELAIDA AND NELIA, ALL SURNAMED DIMAYUGA, AND HEIRS OF SOCORRO DIMAYUGA-LASALA; SERGIO LASALA, MARCELINO; SATURNINO AND MINORS AIDA, DANTE, BELEN, L…

This case is about the effect of a partition inter vivos on the successional rights to a thirteen-hectare homestead located at Pola, Oriental Mindoro.

The spouses Genaro Dimayuga and Segunda Gayapanao, who were married in
1915 (Exh. 2), acquired a Torrens title for that homestead in 1928 (Exh.
1). Segunda died intestate in 1940, survived by her son, Manuel, and
her husband, Genaro.

During their marriage, Genaro had a mistress named Emerenciana
Panganiban by whom he begot five children, named Filomeno, Pacita,
Adelaida, Remedios and Socorro. A sixth child, Nelia Dimayuga, was born
in 1944 or after Segunda’s death. Emerenciana cultivated a homestead
adjoining the thirteen-hectare homestead in question. So, it was not
surprising that she became the paramour of Genaro.

Genaro, 56, married Emerenciana, 37, on February 26, 1947 (Exh. 3).
That marriage legitimated Nelia, who had been a duly acknowledged
natural child, but it did not improve the status of her brother and four
sisters who were adulterous or spurious children.

On September 16, 1948, or about a month before Genaro’s death a
“partition of real property” was executed in English. It was duly
notarized. It was signed by Genaro, Manuel, Filomeno and Pacita and
thumbmarked by Emerenciana, in representation of her minor children
Adelaida, Remedios, Socorro and Nelia (Exh. A), though Emerenciana had
not been appointed judicial guardian of their property.

The document states the ages of the children as Pacita, 22, Filomeno,
19, Adelaida, 17, Remedios, 15, Socorro, 13, and Nelia, 4. But their
birth certificates show that they were all minors. Filomeno
and Pacita were twins born on December 25, 1929; Remedios and Adelaida
were also twins born on January 2, 1932; Socorro was born in 1938 and
Nelia, as already noted, in 1944 (Exh. 4 to 9).

In that partition, which the petitioners also regard as a donation,
Genaro treated the homestead as his sole property and not conjugal,
which it actually was (Pisalbon vs. Bejec, 74 Phil. 288; Tabunan vs.
Marigmen, 101 Phil. 288). Manuel was given as share five and one-half
hectares of the homestead (southern portion adjoining Emerenciana’s separate homestead).
The six illegitimate children were given seven and seven-tenth
hectares (northern portion also adjoining Emerenciana’s separate
homestead). The partition was not registered.

The partition was amended in 1951 by means of an affidavit in Tagalog
signed by the same parties except Genaro who died intestate on October
8, 1948. An additional one hectare was given to Manuel, making his
total share six and five-tenth hectares. The 1948 partition prejudiced
him because “ang ginawang paghahati ni Genaro Dimayuga ay hindi tumpak sapagkat naapi si Manuel Dimayuga” (Exh. B).

Nineteen years later, or on May 28, 1970, Manuel having been advised
that the entire homestead was inherited by him from his parents and
freed from his father’s moral ascendancy, executed an affidavit of
adjudication which he registered. He obtained a Torrens title for the
thirteen-hectare homestead (Exh. 1).

About two months later, the six illegitimate children filed a complaint
for the annulment of Manuel’s title and for the division of the
homestead equally among Genaro’s seven children including Manuel. The
parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts. The plaintiffs
offered the partition and the amendatory affidavit as their documentary
evidence (Exh. A and B). On the other hand, Manuel’s documentary
evidence consisted of his title, the marriage contracts of his parents
and of Genaro and Emerenciana and the birth certificates of the
illegitimate children (Exh. 1 to 9).

There was no oral evidence. The parties submitted “the case on pure
questions of law” (p. 15, Record on Appeal). The trial court annulled
Manuel’s title, decreed that about one-half of the homestead should be
divided equally among the six illegitimate children and ordered Manuel
to pay them P2,500 as moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Manuel appealed to the Court of Appeals which adjudicated to him
three-fourth of the homestead and other one-fourth to Nelia. The six
illegitimate children appealed to this Court. We gave due course to the
appeal because of their contention that since the case involved only
legal questions the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction over it. We
treated the case as if it had been directly appealed from the trial
court to this Court.

The petitioners or the six illegitimate children admit that the
Appellate Court correctly applied the law by adjudicating three-fourth
of the homestead to Manuel and one-fourth to Nelia (p. 10, Brief).
However, they contend that their possession of about one-half of the
homestead since the 1948 partition made them owners by prescription and
that Manuel is estopped to deny that fact because he adjudicated the
homestead to himself only twenty-two years later.

That contention is devoid of merit. It may be morally plausible but it
is legally indefensible. No portion of the homestead, a registered
land, may be acquired by prescription. “No title to registered land in
derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.” (Sec. 46, Act No. 496; Sec. 47,
Property Registration Decree, P. D. No. 1529; Art. 1126, Civil Code.)

The petitioners cite Parcotilo vs. Parcotilo, 120 Phil. 1231. That case involves unregistered land
which was held by the claimant and his predecessors for over thirty
years, an extraordinary prescription. It was immaterial that the
testament in that case was void.

Article 1056 of the old Civil Code provides that “if the testator should make a partition of his property by an act inter vivos,
or by will, such partition shall stand insofar as it does not prejudice
the legitime of the forced heirs.” Article 1056 was construed to mean
that a person who makes an inter vivos partition must first
execute a will. If the will is void, the partition is void (Legasto vs.
Verzosa, 54 Phil. 766; Fajardo vs. Fajardo, 54 Phil. 842; Romero vs.
Villamor, 102 Phil. 641). With more reason would the partition be void
if there was no will.

The 1948 partition was not in conformity with law. It assumed that
Genaro was the owner of the entire homestead. That is wrong. One-half
of the homestead, subject to the husband’s usufructuary legitime, was
inherited in 1940 by Manuel upon the death of his mother who was married to Genaro for twenty-five years. Genaro could dispose by an act inter vivos only one-half of the homestead. In that one-half portion, Manuel and Nelia, as Genaro’s legal and forced heirs, had a two-third legitime.

In “donating” the said one-half portion to his six illegitimate
children, Genaro deprived Manuel of his legitime in his estate or in
effect, made him renounce his future inheritance. The 1951 affidavit
cannot be construed as a repudiation of his inheritance in his father’s
estate because the document does not have that tenor. For this reason,
Manuel is not estopped to ignore that partition. The rule in Alforgue
vs. Veloso, 65 Phil. 272, cited by the petitioners, does not apply to
Manuel. The facts in the Alforque case are radically different from the facts of the instant homestead case.

The five illegitimate children (the sixth child Nelia was legitimated)
have no rights whatsoever to the said homestead. As already said, they
were adulterous or spurious children.

“Desde de las leyes de Partida, la ciencia y la ley suponen, en
todas sus determinaciones, la existencia bien caracterizada de los dos
grupos de hijos adulterinos: unos, los simplemente adulterinos, ex
damnato coitu o de dañado ayuntamiento, los nacidos de mujer soltera o
viuda y de hombre casado; y otros notos, ex damnato et punibili coitu
o de dañado y punible ayuntamiento, los nacidos de mujer casada,
cualquiera que sea el estado del hombre, porque la madre, en algunos
casos, incurria en la pena de muerte.” (17 Enciclopedia Juridica
Española, p. 780-1).

As such, they are not entitled to successional rights but only to
support (Art. 139, old Civil Code; Reyes vs. Zuzuarregui, 102 Phil. 346;
Olivete vs. Mata, 100 Phil. 563; Javelona vs. Monteclaro, 74 Phil. 393;
Lagrimas vs. Lagrimas, 95 Phil. 113; RAmirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855).

Manuel and Nelia, as Genaro’s legal and forced heirs, are entitled to
inherit Genaro’s one-half portion. It cannot be said that the five
adulterous children have no resources whatsoever. Their mother,
Emerenciana, has a homestead adjoining Genaro’s homestead in question.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is reversed and set aside.
Three-fourth of the said homestead is hereby adjudicated to Manuel
Dimayuga and one-fourth to Nelia Dimayuga. The register of deeds should
cancel Manuel’s title and issue the corresponding titles in accordance
with this decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., no part.