SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243309. February 4, 2019.]
JUANITO JAVIER [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS], THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GAVIN JAVIER, ET AL., petitioners, vs. TEODORA J. VILLAMIN, ANTONIO JAVIER, ANGEL JAVIER [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS], ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243309 (Juanito Javier [substituted by his heirs], the Estate of the deceased Gavin Javier, et al. v. Teodora J. Villamin, Antonio Javier, Angel Javier [substituted by his heirs], et al.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 20, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 13, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107489 for failure of petitioners Juanito Javier (substituted by his heirs), the Estate of the deceased Gavino Javier, et al. to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the conclusion of the Regional Trial Court of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14 (RTC) that petitioners' titles were void and that prescription and laches did not lie to bar the present case.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the questioned Deeds of Absolute Sale 4 (Deeds) were null and void for being simulated. 5 Aside from petitioners' admission that the signatures of their father were forgeries, the uncontested fact remains that the Deeds were executed well after their father's death. 6 In other similar cases, this Court has held that if any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and false and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having been made after the death of the party who appears as one of the contracting parties therein. 7 The CA also correctly observed that upon their father's death, the two (2) lots formed part of his estate. Hence, by the time the two (2) Deeds were executed, the two (2) lots were actually co-owned by all the compulsory heirs and could not be sold without the consent of all co-owners. 8 Neither did the CA err in finding that the agreement, 9 wherein respondents Teodora J. Villamin, Antonio Javier, Angel Javier (substituted by his heirs), et al. (respondents) supposedly waived their rights to the lots, is a nullity pursuant to Article 1347 10 of the Civil Code which prohibits waiver of future inheritance. 11 Nor did it err in finding that laches did not set in as respondents brought the instant case on January 22, 1996, two (2) years from knowledge of the forgeries in 1994. 12 Lastly, settled is the rule that factual findings of lower courts are accorded respect and are beyond the review of this Court, save for exceptional circumstances, 13 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED."(HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018. REYES, J., JR., J., on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-22.
2.Id. at 26-44. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-47. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See rollo, p. 33.
6. See id. 34.
7. See Vda. de Cabalu v. Spouses Tabu, 695 Phil. 729, 740 (2012).
8. See rollo, p. 34. See also Cabrera v. Ysaac, 747 Phil. 187, 208 (2014).
9. Titled "Kasulatan at Kasunduan" which was executed on July 18, 1972. Not attached to the rollo.
10. Article 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the object of a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts.
No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
11. See rollo, pp. 38-39.
12. See id. at 42.
13. See Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, G.R. Nos. 208450 and 208497, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 457, 499.