Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    14 Neri Vs Yusop

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    1) Anunciacion Neri died intestate in 1977 and her husband Enrique executed an extra-judicial settlement with some of their children to sell their homestead properties to the Uy spouses. 2) In 1996, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale, arguing it deprived two of their siblings of their inheritance rights and that Enrique had no authority to sell the shares of his minor children. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that the sale was void. However, the Supreme Court ruled that actions to declare a contract invalid like the extra-judicial settlement do not prescribe, and the complaint to recover the property was filed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    14 Neri Vs Yusop

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    48 views3 pages
    1) Anunciacion Neri died intestate in 1977 and her husband Enrique executed an extra-judicial settlement with some of their children to sell their homestead properties to the Uy spouses. 2) In 1996, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale, arguing it deprived two of their siblings of their inheritance rights and that Enrique had no authority to sell the shares of his minor children. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that the sale was void. However, the Supreme Court ruled that actions to declare a contract invalid like the extra-judicial settlement do not prescribe, and the complaint to recover the property was filed

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    14 Neri vs Yusop

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Anunciacion Neri died intestate in 1977 and her husband Enrique executed an extra-judicial settlement with some of their children to sell their homestead properties to the Uy spouses. 2) In 1996, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale, arguing it deprived two of their siblings of their inheritance rights and that Enrique had no authority to sell the shares of his minor children. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that the sale was void. However, the Supreme Court ruled that actions to declare a contract invalid like the extra-judicial settlement do not prescribe, and the complaint to recover the property was filed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    48 views3 pages

    14 Neri Vs Yusop

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Lo
    1) Anunciacion Neri died intestate in 1977 and her husband Enrique executed an extra-judicial settlement with some of their children to sell their homestead properties to the Uy spouses. 2) In 1996, some of Anunciacion's children filed a case to annul the sale, arguing it deprived two of their siblings of their inheritance rights and that Enrique had no authority to sell the shares of his minor children. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that the sale was void. However, the Supreme Court ruled that actions to declare a contract invalid like the extra-judicial settlement do not prescribe, and the complaint to recover the property was filed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    An action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a

    contract does not prescribe in accordance with Article 1410 of the


    Civil Code
    Neri vs. Heirs of Yusop
    683 SCRA 553
    Facts: Anunciacion Neri had seven children: first marriage with
    Gonzalo Illut, namely: Eutropia and Victoria and second marriage with
    Enrique Neri, namely: Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Douglas and Rosa.
    Throughout the marriage of spouses Enrique and Anunciacion, they
    acquired several homestead properties located in Samal, Davao del
    Norte.
    In 1977, Anunciacion died intestate. Her husband, Enrique, in his
    together with Napoleon, Alicia, and Visminda executed an Extra-Judicial
    Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale on 1979,
    adjudicating among themselves the said homestead properties, and
    thereafter, conveying them to the late spouses Uy for a consideration of
    P 80,000.00.
    In 1996, the children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of
    sale of the said homestead properties against spouses Uy, assailing the
    validity of the sale for having been sold within the prohibited period. The
    complaint was later amended to include Eutropia and Victoria as
    additional plaintiffs for having been excluded and deprived of their
    legitimes as children of Anunciacion from her first marriage.
    The RTC ruled that the sale is still void because Eutropia and
    Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that Enrique had no
    judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and
    Douglas.
    The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC.
    the CA declared the extrajudicial settlement and the subsequent sale as
    valid and binding with respect to Enrique and his children, holding that
    as co-owners, they have the right to dispose of their respective shares
    as they consider necessary or fit. While recognizing Rosa and Douglas
    to be minors at that time, they were deemed to have ratified the sale
    when they failed to question it upon reaching the age of majority. It also
    found laches to have set in because of their inaction for a long period of
    time.
    Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it found that laches or


    prescription has set in

    Ruling: YES. The Court agrees with petitioners that the present
    action has not prescribed in so far as it seeks to annul the extrajudicial
    settlement of the estate. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, the prescriptive
    period of 2 years provided in Section 1 Rule 74 of the Rules of Court
    reckoned from the execution of the extrajudicial settlement finds no
    application to petitioners Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, who were
    deprived of their lawful participation in the subject estate. Besides, an
    "action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract
    does not prescribe" in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
    However, the action to recover property held in trust prescribes
    after 10 years from the time the cause of action accrues, which is from
    the time of actual notice in case of unregistered deed. In this case,
    Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas claimed to have knowledge of the
    extrajudicial settlement with sale after the death of their father, Enrique,
    in 1994 which spouses Uy failed to refute. Hence, the complaint filed in
    1997 was well within the prescriptive period of 10 years. The instant
    petition is granted.

    You might also like