"A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life."
- Proverbs 31:10-12
In the midst of all talks of change and the advent of modern technology and fast pace life that contribute to daily stress cutting down our attention span with all the upsurge of media and all sorts of information and the virtual social life we live, wouldn't it be soothing and reassuring to have with you something that is constant.
Constant as that which have been placed up there that even if you can't see it there is this small voice deep inside you telling you that you will still find it exactly at the same place you have left it, unaffected and uncorrupted by the world outside. Like a place, a tree, a house and home, something immovable. A memory perhaps. An affection or a deep feeling beyond description in the core of your heart that never goes away and you intend to keep for the longest of time because identified with it are the unconscious profound intense state that carries your whole being and all the unspoken meaning of who you are.
If you will find a wife. Seek all the attributes you want to find in her. Beauty, intelligence, breeding, success. But never forget one word. And seek this incessantly, Seek for the word CONSTANT. Constant as the northern star. Constant as a tree that yield its fruits in its season. Constant as the sun that rises in the morning and comes down at night, looking at the world outside and celebrating life yet unaffected and never forgetting their own meaning. That is what a wife should be. Constantly there for you from the beginning up to the time you're both having your own children and even in their absence their memories are constantly there for you. Something that signifies strength, of faithfulness and dedication.
Here's the case..
Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde and his wife Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde had two children Carmela and Jennifer.
Petitioner's wife, Estrellita, is one of the five siblings of spouses Rafael Nicolas and Salud Gonzales-Nicolas. Estrellita purchased from his father, Rafael, a parcel of land located at Valenzuela, Bulacan at a price of P135,000 and then sold such to Spouses Chiu, for P3,405,612.00.
So generally we are talking of transfer of ownership here. But take note, this is the kind of transfer of ownership by the parent to the child. It's usually gratuitous in nature. And the parent can do it either by a Deed of Donation or a Deed of Absolute Sale. Usually nangyayari to pag yung parents medyo tumatanda na although malakas pa and little by little they are transferring the ownership of their immovable properties to their children para wala nang masyadong hassle pa pagdating sa successional rights pag wala na sila. So wala nang ico-court probate pa because evenly distributed na yun properties nya sa mga anak nya, aanuhin mo pa yung 'will'. The advantage of this is, habang buhay pa sya makikita nya kung sino yung mga discontented sa mga nkuha nila so that he could make another arrangement para everybody happy...
Mind you this is not Donation Inter Vivos, Estrellita purchased from her father a parcel of land located in Valenzuela Bulacan at a price of P135,000 and then sold such to Spouses Chiu, for P3,405,612.00. My hunch is it was a gratuitous sale, it may appear as a Deed of Absolute Sale (were talking about the previous sale not the subsequent sale) but it's in the amount of consideration that a Deed of Sale can be deemed as gratuitous... siguro nagusap sila ng tatay nya na eto na yung mana nya. "O bilhin mo nalang yung malaking lupa dun sa Bulacan para may matirahan kayo ni Lauro.. pag idodonate ko kasi sayo yan di na magiging conjugal property nyo ni Lauro yan, pagaari mo sarili yan" (LOL don't quote me on this ah.. nananahi lang ako ng storya)... I have no idea as to the real interpretation of the deed and the true intent of the contracting parties here.. so.. choz lang...
So binili ni Estrellita. The thing was iba nasa isip nya.. nakikita nya yung magagandang bahay sa BF Homes Paranaque, and so naisip nya siguro.. ibenta nalang kaya nya sa Intsek. Which was a good idea if you ask me and a great number of people would surely concur. P135K to 3.5 M wasn't just a good deal, that was a jackpot move...
So using a portion of the proceeds of sale of the Valenzuela property, she bought a new parcel of land with improvements situated at Vinzon St., BF Homes, Parañaque. The remaining amount of the proceeds was used in buying a car while the balance was deposited in a bank. Very prudent. My applause.
Sadly, not knowing that it would later be the central venue of the Vizconde Murder Case, the place for the gruesome murder and the cause of their own demise. And may I quote the Newspapers:
"The case which had been colloquially known as the Vizconde Massacre, A multiple homicide of members of the Vizconde family that happened on the 30th of June 1991. Estrellita, 49, had suffered thirteen stab wounds; Carmela, 18, had suffered seventeen stab wounds and had been raped before she was killed; and Jennifer, 6, had nineteen stab wounds. Lauro Vizconde, Estrellita's husband, and the father of Carmela and Jennifer, was in the United States on business when the murders took place."
Take note of this.. the 6 year old who cannot even defend herself and doesn't even take much to kill got the most number of stab wounds... only a criminal who is out of his mind can do that.. and what could be more to make a man lose his human sense and the uprightness of his mind than constant or even intermittent substance abuse..
"The case which had been colloquially known as the Vizconde Massacre, A multiple homicide of members of the Vizconde family that happened on the 30th of June 1991. Estrellita, 49, had suffered thirteen stab wounds; Carmela, 18, had suffered seventeen stab wounds and had been raped before she was killed; and Jennifer, 6, had nineteen stab wounds. Lauro Vizconde, Estrellita's husband, and the father of Carmela and Jennifer, was in the United States on business when the murders took place."
Take note of this.. the 6 year old who cannot even defend herself and doesn't even take much to kill got the most number of stab wounds... only a criminal who is out of his mind can do that.. and what could be more to make a man lose his human sense and the uprightness of his mind than constant or even intermittent substance abuse..
What do you think? Had Estrellita followed the wishes of her father (As I have assumed) would the crime against them could have been prevented? I don't think so.. even if what I was thinking really did happened. There was nothing wrong about buying a land cheap and selling it at high price, that's good business and good thinking. And there's nothing wrong about buying your dream house in an exclusive surroundings. And there's definitely nothing wrong about differing from your father's wishes and making decisions and planning your own life the best way you can.
What was wrong was the proliferation of drug abuse among high society youths back then and the state turning it's head and giving a deaf ear standing oblivion to it's ills. It's a pity that 20 years after the gruesome crime had been committed that it is only now that it is being addressed. Credits to a feisty president.
What was wrong was the proliferation of drug abuse among high society youths back then and the state turning it's head and giving a deaf ear standing oblivion to it's ills. It's a pity that 20 years after the gruesome crime had been committed that it is only now that it is being addressed. Credits to a feisty president.
But we will not discuss the Criminal case here. We will zero in on the Successional rights of Mr. Lauro Vizconde... not as compulsory heir of his wife's estate but as insinuated compulsory heir to a purported collation from his father-in-law's estate.
So the following year roughly from the date the house was bought, the unfortunate thing happened.
On November 18, 1992, Rafael Nicolas the father of Estrellita died.
On May 12, 1993, Ramon, Estrellita's brother filed his own petition, entitled "In The Matter Of The Guardianship Of Salud G. Nicolas and Ricardo G. Nicolas" and averred that their legitime should come from the collation of all the properties distributed to his children by Rafael during his lifetime.
So from Deed of Absolute Sale we're now talking about Collation here..
Ramon stated before the probate court that:
1. Herein petitioner, Mr. Vizconde, is one of Rafael's children by right of representation as the widower of deceased legitimate daughter of Estrellita.
2. Ramon also alleged that the transfer of ownership of the Valenzuela property in favor of Estrellita by her father was GRATUITOUS and the subject property in Parañaque which was purchased out of the proceeds of the said transfer of the property by the deceased Rafael Nicolas in favor of Estrellita, is subject to COLLATION.
Eh bilhin mo ba naman ng P135,000 and then benta mo ng P3.5 Million pag hindi pa ba naman gratuitous yon.. but the question is.. is this Collation?
What is really happening here?? Here's what's happening here.. the brother would like to include the Vizconde Massacre house to the Collation process as the probate court determines the value of the whole estate. What he was actually doing is pinapalaki nya yung net value ng hereditary estate na mamanahin nila. Which is understandable, everything will be collated where some if not all of the properties are usually sold including a bad luck house and proceeds divided to all compulsory heirs. Maybe the brother wanted to blot out the bad memories of the house and cut some bad luck I dunno. What's good about it is he never excluded Lauro Vizconde from the legitime by representation as the widower of his deceased sister. The thing is, hindi naman compulsory heir si Mr. Vizconde... and besides Mr. Vizconde sees it differently.. mawawalan sya ng bahay. Namatayan na nga yung tao di pa ma-imagine sinapit ng mag-iina nya aalisan mo pa ng matitirahan. Would you like to say something Mr. Vizconde? "That ahhh.. the aaaah... Eh binili ng asawa ko to.. pinaghirapan nya to.. kinamatay nya nga pati na ng mga anak ko pagbili nya dito.. baket ko babaliwalain tong property na to"... (Choz lang don't quote me on that ah).
Here's what the Probate Court did. It nullified the transfer of the Valenzuela property from Rafael to Estrellita, and declaring the Parañaque property as subject to collation, which was sustained by the Court of Appeals.
W-w-w-waaait a minute... if the previous sale between Estrellita and her father becomes nullified then why make the Paranaque property subject to Collation? We have a 3rd Party in interest here in the person of the Chius?? The buyer of the Valenzuela property. If said previous Deed of Sale be nullified then that puts a question on the legal ownership of the Chius who made a cash outlay of P3.5 Million...??
ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the order of the Probate Court?
Is there Collation here?
RULING:
Court said NO.
The attendant facts herein do not make a case of collation. We find that the probate court, as well as respondent Court of Appeals, committed reversible errors.
The probate court erred in ordering the inclusion of petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding. Petitioner, a son-in-law of Rafael, is not one of Rafael's compulsory heirs. Article 887 of the Civil Code is clear on this point:
Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the following, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and ascendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.
With respect to Rafaels estate, therefore, petitioner who was not even shown to be a creditor of Rafael is considered a third person or a stranger. As such, petitioner may not be dragged into the intestate estate proceeding. Neither may he be permitted or allowed to intervene as he has no personality or interest in the said proceeding, which petitioner correctly argued in his manifestation.
As a rule, the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property which may or may not be included in the estate proceedings. Such determination is provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve title. In the case at bench, however, we note that the probate court went beyond the scope of its jurisdiction when it proceeded to determine the validity of the sale of the Valenzuela property between Rafael and Estrellita and ruled that the transfer of the subject property between the concerned parties was gratuitous.
The order of the probate court subjecting the Paranaque property to collation is premature. Records indicate that the intestate estate proceedings is still in its initiatory stage. We find nothing herein to indicate that the legitime of any of Rafaels heirs has been impaired to warrant collation.
Even on the assumption that collation is appropriate in this case the probate court, nonetheless, made a reversible error in ordering collation of the Paranaque property. We note that what was transferred to Estrellita, by way of a deed of sale, is the Valenzuela property. The Paranaque property which Estrellita acquired by using the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property does not become collationable simply by reason thereof.
Indeed collation of the Paranaque property has no statutory basis. The order of the probate court presupposes that the Paranaque property was gratuitously conveyed by Rafael to Estrellita. Records indicate, however, that the Paranaque property was conveyed for and in consideration of P900,000.00, by Premier Homes, Inc., to Estrellita. Rafael, the decedent, has no participation therein, and petitioner who inherited and is now the present owner of the Paranaque property is not one of Rafaels heirs.
Thus, the probate courts order of collation against petitioner is unwarranted for the obligation to collate is lodged with Estrellita, the heir, and not to herein petitioner who does not have any interest in Rafaels estate. As it stands, collation of the Paranaque property is improper for, to repeat, COLLATION COVERS ONLY PROPERTIES GRATUITOUSLY GIVEN BY THE DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFETIME TO HIS COMPULSORY HEIRS which fact does not obtain anent the transfer of the Paranaque property.
Moreover, Rafael, in a public instrument, voluntarily and willfully waived any claims, rights, ownership and participation as heir in the Paranaque property.
Finally, it is futile for the probate court to ascertain whether or not the Valenzuela property may be brought to collation. Estrellita, it should be stressed, died ahead of Rafael. In fact, it was Rafael who inherited from Estrellita an amount more than the value of the Valenzuela property. Hence, even assuming that the Valenzuela property may be collated collation may not be allowed as the value of the Valenzuela property has long been returned to the estate of Rafael. Therefore, any determination by the probate court on the matter serves no valid and binding purpose.
The High Court Reversed the CA ruling. Mr. Vizconde wins this case. Meaning he won back the house. And the warm memories he knows of it.
