Property sold without consent of siblings

A sibling sold an inherited parcel of land from his/her deceased parents, without his/her siblings knowledge and consent. Is the sale valid?

The Supreme Court, in the case of Heirs of Gregorio Lopez, represented by Rogelia Lopez et al., v. Development Bank of the Philippines, GR 193551, Nov. 19, 2014, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, held that the heirs cannot alienate the shares in the estate that do not belong to them, to wit:

"We have consistently upheld the principle that 'no one can give what one does not have.' A seller can only sell what he or she owns, or that which he or she does not own but has authority to transfer, and a buyer can only acquire what the seller can legally transfer.

"Title or rights to a deceased person's property are immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death. The heirs' rights become vested without need for them to be declared 'heirs'. Before the property is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the property.

"The heirs cannot alienate the shares that do not belong to them. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides:

"Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

"Since Enrique's right to the property was limited to his one-fourth share, he had no right to sell the undivided portions that belonged to his siblings or their respective heirs. Any sale by one heir of the rest of the property will not affect the rights of the other heirs who did not consent to the sale. Such sale is void with respect to the shares of the other heirs.

"Regardless of their agreement, Enrique could only convey to Marietta his undivided one-fourth share of the property, and Marietta could only acquire that share. This is because Marietta obtained her rights from Enrique who, in the first place, had no title or interest over the rest of the property that he could convey."

Applying the foregoing, a sibling can only sell his/her share of the property. Accordingly, he/she has no right to sell the undivided portions that belong to the other siblings.

Hence, considering that there was no consent, the sale will not affect the other siblings' rights over the subject property.

At most, the buyer could only claim the seller's share, nothing more.

Splitting Heirlooms Without the Drama

Divvying up stuff among heirs can turn into a battle, but it doesn’t have to.

There are many ways to go wrong: writing vaguely worded wills, putting sticky notes on items around the house as bequests and counting on heirs to work it out. Missteps can cost an estate thousands of dollars, and disputes over heirlooms can grow ugly, dragging out the estate process and leading to lingering resentments, estate administrators say.

Helping to clear out a high-rise apartment, David Kantrowitz, an appraiser and art dealer in Boston, found a diamond wedding ring and band in a hazardous-waste bag in the back of a closet. The apartment owner’s heirs were thrilled but couldn’t agree over who should get the find. The lawyer handling the estate drew a name from a hat to pick the winner. “Many attorneys gloss over personal property,” said Jennifer Galvagna, head of trusts, estates and tax at Bank of America Private Bank. Baby boomers handling their parents’ estates and assessing what they have amassed are having more conversations around inheritance and heirlooms, she said.

There are better—and often more creative—ways to plan and divide that can avoid family squabbles over cars, jewelry, furniture and household items.

Designate a representative

The person you choose to handle your estate typically distributes the personal property, so pick carefully and specify how much power they have. “Are they going to hear everybody out and help the family move on?” said Kristin Shirahama, an estate lawyer with Bowditch & Dewey in Framingham, Mass. Jason Sloman from Williamsville, Ill., has been working on settling his dad’s estate for almost two years. His father, a large-machinery mechanic, had more than a dozen vehicles, a homemade water- well drill rig, two semitrailers of car parts and guns dating to the Civil War. The elder Sloman listed 19 heirs in a trust he drew shortly before his death in 2021. “He said, ‘I know you can handle everyone I want to help and the stress of dealing with people who aren’t going to be happy,’ ” Sloman said.

Spell out bequests

If you want a particular item to go to a certain someone, make it clear in your will or trust, Galvagna said. Describe the item in detail and name who should get it. Just putting a sticky note on something— or telling a family member it is theirs after you are gone— doesn’t make it legally binding. Sloman’s dad left his Buick Roadmaster with a Corvette engine to a friend who could use that engine for her hot-rod car. Another friend inherited his Ford work truck. His guns went to his son. For the most part, Sloman’s father told him to liquidate everything, put the money in the trust and distribute it to heirs as cash. “He knew what was precious to him might not mean anything to other people,” Sloman said.

Give a distribution method

Paul Lyon’s parents left it to him and his sister to distribute everything in their estate among their children after the parents’ death in 2020. The five siblings met at their parents’ townhome in Minnesota to sort through the belongings and choose things wanted. For items that more than one sibling liked, the kids pulled out a deck of cards and played high card wins. “I lost at every card draw,” Lyon said, noting he lost out on a TV, a set of dishes and a drill press. Spelling out the distribution method in the will or trust can help prevent conflicts. Rolling dice works, too. Or drawing straws. When labeling items to distribute among heirs, keep in mind that sticky notes fall off. Color-coded stickers work better.

Get creative

In one estate, two sisters wanted the same ring that wasn’t left to anyone specifically, Galvagna said. An estate-settlement officer at the bank got a duplicate ring made, mixed it up with the original and gave one to each daughter. In another estate, three children fought over a cookbook with handwritten notes by family members, she said. The personal representative had them draw straws. The child with the large straw got the original cookbook. The other children got photocopies.

Write a property memo

In most states, you can draft a personal- property memo listing what you want to give and to whom. If the memo is incorporated in a will or trust, it is legally binding. If not, the personal representative can take your wishes into consideration. Sign and date it.

Get heirlooms appraised

Families who get appraisals can use that information to decide how to divide up items equitably, what to sell and what to donate. If the heirs don’t want stuff left to them, they can donate it and use the appraisal to substantiate a tax deduction for the donation, Galvagna said. Appraisals are also needed for estate-tax and capital gains tax purposes.

Source: Washington Post

Being declared in default does not automatically mean defeat

If there is a pending court dispute, you will receive a notice from the court requiring you to submit an answer to the complaint of the plaintiff . If you do not comply and submit your answer. it does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant.

The rules governing the declaration of default of a party in a case and its effects are specifically found in Section 3, Rule 9, of AM 19-10-20-SC or the "2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." which provide that:

"If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court."

Correlative thereto, one of the effects of the default was also particularly mentioned in Section 3 (a) of the same rules:

"A party in default shall be entitled to notice[s] of subsequent proceedings but shall not to take part in the trial."

As one can see, the above-mentioned rules do not provide for the automatic defeat of the defaulting party. This finds support also in Sioland Development Corporation v. Fair Distribution Center Corporation, GR 199539, Aug. 9, 2023, where Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo stated:

"The mere fact that a defendant is declared in default does not automatically result in the grant of the prayers of the plaintiff. To win, the latter must still present the same quantum of evidence that would be required if the defendant were still present.

A party that defaults is not deprived of its rights, except the right to be heard and to present evidence to the trial court. If the evidence presented does not support a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint should be dismissed, even if the defendant may not have been heard or allowed to present any countervailing evidence.

"Also, it was explained in Gajudo that:

"[A] defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out of court. While in a sense it may be said that by defaulting he leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with law.

The evidence to support the plaintiff's cause is, of course, presented in his absence, but the court is not supposed to admit that which is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the evidence presented should not be sufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if an unfavorable judgment should be justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint."

Applying the aforecited decision, even if you were declared in default, the same would not necessarily mean that the court will automatically grant whatever relief the plaintiff wants. Neither does it automatically mean that you have already lost the case.

While the defaulting party is generally deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence, the decision of the court must still be based on the ex-parte evidence of her neighbor and should still be in accordance with the law.

Source: Manila Times