Leon Guinto vs. Santiago Medina (deceased), Dominador Medina, et al.

9006-R

October 7, 1953
Dizon, J.:

FACTS:

Leon Guinto filed an action for forcible entry against Santiago Medina.

Medina denied the material averments, and argued that he has been in
possession of the lot since 1921.

The Justice of the Peace ordered Medina to vacate.

Medina appealed to the CFI.

While the case for forcible entry was pending trial, Guinto instituted
reconveyance proceedings.

Santiago Medina died during the pendency of the original appeal.

The Court ruled in favor of Guinto, but refused to render judgment

sentencing the Medinas to pay him damages.

Guinto contends that his claim for damages is one that survived after the
death of Santiago, and could be prosecuted against the latters heirs, who are substituted
in his place in both cases.

ISSUE:
Is Guinto entitled to recover damages, notwithstanding the death of Medina? Yes.

HELD:

An action for forcible entry gives rise to two remedies: recovery of

possession and of damages, but subject to only one action.

Both cannot be subjected of 2 separate actions, for to do so would be

tantamount to splitting up a singe cause of action.

Such action survives despite defendants death.

The heirs of Medina are liable to pay the damages.

As they are merely substituted in the place of Santiago upon his death,
their liability is only to the extent of the value of the property, which they might have
received from the original defendant.

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

S.C. L-5620 July 31, 1954

FACTS:
Benedicta had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the a 16,240 sq.
m. unregistered parcel of agricultural land, located at Barrio Pintog, Plaridel, Bulacan, under a
bona fide claim of ownership since 1910.
Benedicta sold the said property to Ismaela Dimagiba, her niece, manifested by allegedly two
deeds of conveyance: in 1943 and 1944.
After the death of Benedicta delos Reyes, Ismaela Dimagiba submitted to the CFI a petition for
the probate of the purported will of her late aunt.
The will instituted Dimagiba as the sole heir of the estate.
The petition was set for hearing, and in due time, Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio Reyes and Luisa
Reyes, and one month later, Mariano, Cesar, Leonor and Paciencia, all surnamed Reyes, all
claiming to be the heirs of the decedent, filed oppositions to the probate asked.
Grounds advanced for the opposition were forgery, vices of consent of the testatrix, estoppel by
laches of the proponent and revocation of the will by two deeds of conveyance of the major
portion of the estate made by the testatrix in favor of the proponent in 1943 and 1944.

They alleged that the property sold prior to Benedictas death should form part of what they
should inherit.
The Court ruled that said property is no longer part of the inheritance.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:
Did the properties form part of the inheritance, of which the heirs are entitled to? Yes
Was it proper for the heirs to question the intrinsic validity of the will, on the ground that her
compulsory heir cannot be one, as theirs was an illicit relationship? No

HELD:
First
Even if they are sold, they still form part of the object of succession, and of the estate.
In the case at bar, the sale cannot be considered as valid as the purpose for entering into such
contract is to deprive the heirs of their legitimes.
No consideration whatever was paid by Dimagiba on account of the transfers, thereby rendering
it even more doubtful whether in conveying the property to her legatee.
The testatrix merely intended to comply in advance with what she had ordained in her testament,
rather than an alteration or departure therefrom.
Second
As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic
validity of the will sought to be probated.
There are, however, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic validity was first determined as
when the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate of the will may become a
useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid.
The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon because practical considerations demanded
it as when there is preterition of heirs or the testamentary provisions are doubtful legality.
In this case however, there was never an open admission of any illicit relationship. Thus, there
was no need to go beyond the face of the will.