17/02/2025
Court rules EJS null and void;
Yanson 4 to file an appeal
By Carla N. Caรฑet
The surviving heirs of the late Ricardo Yanson, founder of Vallacar Transit Incorporated and the Yanson Group of Bus Companies, have been embroiled in a legal saga due to unresolved disputes over their inheritance.
The patriarch passed away without a will (intestate). Prior to his death, the family crafted a successional plan intended to govern the equitable distribution of their inheritance, particularly from the estate generated by their father, who was affectionately known as the โSunshine Boy.โ
Although the family Constitution outlined the distribution of the estate left by Ricardo Yanson, it unfortunately sparked feuds among the surviving heirs, leading to an irreconcilable divide within the family.
Matriarch Olivia Yanson seeks to regain control over the family's estate by asserting her rights as a parent over her six children, who have split into two factions.
One faction includes Ginnette Yanson Dumancas, and the youngest sibling, Leo Rey Yanson who are siding with their mother while the other faction, referred to as Y4, consists of Roy, Emily, Celina, and Ricardo Jr.
The two rival factions have been unable to reach an agreement due to ongoing court battles.
It is believed that the Y4 members have taken refuge abroad following the issuance of arrest warrants related to the cases brought against them by their mother and siblings Ginnette and Leo Rey.
Court Ruling by Judge Phoebe Gargantiel-Balbin Dated January 21, 2025
The complaint for the declaration of nullity of the Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Ricardo B. Yanson is hereby GRANTED.
The document dated December 16, 2015, along with its annexes, and the amended document dated December 20, 2017, along with its annexes, are declared NULL AND VOID and are thus ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Article 119 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which governs their marriage, the system of absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains applies to the property relations of a husband and wife when no marriage settlement has been established.
As such, the property relations of Mr. and Mrs. Yanson as husband and wife were governed by a conjugal partnership of gains, meaning they jointly owned all properties that formed part of this partnership.
Upon Mr. Yanson's death, Mrs. Yanson is entitled to 50% of the conjugal partnership of gains (CPG).
Rule 74 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court provides for the summary settlement of estates.
Section 1 indicates: Extrajudicial Settlement by Agreement Between Heirs
If the decedent left no will and has no debts, and all the heirs are of legal age (or minors are represented by their legally authorized guardians), the heirs may divide the estate as they see fit through a public instrument filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds.
If the heirs cannot agree, they may resolve the matter through an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, that heir may assign the entire estate to themselves through an affidavit filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds.
The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or through stipulation in an ongoing partition action, must file a bond with the Register of Deeds, equal to the value of the personal property involved, certified under oath by the concerned parties.
This bond is conditioned upon the payment of any just claims under Section 4 of this rule.
It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts, if no creditor, files a petition for letters of administration within two years after the decedent's death.
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration must be published in a newspaper of general circulation; however, no extrajudicial settlement is binding upon anyone who has not participated or was not notified.
As testified by the plaintiff and her witnesses, it was never Mrs. Yanson's intent to give, waive, donate, or otherwise dispose of any part of her conjugal share, including her share in high-valued properties and stocks in the Yanson Bus Companies.
In preparing the extrajudicial settlement, Mrs. Yanson intended to retain her 50% share in the conjugal partnership.
Rule 74 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court provides for the summary settlement of estates.
Section 1, thereof is instructive that:
SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. - If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial and legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate as they see fit by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action for partition.
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the Register of Deeds.
The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this rule.
It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two years after the death of the decedent.
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
As testified to by the plaintiff and her witnesses, it was never the intent of Mrs. Yanson to give, waive, donate, or otherwise dispose of any part of her conjugal share to her children, including her conjugal share in the bulk of the high-valued properties and her shares of stocks in the Yanson Bus Companies.
In the preparation of the EJS it was the desire of Mrs. Yanson to keep her 50% share in the conjugal partnership of gains and waive only the 1/7 share in the estate of Mr. Yanson.
This was not reflected in the EJS. What was embodied in the EJS is Mrs. Yanson waived her 50% conjugal share in the partnership of gains.
Like any other contracts, parties in an extra judicial settlement are given wide latitude to stipulate terms and conditions they feel fair and not prejudicial to another.
Mrs. Yanson feel defrauded and prejudiced when she was asked to sign the EJS without informing her that she was deprived of her 50% share in the conjugal partnership of gains.
This vitiates her consent to the EJS and the Annexes.
The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties on the terms of the contract. It is the occurrence of the minds of the parties on the object and the cause which constitute the contract.
The area of agreement must extend to all points that the parties deem material and exact notion of the matter to which it refers or there is no consent at all.
Moreover, the Court agrees with plaintiff that the EJS, the Amended EJS and the Annexes fail to comply with the mandate of Rule 74 Section 1 of the Amended Rules of Court for the following reasons:
(a) no publication in a newspaper of general circulation for the EJS documents and the Annexes was ever done; (b) a bond was never posted in relation to the extrajudicial settlement of Mr. Yanson's estate; and (c) The EJS and Annexes were not filed with the Registry of Deeds.
With the above findings and evidence presented, the Court finds the EJS and Amended EJS null and void. Thus, the Court will not anymore rule on the prayer for injunction in the Complaint of the plaintiff.
Y4 TO FILE AN APPEAL ON THE RTC BRANCH 45 RULING
It was reported by Digicast Negros that the Yanson 4 - Roy, Emily, Celina and Ricardo, Jr. will file an appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 45, standing on the legacy and the true intention of the decedent, the late Ricardo Yanson insofar as the proper distribution of his estate.
They were merely claiming what was granted to them as agreed on in their family constitution that should be honored, she said.
TANYAG NEWS & FEATURES provides the public with news and current events, public affairs, politics, business, arts, and entertainment. We focus on the good news!
