You are on page 1of 5

BARANDA vs .

BARANDA
GR No.73275 May 20, 1987
FACTS: Paulina Baranda died without issue, but before her demise, two of her supposed heirs, the herein
respondents Evangelina and Elisa Baranda, have already taken possession of 6 parcels of land and caused the
transfer of such by virtue of questionable sales which the late widow had also sought the reconveyance which
did not however materialized. The petitioners, siblings of the decedent, now sought the annulment of the
supposed sale or transfers. Respondents question the petitioners legal standing, them being not a party-ininterest in the deed of sale.
ISSUE: Can the petitioners impugn the validity of the sales?
HELD: This Court has repeatedly held that "the legal heirs of a decedent are the parties in interest to
commence ordinary actions arising out of the rights belonging to the deceased, without separate judicial
declaration as to their being heirs of said decedent, provided that there is no pending special proceeding for the
settlement of the decedent's estate.
There being no pending special proceeding for the settlement of Paulina Baranda's estate, the petitioners, as her
intestate heirs, had the right to sue for the reconveyance of the disputed properties, not to them, but to the
estate itself of the decedent, for distribution later in accordance with law. Otherwise, no one else could
question the simulated sales and the subjects thereof would remain in the name of the alleged vendees, who
would thus have been permitted to benefit from their deception, In fact, even if it were assumed that those
suing through attorneys-in-fact were not properly represented, the remaining petitioners would still have
sufficed to impugn the validity of the deeds of sale.

Pada-Kilario vs. CA,
January 19, 2000FACTS:Jacinto Pada had 6 children, namely, Marciano, Ananias,
Amador, Higino, Valentina and Ruperta. He died intestate. His estate included a parcel
of land denominated as Cadastral Lot No. 5581. It is the northern portion of Cadastral
LotNo. 5581 which is the subject of the instant controversy. During the lifetime ofJacinto
Pada, his half-brother, Feliciano Pada, obtained permission from him tobuild a house on
the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581. When Felicianodied, his son, Pastor,
continued living in the house together with his 8 children. Petitioner Verona PadaKilario, one of Pastor's children, has been living inthat house since 1960. In 1951, the
heirs of Jacinto Pada entered into an extra-judicial partition of his estate. For this
purpose, they executed a private document which they, however, never registered in
the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte. At the execution of the extra-judicial
partition, Ananias was himself present while his other brothers were represented by
their children. Their sisters, Valentina and Ruperta, both died without any issue.
Marciano was represented by his daughter, Maria; Amador was represented by his
daughter, Concordia;and Higino was represented by his son, Silverio who is the private

a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The requirement in Sec.respondent inthis case. Maria. Without creditors to takeinto consideration. And neither does the Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the New Civil Code apply because partition among heirs is notlegally deemed a conveyance of real property. is only for convenience. As such. succeeded to his right as co-owner of said property. however. It follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved. non-compliance with which does not affect the validity or enforceability of the actsof the parties as among themselves. that Cadastral Lot No. Thus. transmission. Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court that apartition be put in a public document and registered. . albeit executed in an unregistered private document. Amador or Higino in favorof their respective children who represented them in the extra-judicial partition. No showing. 1. HELD: The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his heirs made in 1951 is valid. has been made of any unpaid charges against the estate of Jacinto Pada. it was contended that the extra-judicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada executed in 1951 was invalid and ineffectual since no special power of attorney was executed by either Marciano. it is presumed that they did so in furtherance of their mutual interests. his daughter. modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property. 5581 was allocated during the said partition. The requirement of Article 1358 of the Civil Code that acts which have for their object thecreation. considering that it involves not atransfer of property from one to the other but rather. When Ananias died.The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document soas to be effective as regards the heirs that participated therein. It was to both Ananias and Marciano. No lawrequires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to bevalid. unless and until it is shown that there were debts existing against the estate which had not been paid. The extrajudicial partitionwhich the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and spontaneously in 1951 has produced a legal status. When they discussed and agreed on the division of the estate of Jacinto Pada. must appear in a public instrument. in the first place. Later on. there is no reason why the heirs should not be bound by their voluntary acts. nothing can be inferred that a writing or other formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The objectof registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into anagreement for distribution thereof in a manner and upon a plan different from those provided by the rules from which. represented by his daughter. their division is conclusive. it was effectuated only through a private document that was never registered in the office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte. Moreover. Juanita.

5581. 5581. Higino. Ananias was himself present while his other brothers were represented by their children. Maria. Valentina and Ruperta. provided that there is no pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate. without separate judicial declaration as to their being heirs of said decedent. his son. as her intestate heirs. however. but before her demise. not to them. the heirs of Jacinto Pada entered into an extra-judicial partition of his estate. who would thus have been permitted to benefit from their deception.BARANDA GR No. they executed a private document which they. obtained permission from him tobuild a house on the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. namely. the remaining petitioners would still have sufficed to impugn the validity of the deeds of sale. the herein respondents Evangelina and Elisa Baranda. During the lifetime ofJacinto Pada.73275 May 20. 1987 FACTS: Paulina Baranda died without issue. have already taken possession of 6 parcels of land and caused the transfer of such by virtue of questionable sales which the late widow had also sought the reconveyance which did not however materialized. Marciano was represented by his daughter. 2000FACTS:Jacinto Pada had 6 children. 5581 which is the subject of the instant controversy. the petitioners. The petitioners. At the execution of the extra-judicial partition. There being no pending special proceeding for the settlement of Paulina Baranda's estate. Silverio who is the private . Marciano. both died without any issue. but to the estate itself of the decedent. them being not a party-ininterest in the deed of sale. Pada-Kilario vs.and Higino was represented by his son. CA. Otherwise. It is the northern portion of Cadastral LotNo. Amador was represented by his daughter. Petitioner Verona PadaKilario. When Felicianodied. had the right to sue for the reconveyance of the disputed properties. Concordia. one of Pastor's children. has been living inthat house since 1960.BARANDA vs . Valentina and Ruperta. Feliciano Pada. In 1951. Respondents question the petitioners legal standing. Their sisters. his half-brother. For this purpose. now sought the annulment of the supposed sale or transfers. Ananias. January 19. He died intestate. even if it were assumed that those suing through attorneys-in-fact were not properly represented. never registered in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte. Pastor. Amador. siblings of the decedent. continued living in the house together with his 8 children. no one else could question the simulated sales and the subjects thereof would remain in the name of the alleged vendees. for distribution later in accordance with law. ISSUE: Can the petitioners impugn the validity of the sales? HELD: This Court has repeatedly held that "the legal heirs of a decedent are the parties in interest to commence ordinary actions arising out of the rights belonging to the deceased. In fact. two of her supposed heirs. His estate included a parcel of land denominated as Cadastral Lot No.

No showing. Thus. it was effectuated only through a private document that was never registered in the office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte. succeeded to his right as co-owner of said property. Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court that apartition be put in a public document and registered. It follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved. 1. albeit executed in an unregistered private document. When they discussed and agreed on the division of the estate of Jacinto Pada. has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves against tardy claims. there is no reason why the heirs should not be bound by their voluntary acts. Moreover. must appear in a public instrument. It was to both Ananias and Marciano. And neither does the Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the New Civil Code apply because partition among heirs is notlegally deemed a conveyance of real property. HELD: The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his heirs made in 1951 is valid. it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into anagreement for distribution thereof in a manner and upon a plan different from those provided by the rules from which. has been made of any unpaid charges against the estate of Jacinto Pada. Later on. Maria. nothing can be inferred that a writing or other formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The requirement in Sec. a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. The extrajudicial partitionwhich the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and spontaneously in 1951 has produced a legal status. is only for convenience. 5581 was allocated during the said partition. When Ananias died. his daughter.The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document soas to be effective as regards the heirs that participated therein. that Cadastral Lot No. The objectof registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. . their division is conclusive. it is presumed that they did so in furtherance of their mutual interests. it was contended that the extra-judicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada executed in 1951 was invalid and ineffectual since no special power of attorney was executed by either Marciano. represented by his daughter. No lawrequires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to bevalid. non-compliance with which does not affect the validity or enforceability of the actsof the parties as among themselves. Amador or Higino in favorof their respective children who represented them in the extra-judicial partition.respondent inthis case. in the first place. As such. unless and until it is shown that there were debts existing against the estate which had not been paid. transmission. The requirement of Article 1358 of the Civil Code that acts which have for their object thecreation. modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property. however. considering that it involves not atransfer of property from one to the other but rather. Without creditors to takeinto consideration. Juanita.