Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Batch 2 Finals Digest (Inc)
Batch 2 Finals Digest (Inc)
63 was allotted to
Milagros Donio and her two (2) children, Maria
Facts: Evelyn and Jose Catalino.
Unaware that the subject lot was already
The present controversy involves a parcel of land, registered in the name of petitioner in 1979,
Lot No. 63, which belonged to the deceased Don respondents bought Lot No. 63 from Milagros
Julian L. Teves Donio as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale
During his lifetime he contracted two marriages. of Real Estate.
With his first wife, Antonia Baena of which he had At the Register of Deeds while trying to register
two children, namely Josefa Escao and Emilio the deed of absolute sale, respondents
Teves. discovered that the lot was already titled in the
After the death of his 1st wife he married again, name of petitioner. Thus, they failed to register
Milagros Donio, of whom he had 4 children, the deed
namely: Maria, Jose, Milagros Reyes and Pedro. Hence this petition.
Lot No 63, was originally registered in the
conjugal property of Antonia and Don Julian, Issue:
when Antonia died the said Lot was among the
properties involved in an action for patition and Whether the Supplemental deed executed by
damages. Don Julian and his two children was tantamount
Thereafter, the parties to the case (Don Julian to preterition of his heirs from the second
and children in the first marriage) entered into a marriage?
Compromise Agreement which embodied the
partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Held:
On the basis of the Compromise Agreement. A
tract of land known as Hacienda Medalla No.
Milagrosa, was declared as a property owned in Manresa defines preterition as the omission of
common by Don Julian and his two children in the the heir in the will, either by not naming him at
first marriage. The property was to remain all or, while mentioning him as father, son, etc.,
undivided during the lifetime of Don Julian. by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting
The other properties in Bais was given to the him expressly, nor assigning to him some part of
children the properties.
Other properties remained with Don Julian, It is the total omission of a compulsory heir
including Lot No. 63. in the direct line from inheritance.
Thereafter, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed It consists in the silence of the testator with
a Deed of Assignment of Assets with Assumption regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the
of Liabilities in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. testament, either by not mentioning him at all,
(petitioner). or by not giving him anything in the hereditary
Less than a year later, Don Julian, Josefa and property but without expressly disinheriting him,
Emilio also executed an instrument even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter
entitled Supplemental to the Deed of Assignment case.
of Assets with the Assumption of Liabilities But there is no preterition where the
(Supplemental Deed). testator allotted to a descendant a share
This instrument which constitutes a supplement less than the legitime, since there was no
to the earlier deed of assignment transferred total omission of a forced heir.
ownership over Lot No. 63, among other In the case at bar, Don Julian did not execute
properties, in favor of petitioner. a will since what he resorted to was a
Don Julian died intestate. partition inter vivos of his properties, as
On the strength of the Supplemental Deed in its evidenced by the court
favor, petitioner sought the registration of the approved Compromise Agreement.
subject lot in its name. Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to
Meanwhile, Milagros Donio and her children had speak of preterition prior to the death of
immediately taken possession over the subject Don Julian in the absence of a will depriving
lot after the execution of the Compromise a legal heir of his legitime.
Agreement. Besides, there are other properties which the
They entered into a yearly lease agreement with heirs from the second marriage could inherit from
spouses Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, Don Julian upon his death.
respondents herein. A couple of provisions in the Compromise
On Lot No. 63, respondents temporarily Agreement are indicative of Don Julians desire
established their home and constructed a lumber along this line.
yard. Subsequently, Milagros Donio and her Hence, the total omission from inheritance of Don
children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Julians heirs from the second marriage, a
Partition of Real Estate. requirement for preterition to exist, is hardly
1
imaginable as it is unfounded.
2
testament, but an instrument of a
On the issue of partition and the special character, sui generis, which is
supplemental deed of assignment revocable at any time by
(Just in case): the causante during his lifetime, and
does not operate as a conveyance of
ISSUE: title until his death.
W/N THE PARTITION INTERVIVOS IS It derives its binding force on the heirs
VALID - YES from the respect due to the will of the
owner of the property, limited only by his
Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, creditors and the intangibility of the
even future ones, which are not outside legitime of the forced heirs.
the commerce of man may be the object
of a contract. The exception is that no
contract may be entered into with respect
to future inheritance, and the exception to The partition inter vivos of the
the exception is the partition inter properties of Don Julian is
vivos referred to in Article 1080. undoubtedly valid pursuant to Article
1347. However, considering that it
For the inheritance to be considered would become legally operative only
future, the succession must not have been upon the death of Don Julian, the
opened at the time of the contract. A right of his heirs from the second
contract may be classified as a contract marriage to the properties
upon future inheritance, prohibited under adjudicated to him under the
the second paragraph of Article 1347. compromise agreement was but a
mere expectancy. It was a bare hope
In interpreting this provision, Justice of succession to the property of their
Edgardo Paras advanced the opinion that if father. Being the prospect of a future
the partition is made by an actinter vivos, acquisition, the interest by its nature
no formalities are prescribed by the was inchoate.
Article.
The partition will of course be Evidently, at the time of the
effective only after death. It does not execution of the deed of assignment
necessarily require the formalities of a will covering Lot No. 63 in favor of
for after all it is not the partition that is the petitioner, Don Julian remained the
mode of acquiring ownership. owner of the property since
Neither will the formalities of a donation ownership over the subject lot would
be required since donation will not be the only pass to his heirs from the second
mode of acquiring the ownership here marriage at the time of his death.
after death; since no will has been made it Thus, as the owner of the subject lot,
follows that the mode will be succession Don Julian retained the absolute right
(intestate succession). to dispose of it during his lifetime.
Besides, the partition here is merely the His right cannot be challenged by
physical determination of the part to be Milagros Donio and her children on
given to each heir. the ground that it had already been
adjudicated to them by virtue of the
The historical antecedent of Article 1080 compromise agreement.
of the New Civil Code is Article 105640 of
the old Civil Code.
The only change in the provision is that
Article 1080 now permits any person (not
a testator, as under the old law) to
partition his estate by act inter vivos.
This was intended to abrogate the then
prevailing doctrine that for a testator to
partition his estate by an act inter vivos,
he must first make a will with all the
formalities provided by law.
6
Nilo Viado left behind as his own sole heirs herein
respondents 1] his wife Alicia Viado and
2] two children Cherri Viado and Fe Fides Viado.
Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a
common residence
However, tension would appear to have escalated
between petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent
Alicia Viado after the former had asked that the
property be equally divided between the two families
to make room for the growing children.
Respondents claimed absolute ownership over the
entire property and demanded that petitioners vacate
Petitioners, asserting co-ownership over the
property in question, filed a case for partition
8
During the lifetime of Jacinto Pada, his half-
brother, Feliciano Pada, obtained permission
from him to build a house on the northern portion
of Cadastral Lot No. 5581.
When Feliciano died, his son, Pastor, continued
living in the house together with his eight
children. Petitioner Verona Pada-Kilario, one of
Pastor's children, has been living in that house
since 1960.
Sometime in May, 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.
It was to both Ananias and Marciano,
represented by his daughter, Maria, that
Cadastral Lot No. 5581 was allocated during the
said partition. When Ananias died, his daughter,
Juanita, succeeded to his right as co-owner of
said property.
Juanita Pada sold to Engr. Ernesto Paderes, the
VERONA PADA-KILARIO and RICARDO right of his father, Ananias, as co-owner of
KILARIO petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS Cadastral Lot No. 5881.
and SILVERIO PADA, respondents.
On November 17, 1993, it was the turn of Maria
FACTS:
Pada to sell the co-ownership right of his father,
Jacinto Pada had six (6) children, namely, Marciano. Private respondent, who is the first
Marciano, Ananias, Amador, Higino, Valentina cousin of Maria, was the buyer.
and Ruperta. He died intestate. His estate Thereafter, private respondent demanded that
included a parcel of land of residential and petitioner spouses vacate the northern portion of
coconut land. Cadastral Lot No. 5581 so his family can utilize
It is the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. the said area.
5581 which is the subject of the instant They went through a series of meetings with the
controversy. barangay officials concerned for the purpose of
9
amicable settlement, but all earnest efforts YES
toward that end, failed. When they discussed and agreed on the division
private respondent filed in the Municipal Circuit of the estate of Jacinto Pada, it is presumed that
Trial Court of Matalom, Leyte, a complaint for they did so in furtherance of their mutual
ejectment with prayer for damages against interests.
petitioner spouses. As such, their division is conclusive, unless and
The heirs of Amador Pada, namely, Esperanza until it is shown that there were debts existing
Pada-Pavo, Concordia Pada-Bartolome, and against the estate which had not been paid.
Angelito Pada, executed a Deed of No showing, however, has been made of any
Donation[9] transferring to petitioner Verona unpaid charges against the estate of Jacinto Pada.
Pada-Kilario, their respective shares as co- Thus, there is no reason why the heirs should not
owners of Cadastral Lot No. 5581. be bound by their voluntary acts.
On February 12, 1996, petitioner spouses filed The belated act of Concordia, Esperanza and
their Answer averring that the northern portion of Angelito, who are the heirs of Amador Pada, of
Cadastral Lot No. 5581 had already been donated donating the subject property to petitioners after
to them by the heirs of Amador Pada. forty four (44) years of never having disputed the
They contended that the extra-judicial partition validity of the 1951 extrajudicial partition that
of the estate of Jacinto Pada executed in 1951 allocated the subject property to Marciano and
was invalid and ineffectual since no special Ananias, produced no legal effect.
power of attorney was executed by either In the said partition, what was allocated to
Marciano, Amador or Higino in favor of their Amador Pada was not the subject property which
respective children who represented them in the was a parcel of residential land in Sto. Nino,
extra-judicial partition. Moreover, it was Matalom, Leyte, but rather, one-half of a parcel
effectuated only through a private document that of coconut land in the interior of Sto. Nino St.,
was never registered in the office of the Registrar Sabang, Matalom, Leyte and one-half of a parcel
of Deeds of Leyte. of rice land in Itum, Sta. Fe, Matalom, Leyte.
The donation made by his heirs to petitioners of
ISSUE: the subject property, thus, is void for they were
Whether the extrajudicial partition which the heirs of not the owners thereof.
Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and spontaneously At any rate it is too late in the day for the heirs of
in 1951 has produced a legal status. Amador Pada to repudiate the legal effects of the
1951 extrajudicial partition as prescription and
HELD: laches have equally set in.
10
Court of Negros Oriental for the partition and
reconveyance of two parcels of land located in
Dumaguete, designated as Lots 769-A and 6409,
against the heirs of Asuncion Teves.
LOT 6409: was originally registered in the name of The appellate court said that plaintiffs-appellants
Joaquin Teves and his two sisters, Matea and Candida biased and interested testimonial evidence consisting
Teves. However, Matea and Candida died without of mere denials of their signatures in the disputed
issue, causing the entire property to pass to Joaquin instruments is insufficient to prove the alleged forgery
Teves. and to overcome the evidentiary force of the notarial
In the same deed, the shares of these same heirs in documents.
Lot 6409 were sold to Asuncion Teves for It also ruled that the plaintiffs-appellants claim over
P100.00. Asuncion Teves took possession of the land Lot 6409 was barred by prescription after the lapse of
and acquired title over the same on March 22, ten years from the issuance of title in favor of
1972. After her death in 1981, her children, Asuncion Teves, while their claim over Lot 769-A is
defendants-appellees It-it herein, extrajudicially barred by laches since more than 25 years has
settled Asuncion Teves property, adjudicating unto intervened between the sale to Asuncion Teves and
themselves Lot 6409. the filing of the present case in 1984.
Plaintiffs-appellants claim that the Deed of ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial settlements
Extrajudicial Settlement & Sale covering Lot 6409 is executed by the heirs of Joaquin Teves and Marcelina
also spurious. Cimafranca are legally valid and binding.
Neither does Ricardo Teves have a right to demand UNION BANK OF THE
partition of Lot 769-A because the two extajudicial
settlements have already effectively partitioned such
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EDMUND
property. SANTIBAEZ and FLORENCE
Every act which is intended to put an end to SANTIBAEZ ARIOLA, respondents.
indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition, although it should purport
to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any FACTS:
other transaction.
The extrajudicial settlements executed in 1956 and
1959 adjudicated Lot 769-A in equal shares unto the On May 31, 1980, the First Countryside Credit
eight heirs of MarcelinaCimafranca.
Such a partition, which was legally made, confers Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M. Santibaez
upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the
property adjudicated to him. entered into a loan agreement in the amount
Although Cresenciano, Ricardo's predecessor-in-
interest, was not a signatory to the extrajudicial of P128,000.00.
settlements, the partition of Lot 769-A among the
heirs was made in accordance with their intestate
shares under the law The amount was intended for the payment of the
purchase price of one (1) unit Ford 6600
Agricultural All-Purpose Diesel Tractor. In view
thereof, Efraim and his son, Edmund, executed a
promissory note in favor of the FCCC, the
principal sum payable in five equal annual
amortizations of P43,745.96 due on May 31,
1981 and every May 31st thereafter up to May 31,
1985.
information on his address or the date of his Whether or not the partition in the Agreement
FACTS:
Ladislao Santos, a resident in the United States of
America, the Appellant in the present recourse,
through his Attorney-in-fact, Noe Santos, filed a
complaint, with the Regional Trial Court of Rizal,
against his brother, Eliseo Santos and the latters son,
Philip Santos, the Appellees in the present recourse,
for"Judicial Partition".
18
(RTC) of Bulacan a petition for the probate of
Basilios will.
The will contained the following provisions,
among others:
20
HELD:
G.R. No. L-26855 April 17, 1989 2. That due notices in writing have been sent
FRANCISCO GARCIA, PAZ GARCIA, and MARIA to plaintiff Francisco Garcia at his residence ;
GARCIA, petitioners, the other plaintiffs Paz and Maria Garcia were
vs. personally notified of the same hence, for that
JOSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA TRABADILLO & reason, they are now barred to claim legal
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Third redemption of the land in question, having
Division, respondents. filed their belated claim too late."
HELD:
commenced.
YES
26
PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP. represented
herein by its President ENGR. WILLIAM
C. LIU, petitioner, vs. SPS. ANTHONY S.
VALENCIA and SUSAN T.
VALENCIA, respondents.
FACTS:
29
provided they do so within the period of one
month from the time they were notified in
writing of the sale by the vendor.
FACTS:
First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) and
Efraim M. Santibaez entered into a loan agreement
The amount was intended for the payment of the
purchase price of one (1) unit Tractor.
Efraim and his son, Edmund, executed a promissory
note in favor of the FCCC, the principal sum payable
in five equal annual amortizations
30
Agreement executed by the heirs is valid - NO
B] Whether or not the heirs assumption of the The assumption of liability was conditioned upon
indebtedness of the deceased is valid - NO the happening of an event, that is, that each heir
C] Whether the petitioner can hold the heirs shall take possession and use of their respective
liable on the obligation of the deceased - ONLY share under the agreement.
EDMUND It was made dependent on the validity of the
partition
The partition being invalid as earlier discussed, the
A probate court has the jurisdiction to determine all heirs in effect did not receive any such tractor. It
the properties of the deceased, to determine whether follows then that the assumption of liability cannot be
they should or should not be included in the inventory given any force and effect.
or list of properties to be administered
The loan was contracted by the decedent.
In testate succession, there can be no valid partition The petitioner, purportedly a creditor of the late
among the heirs until after the will has been Efraim Santibaez, should have thus filed its money
probated. claim with the probate court
B]
31
CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA
ALONZO, petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
TECLA PADUA, respondents.
FACTS:
32
the spouses Alonzo, but his complaint was any problem of alleged delays, sometimes
dismissed when it appeared that he was an consisting of only a day or two.
American citizen . In the face of the established facts, we cannot
On May 27, 1977, however, Tecla Padua, another accept the private respondents' pretense that they
co-heir, filed her own complaint invoking the were unaware of the sales made by their brother
same right of redemption claimed by her brother. and sister in 1963 and 1964.
The trial court * also dismiss this complaint, now By requiring written proof of such notice, we
on the ground that the right had lapsed, not would be closing our eyes to the obvious truth in
having been exercised within thirty days from favor of their palpably false claim of ignorance,
notice of the sales in 1963 and 1964. Although thus exalting the letter of the law over its
there was no written notice, it was held purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to make
that actual knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs sure that the redemptioners are duly notified.
satisfied the requirement of the law. We are satisfied that in this case the other
In reversing the trial court, the respondent brothers and sisters were actually informed,
court ** declared that the notice required by the although not in writing, of the sales made in
said article was written notice and that actual 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was
notice would not suffice as a substitute. sufficient.
Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption
ISSUE: begin?
While we do not here declare that this period
Was there a valid notice? started from the dates of such sales in 1963 and
1964, we do say that sometime between those
HELD: years and 1976, when the first complaint for
redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were
YES actually informed of the sale and that thereafter
In requiring written notice, Article 1088 seeks to the 30-day period started running and ultimately
ensure that the redemptioner is properly notified expired.
of the sale and to indicate the date of such notice When Tecla Padua filed her complaint, the right
as the starting time of the 30-day period of of redemption had already been extinguished
redemption. because the period for its exercise had already
Considering the shortness of the period, it is expired.
really necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the It was the perfectly natural thing for the co-heirs
precise date it is supposed to begin, to obviate to wonder why the spouses Alonzo, who were
33
not among them, should enclose a portion of the
Alberto died leaving his wife and son, petitioner
inherited lot and build thereon a house of strong Nelson.
Within the eight-year redemption period, Bonifacio
materials. and Albino tendered their payment ofP666.66 each to
Dr. Corrompido.
This definitely was not the act of a temporary But Dr. Corrompido only released the document of
sale with pacto de retro after Saturnina paid for the
possessor or a mere mortgagee. This certainly share of her deceased son, Alberto, including his
"vale" of P300.00.
looked like an act of ownership. Yet, given this
Saturnina and her four (4) children Bonifacio, Albino,
unseemly situation, none of the co-heirs saw fit Francisco and Leonora sold the subject parcel of land
to respondents-spouses Feliano
to object or at least inquire, to ascertain the facts,
which were readily available. The Deed of Sale provided in its last paragraph,
thus:
It took all of thirteen years before one of them It is hereby declared and understood that the
amount of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY
chose to claim the right of reemption, but then it SIX PESOS (P2,286.00) corresponding and
belonging to the Heirs of Alberto Cabales and to
was already too late. Rito Cabales who are still minors upon the execution
of this instrument are held in trust by the VENDEE
and to be paid and delivered only to them upon
reaching the age of 21.
Brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Albino and W/N PETITIONER RITO CAN REDEEM THE
Alberto sold the subject property to Dr. Cayetano PROPERTY - NO
Corrompido for P2,000.00, with right to repurchase
within eight (8) years. 1] The contract of sale as to the pro-indiviso share of
The three (3) siblings divided the proceeds of the petitioner Rito was unenforceable.
sale among themselves, each getting a share However, when he acknowledged receipt of the
of P666.66. proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986, petitioner Rito
effectively ratified it. This act of ratification rendered
Alberto also secured a note ("vale") from Dr. the sale valid and binding as to him.
Corrompido in the amount ofP300.00.
34
2] Clearly, legal redemption may only be exercised by Nelson was a minor when the sale was perfected.
the co-owner or co-owners who did not part with his Nevertheless, the records show that in 1988,
or their pro-indiviso share in the property held in petitioner Nelson, then of majority age, was informed
common. of the sale of subject property.
As demonstrated, the sale as to the undivided share Petitioner Nelson was likewise informed thereof in
of petitioner Rito became valid and binding upon his 1993 and he signified his intention to redeem subject
ratification on July 24, 1986. property during a barangay conciliation process.
As a result, he lost his right to redeem subject But he only filed the complaint for legal redemption
property. and damages on January 12, 1995, certainly more
than thirty days from learning about the sale.
1] With respect to petitioner Nelson, the contract of There was sufficient notice of the sale to petitioner
sale was void. Nelson. The thirty-day redemption period commenced
He was a minor at the time of the sale. in 1993, after petitioner Nelson sought the barangay
Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were conciliation process to redeem his property. By
not his legal guardians with judicial authority to January 12, 1995, when petitioner Nelson filed a
alienate or encumber his property. complaint for legal redemption and damages, it is
It was his mother who was his legal guardian and, if clear that the thirty-day period had already expired.
duly authorized by the courts, could validly sell his
undivided share to the property. She did not. Petitioner Nelson can no longer redeem subject
Necessarily, when Saturnina and the others sold the property. But he and his mother remain co-owners
subject property in its entirety to respondents- thereof with respondents-spouses. Accordingly, title
spouses, they only sold and transferred title to their to subject property must include them.
pro-indiviso shares and not that part which pertained
to petitioner Nelson and his mother. The Register of Deeds of Southern Leyte is ORDERED
Consequently, petitioner Nelson and his mother to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 and to
retained ownership over their undivided share of issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in the
subject property. name of respondents-spouses Jesus and Anunciacion
Feliano for the 6/7 portion, and petitioner Nelson
2] The sale as to the undivided share of petitioner Cabales and his mother for the remaining 1/7 portion,
Nelson and his mother was not valid such that they pro indiviso.
were not divested of their ownership thereto.
Necessarily, they may redeem the subject property
from respondents-spouses.
But they must do so within thirty days from notice
in writing of the sale by their co-owners vendors.
NOTE:
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes
that of adjoining owners.
RULING:
In the instant case, private respondents have set up
the defense of ownership and questioned the title of
AZNAR to the subject lot, alleging that the
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale upon
which petitioner bases its title is null and void for
being simulated and fraudulently made.
37
heirs of Crisanta. Acknowledgment he never appeared before the
This claim, even if true, would not warrant rescission notary public and acknowledged the deed to be his
of the deed. voluntary act.
Under Article 1104 of the Civil Code, "[a] partition It must also be stressed that whoever alleges forgery
made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs has the burden of proving the same.
shall not be rescinded, unless it be proved that there Forgery cannot be presumed but should be proved by
was bad faith or fraud on the part of the persons clear and convincing evidence.
interested; but the latter shall be proportionately Private respondents failed to discharge this burden of
obliged to pay to the person omitted the share which proof; hence, the presumption in favor of the
belongs to him." questioned deed stands.
In the present case, no evidence of bad faith or
fraud is extant from the records.
As to the two parties to the deed who were
allegedly not heirs, Article 1105 is in point
"A partition which includes a person believed to
be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with
respect to such person."
In other words, the participation of non-heirs does not
render the partition void in its entirety but only to the
extent corresponding to them.