estate of Estate of Ramirez v. Ramirez, et al.
FACTS: Marcos Espina died on February 14, 1953 and was
GR No. L-27962, February 15, 1982
FACTS:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez died leaving as principal beneficiaries his
widow, MarcelleSemoron de Ramirez, a French woman; his two
grandnephewsRoberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion
Wanda de Wrobleski. His will was admitted to probate by the
Court of First Instance. According to the will shall go to
Marcelle in full ownership plus usufruct of the 1/3 of the whole
estate; the grandsons shall have the of the whole estate; and
a usufruct in favour of Wanda.
ISSUE:
Is the partition according to the will valid?
RULING:
No. As to the usufruct granted to Marcelle, the court ruled that
to give Marcelle more than her legitime will run counter to the
testators intention for his dispositions even impaired her
legitime and tended to favor Wanda.As to the usufruct
in favour of Wanda, the Court upheld its validity.
The Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire
private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for
otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless.
Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying
money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for devise of a
piece of land. Notwithstanding this, the Court upholds the
usufruct in favour of Wanda because a usufruct does not vest
title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to
aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
The court distributed the estate by: to his widow and to
the grandsons but the usufruct of the second half shall go to
Wanda.
ART 495
VDA de ESPINA v ABAYA
Petitioners contended that the present action is not for
survived by his spouses, Simprosa Vda. de Espina and their
children namely, Recaredo, Timoteo, Celia, Gaudiosa, Necifora,
Sora and Jose, all surnamed Espina. Decedent's estate
comprises of 4 parcels of land located in Surigao del Sur.
In 1973, an action for partition of the land was filed by
petitioners Simprosa and her children Recaredo, Timoteo, Celia,
Gaudencia and Necifora.
The petitioners claim that the alleged oral partition is invalid
The complaint alleges that parcel No. 1 is the exclusive
property of the deceased, hence the same is owned in common
by petitioners and private respondents in eight (8) equal parts,
while the other 3 parcels of land being conjugal properties, are
also owned in common, one-half (1/2) belongs to the widow
Simprosa and the other half is owned by her and her children in
eight (8) equal parts.
Petitioners have several times demanded the partition of the
properties, but notwithstanding such demands private
respondents refused to accede.
Private respondents alleged in their answer that in or about
April, 1951, the late Marcos Espina and his widow, Simprosa,
together with their children made a temporary verbal division
and assignment of shares among their children. After the death
of Marcos, the temporary division was finalized by the heirs.
Thereafter the heirs took immediate possession of their
respective shares on April 20, 1952. Private respondents took
actual physical possession of their respective shares including
the portions ceded to them by Simprosa.
Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
alleging that the CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS.
RTC
Trial court granted petition.
Petitioners Contention
reconveyance but one for partition. Hence, the rule insisted by
the private respondents on prescriptibility of an action for
reconcile conveyance of real property based on an implied
trust is not applicable in the case at bar. They also argued that
private respondents cannot set up the defense of prescription or
laches because their possession of the property no matter how
long cannot ripen into ownership.
and strictly under the coverage of the statute of Frauds.
ISSUE:
1. WoN imprescriptibility of partition applies in the case -
NO
2. WoN oral partition is valid YES
HELD:
1. NO. We already ruled in Lebrilla, et al. v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (G.R. No. 72623, December 18, 1989, 180 SCRA
188; 192) that an action for partition is imprescriptible.
However, an action for partition among co-heirs ceases to be
such, and becomes one for title where the defendants allege
exclusive ownership.
In the case at bar, the imprescriptibility of the action for
partition cannot be invoked because two of the co-heirs, namely
private respondents Sora and Jose Espina possessed the
property as exclusive owners and their possession for a period of
twenty one (21) years is sufficient to acquire it by prescription.
Hence, from the moment these co-heirs claim that they are the
absolute and exclusive owners of the properties and deny the
others any share therein, the question involved is no longer one
of partition but of ownership.
2. YES. "An agreement of partition may be made orally or
in writing. An oral agreement for the partition of the property
owned in common is valid and enforceable upon the parties.
The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind of
agreements, for partition is not a conveyance of property but
simply a segregation and designation of the part of the property
which belong to the co-owners." (Tolentino, Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1983
Edition, 182-183 citing Hernandez v. Andal, et. al., G.R. No.
L275, March 29, 1957
235 Casilang v. Casilang-Dizon
G.R. No. 180269, February 20, 2013
FACTS:
Spouses Liborio and Francisca owns three parcels of
land: (1) Lot No. 4676; (2) Lot No. 4618; (3) Lot No.
4704.
8 children: Felicidad, Ireneo (deceased), Marcelina,
Jacinta, Bonifacio (deceased), Leonara, Jose
(petitioner), Flora.
Respondents: heirs of Ireneo: Rosario Casilang-Dizon,
Mario, Angelo, Rodolfo Casilang.
Rosario filed with the MTC a complaint for unlawful
detainer against her uncle Jose Casilang for the lot hes
currently occupying, Lot No. 4618.
In his answer he stated that hes the lawful, absolute,
exclusive owner and in actual possession of said lot,
which he acquired through intestate succession from
his late father.
MTC: in favor of Rosario and ordering Jose to remove
his house and vacate the said lot. That the lot was
owned by Ireneo through extrajudicial partition and his
heirs are entitled to the land.
Petitioners (children of Liborio and Francisca), filed
with the RTC a complaint for Annulment of
Documents, Ownership and Peaceful Possession with
Damages against respondents. They also moved for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order which was denied by the
RTC.
Among the documents sought to be annulled was the
1997 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition executed by
Ireneos children over lot no. 4618.
RTC affirmed Joses ownership and possession of Lot
No. 4618.
CA reversed the RTC ruling mainly on the factual
findings and conclusions of the MTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with
Quitclaim executed by the heirs of Ireneo is valid?
HELD: No. It grossly violated the substantive right of Jose
Casilang Sr. as direct compulsory heir. Petition is granted and
CA decision is reversed and set aside.
RATIO:
From the conclusion of the RTC is well-supported that
there was indeed a verbal partition among the heirs of
Liborio, pursuant to which each of his eight children
received his or her share of his estate, and that Joses
share was Lot No. 4618.
The parties verbal partition is valid, and has been
ratified by their taking possession of their respective
shares.
"An agreement of partition may be made orally or in
writing. An oral agreement for the partition of the
property owned in common is valid and enforceable
upon the parties. The Statute of Frauds has no
operation in this kind of agreements, for partition is not
a conveyance of property but simply a segregation and
designation of the part of the property which belong to
the co-owners."
Joses possession of Lot No. 4618 under a claim of
ownership is well borne out by the records. It is also
consistent with the claimed verbal partition with his
siblings, and fully corroborated by his sisters Felicidad,
Jacinta, Leonora, and Flora, who further testified that
they each had taken possession of their own shares and
built their houses thereon.
A possessor of real estate property is presumed to have
title thereto unless the adverse claimant establishes a
better right.
Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership.