HEIRS OF URETA VS HEIRS OF URETA  When Alfonso died on October 1 1, 1972, Liberato acted as the
G.R. No. 165748 | Sept. 14, 2011 | Mendoza administrator of his father’s estate. He was later succeeded by his sister
SUMMARY: Alfonso Ureta begot fourteen children, including herein
petitioners and Policronio, father of respondents. For taxation purposes,
Alfonso sold, without monetary consideration, several parcels of land to four of
his children, including Policronio. Alfonso continued to own, possess and
enjoy the lands and their produce. Upon his death, Liberato acted as the
administrator. When Policronio died, except for a portion of one of the parcels
of land, neither Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the subject
lands. Alfonso’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, including all
the lands that were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were previously
executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes. Conrado, Policronio’s eldest
son, representing the Heirs of Policronio, signed the Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-heirs. The Heirs of Policronio averred
that the extra-judicial partition is void because Conrado signed the same
without written authority form his siblings. The SC ruled that it was valid.
DOCTRINE: It has been held in several cases 48 that partition among heirs is
not legally deemed a conveyance of real property resulting in change of
ownership. It is not a transfer of property from one to the other, but rather, it is
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.
It is merely a designation and segregation of that part which belongs to each
heir. The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition cannot, therefore, be considered as
an act of strict dominion. Hence, a special power of attorney is not necessary.
FACTS:
 Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely, Policronio, Liberato,
Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela,
Wenefreda, Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of
Policronio (Heirs of Policr onio), are opposed to the rest of Alfonso’s children
and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso).
o Alfonso and four of his children, namely, Policronio, Liberato,
Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the house of Liberato. Francisco,
who was then a municipal judge, suggested that in order to reduce
the inheritance taxes, their father should make it appear that he had
sold some of his lands to his children.
 Alfonso executed 4 Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in
favor of Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife,
Valeriana Dela Cruz.  1. WoN the Deed of Sale was valid? – NO
o The Deed of Sale executed on Oct 25, 1969, in favor of Policronio,
covered six parcels of land, which are the properties in dispute in
this case.
 Since the sales were only made for taxation purposes and no monetary
consideration was given, Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the
lands and their produce.
Prudencia, and then by her daughter, Carmencita Perlas.
 Except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest of the parcels transferred to
Policronio were tenanted by the Fernandez Family.
o These tenants never turned over the produce of the lands to
Policronio or any of his heirs, but to Alfonso and, later, to the
administrators of his estate.
 Policronio died on November 22, 1974. Except for the said portion of parcel
5, neither Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the subject lands.
 Alfonso’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
(EJP) , which included all the lands that were covered by the 4 deeds of
sale.
o Conrado, Policronio’s eldest son, representing the Heirs of
Policronio, signed the Deed of EJP in behalf of his co-heirs.
 Heirs of Policronio found the tax declarations in Policronio’s name covering
the six parcels of land. They obtained a copy of the Deed of Sale executed
on Oct 25, 1969 by Alfonso in favor of Policronio.
 Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father and as
such, excluded from the Partition, the Heirs of Policronio sought to amicably
settle the matter with the Heirs of Alfonso. But earnest efforts were proved
futile.
 The Heirs of Policronio then filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Docs, and Partition
against the Heirs of Alfonso before the RTC.
o The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso. The Heir of Policronio
failed to rebut the evidence of the Heirs of Alfonso which proved that
the deed of sale was for taxation purposes, thus null and void.
o The RTC also held the Deed of EJP as valid as all the heirs of
Alfonso were represented and received equal shares, and all the
requirements of a valid extra-judicial partition were met.
 The CA modified the decision of the RTC affirming that the Deed of Sale
was void, and annulling the Deed of EJP due to the incapacity of one of the
parties to give consent to the contract. It held that before Conrado could
validly bind his co-heirs, it was necessary that he be clothed with the proper
authority. The case was ordered to be remanded.
 Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
 Heirs of Policronio claimed that even assuming that the Heirs of Alfonso
have an interest in the Deed of Sale, they would still be precluded from
questioning its validity and they must prove that the sale of Alfonso’s
properties to Policronio substantially diminished their successional rights or
that their legitimes would be unduly prejudiced considering Art. 842 of the
Civil Code.
 o One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided
that he does not contravene the provisions of the Civil Code with
regard to the legitime of said heirs.
 This article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will. What is
involved in the case at bench is not a disposition by will but by Deed of 
Sale.
o Hence, the Heirs of Alfonso need not prove that the disposition 
substantially diminished their successional rights or unduly
prejudiced their legitimes.
2. W/N the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was valid? YES
 Heirs of Alfonso: CA erred in annulling Deed to incapacity of Conrado to give
consent of his co-heirs for lack of a special power of attorney and that what
was involved was not the capacity to given consent on behalf of the co-heirs
but the authority to represent them.
 Heirs of Policronio: Deny ratifying the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and
they ever questioned its execution by filing a complaint
 Although Conrado's co-heirs claimed that they did not authorize Conrado to
COURT AGREES WITH HEIRS OF ALFONSO.
 RTC found that Conrado's credibility had faltered, and his claims were
rejected by the RTC as gratuitous assertions. On the basis of such, the RTC
ruled that Conrado duly represented his siblings in the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition. On the other hand, the CA annulled the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition under Article 1390 (1) of the Civil Code, holding that a special
power of attorney was lacking as required under Article 1878 (5) and (15) of
the Civil Code.
 This Court finds that Article 1878 (5) and (15) is inapplicable to the case
at bench.
o It has been held in several cases 48 that partition among heirs
is not legally deemed a conveyance of real property resulting in
change of ownership.
o It is not a transfer of property from one to the other, but rather,
it is 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. It is merely a designation and
segregation of that part which belongs to each heir.
o The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition cannot, therefore, be
considered as an act of strict dominion. Hence, a special power
of attorney is not necessary.
 As between parties even an oral partition by the heirs is valid if not creditors
are affected.
o The requirement of a written memorandum under the statute of 
frauds does not apply to partitions effected by the heirs where no
creditors are involved considering that such transaction is not a
conveyance of property resulting in change of ownership but merely
a designation and segregation of that part belongs to each heir.
 Neither is Article 1390 (1) applicable.
o Article 1390 (1) contemplates the incapacity of a party to give
consent to a contract. What is involved in the case at bench though
is not Conrado's incapacity to give consent to the contract, but rather
his lack of authority to do so.
Instead, Articles 1403 (1), 1404, and 1317 of the Civil Code find application
to the circumstances prevailing in this case. [NOTES]
Therefore, Conrado's failure to obtain authority from his co-heirs to
sign the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in their behalf did not result in
his incapacity to give consent so as to render the contract voidable,
but rather, it rendered the contract valid but unenforceable against
Conrado's co-heirs for having been entered into without their authority.
o A closer review of the evidence on record, however, will show that
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition is not unenforceable but, in fact,
valid, binding and enforceable against all the Heirs of
Policronio for having given their consent to the contract. Their
consent to the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition has been proven
by a preponderance of evidence.
sign the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in their behalf, several
circumstances militate against their contention.
o Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition executed on April 19, 1989, and the
Heirs of Policronio claim that they only came to know of its existence
on July 30, 1995 through an issue of the Aklan Reporter. Difficult to
believe that Conrado did not inform his siblings about the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition or at least broach its subject with them for
more than five years from the time he signed it, especially after
indicating in his testimony that he had intended to do so.
o Conrado retained possession of one of the parcels of land
adjudicated to him and his co-heirs in the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition.
o After the execution of the partition, some of the Heirs of Policronio
executed a SPA in favor of their sister Gloria Gonzales, authorizing
her to obtain a loan from a bank and to mortgage one of the parcels
of land adjudicated to them in the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition to
secure payment of the loan.
o In a letter sent by the counsel of the Heirs of Policronio to the Heirs
of Alfonso requesting for amicable settlement, there was no mention
that Conrado's consent to the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was
vitiated by mistake and undue inPuence or that they had never
authorized Conrado to represent them or sign the document on their
behalf.
Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that the allegation of
Conrado's vitiated consent and lack of authority to sign in behalf of his
co-heirs was a mere afterthought on the part of the Heirs of Policronio.
o It appears that the Heirs of Policronio were not only aware of the
existence of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition prior to June 30,
1995 but had, in fact, given Conrado authority to sign in their
behalf.
 o They are now estopped from questioning its legality, and the Deed
of Extra-Judicial Partition is valid, binding, and enforceable against
them. In view of the foregoing, there is no longer a need to discuss
the issue of ratification.

OTHER ISSUES:
 Court ruled that there was no preterition since there was no will involved.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 165748 is DENIED. The

petition in G.R. No. 165930 is GRANTED. The assailed April 20, 2004 Decision
and October 14, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
71399, are hereby MODIFIED in this wise: (1) The Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition, dated April 19, 1989, is VALID, and (2) The order to remand the
case to the court of origin is hereby DELETED. SO ORDERED

NOTES:

Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (1)
Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no
authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;

Art. 1404. Unauthorized contracts are governed by Article 1317 and the
principles of agency in Title X of this Book. Art.

1317. No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by
the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him.
A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or
legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be
unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on
whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting
party.