ARTICLE 1078 – ARTICLE 1105

JURISPRUDENCE ON
PARTITION
316 SCRA 632

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES

VS
COURT OF APPEALS
 FACTS
Spouses Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves died intestate
and without debts in 1943 and 1953, respectively. During their
lifetime, the spouses own two parcels of land registered in the
name of Marcelina and another lot registered in the name of
Joaquin and his two sisters. However, Joaquin’s sisters died without
issue, causing the entire property to pass to him. After Marcelina
and Joaquin died, their children executed extrajudicial
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES settlements purporting to adjudicate unto themselves the
VS ownership over the two parcels of land and to alienate their shares
COURT OF APPEALS
thereto in favor of their sister Asuncion Teves for a consideration.
The division of the subject lot was embodied in two deeds. The
first Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale was entered into on
June 13, 1956 while the second deed was executed on April 21,
1959. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and sale was executed
on December 14, 1971. After the death of Asuncion Teves, her
children, private respondents, extrajudicially settled her property,
adjudicating unto themselves said lots.
 On May 9, 1984, herein petitioners, heirs of Marcelina and
Joaquin, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of
Negros Occidental against private
respondents for the partition and reconveyance of the
aforesaid parcels of land, alleging that the extrajudicial
settlements were spurious.

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES In answer to plaintiffs – appellants charges of fraud,

VS
COURT OF APPEALS defendant appellees maintained that the assailed
documents were executed with all the formalities required
by law and are therefore binding and legally effective as
bases for acquiring ownership or legal title over the lots in
question. Furthermore, it is contended that plaintiffs-
appelants have slept on their rights and should now be
deemed to have abandoned such rights.
  TRIAL COURT’S DECISION
- It ruled in favor of defendants –appellees. It declared
that the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale executed by the heirs
of Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca was duly executed
with all the formalities required by law, thus validly conveying
the subject properties to Asuncion Teves. Moreover, it stated
that, even granting the truth of the imputed infirmities in the
deed, the right of plaintiffs – appelants to bring an action for
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES
VS partition and reconveyance was already barred by prescription.
COURT OF APPEALS An Action for annulment of a partition must be brought within
four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud, while an action
for reconveyance of land based upon an implied or constructive
trust prescribes after ten (10) years from the registration of the
deed or from the issuance of the title. The complaint in this case
was filed on may 9, 1984, exactly 12 years, 1 month and 17 days
after the issuance of the transfer certificate of title in the name
of Asuncion teves on march 22, 1972.
  Moreover, the trial court held that the
extrajudicial settlements over both lots 6409
and 769, having been prepared and
acknowledged before a notary public, are
public documents , vested with public interest,
the sanctity of which deserves to be upheld
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES unless overwhelmed by clear and convincing
VS
COURT OF APPEALS evidence. The evidence presented by the
plaintiffs to support their charges was
considered by the court insufficient to rebut the
legal presumption of validity accorded to such
documents.
 CA’s Ruling
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES  CA upheld the trial court’s decision
VS
COURT OF APPEALS affirming the validity of the extrajudicial
statements
 ISSUE

W/N the extrajudicial settlements should

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES
VS be upheld?
COURT OF APPEALS
 YES
 The extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s estate is
authorized by Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.

Section 1, Rule 74 of the ROC

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES 1. The decedent left no will

VS
COURT OF APPEALS 2. The decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all
had been paid
3. The heirs are all of age, or if they are minors, the latter
are represented by their judicial guardian or legal
representatives.
4. The partition was made by means of a public instrument
or affidavit duly filed with the Register of Deeds.
 RULING BASED ON THE NATURE OF
EXTRAJUDICAL SETTLEMENT
 Yes. An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it
is a well-entrenched doctrine that the law does not
relieve a party from the effects of a contract,
entered into with all the required formalities and
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES
VS with full awareness of what he was doing, simply
COURT OF APPEALS because the contract turned out to be a foolish or
unwise investment. Therefore, although
plaintiffs-appellants may regret having alienated
their hereditary shares in favor of their sister
Asuncion, they must now be considered bound by
their own contractual acts. The subject extrajudicial
settlements were never registered.
 However, in the case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the
Court, interpreting Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules
of Court, upheld the validity of an oral partition of the
decedent’s estate and declared that the non-
registration of an extrajudicial settlement does not
affect its intrinsic validity. It was held in this case that
the requirement that a partition be put in a public
document and registered has for its purpose the
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES
VS protection of creditors and at the same time
COURT OF APPEALS the protection of the heirs themselves against tardy
claims. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to others. Thus, despite its non-
registration, the extrajudicial settlements are legally
effective and binding among the heirs of
Marcelina Cimafranca since their mother had no
creditors at the time of her death.
 RULING BASED ON PRESCRIPTION
1.) It is noted that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement &
Sale covering the subject properties purports to divide
Joaquin Teves’ estate among only six of his heirs. It does not
mention nor bear the signatures of either Pedro or
Cresenciano Teves although they are both intestate heirs of
Joaquin Teves and as such, are entitled to a proportionate
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES share of the decedent’s estate. The fact that Cresenciano
VS
COURT OF APPEALS predeceased Joaquin Teves does not mean that he or, more
accurately, his heirs, lose the right to share in the
partition of the property for this is a proper case of
representation, wherein the representative is raised to
the place and degree of the person represented and
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were
living.
  However, notwithstanding their non – inclusion in the
settlement, the action which Pedro and Cresenciano might
have brought for the reconveyance of their shares in the
property has already prescribed. An action for
reconveyance based upon an implied trust pursuant to
Article 1456 of the Civil Code prescribes in 10 years from
the registration of the deed or from the issuance of the title.
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES Asuncion Teves acquired title over Lot 6409 in 1972, but the
VS
COURT OF APPEALS case was only filed by the plaintiffs-appellants in 1984,
which is more than 10 years from the issuance of the title.
 2. ) Except for the of Lot 769 – A occupied by Ricardo
Teves, both parcels of land have been and continue to
be in the possession of Asuncion Teves and her
successors- in – interest. Despite this, no explanation
was offered by plaintiffs –appelants as to why they
instituted the present action questioning the
extrajudicial settlements only in 1984, which is more
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES than 25 years after the assailed conveyance of Lot
VS 769-A and more than 10 years after the issuance of a
COURT OF APPEALS
Transfer Certificate of Title over Lot 6409 in favor of
Asuncion Teves.
Such Tardiness indubitably constitutes laches, which
is the negligence or omission to assert a right within
a reasonable time, warranting that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.
G.R. Nos. L-63253-54 April 27, 1989

PABLO RALLA, petitioner,

vs.
HON. ROMULO P. UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, AND LEONIE
RALLA, PETER RALLA AND MARINELLA
RALLA, respondents.
 FACTS

On January 27, 1959, Rosendo Ralla filed a petition for

PABLO RALLA,petitioner, the probate of his own will in CFI of Albay docketed as SP
vs. No. 564. In his will he left his entire estate to his son,
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, Pablo leaving nothing to his other son, Pedro.
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA,
respondents.
In the same year, Pedro filed an action for the partition of
the estate of their mother , Paz Escarella; docketed as
Civil Case No. 2023
 In the course of the hearing of the probate case, Pablo
Ralla filed a motion to dismiss the petition for probate on
the ground that he was no longer interested in the
allowance of the will of his father, Rosendo for its probate
would no longer be beneficial and advantageous to him.
PABLO RALLA,petitioner, The motion was denied.
vs.
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Lower Court’s
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES,
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
conclusion that, indeed, the petitioner stood to gain if the
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, testate proceedings were to be dismissed because then he
respondents.
would not be compelled to submit for inclusion in the
inventory of the estate of Rosendo 149 parcels of land from
which he alone had been collecting rentals and receiving
income, to the exclusion and prejudice of his brother, Pedro
who was deprived of his successional rights over the said
properties.
 On November 3, 1966, the petitioner reiterated his lack of
interest in the probate of the subject will. Consequently,
the court, through Judge Perfecto Quicho, declared Pedro
and Pablo Ralla the only heirs of Rosendo who should
share equally upon the division of the latter’s estate, and
PABLO RALLA,petitioner,
vs. thereupon converted the testate proceedings into one of
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON. intestacy.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES,
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA,
respondents.
Meanwhile, the brothers agreed to partition the 63 parcel
of land forming the estate of their deceased mother, Paz
Escarella, which were amicably divided between the two
of them. This project of partition was approved by Judge
Gargeda.
  On November 3, 1966, the probate judge converted SP 564
into an intestate proceeding.

 Eleven years later, On February 28, 1978, a creditor of the

deceased filed a petition for the probate of Rosendo's will in
PABLO RALLA,petitioner, SP 1106, which was heard jointly with SP 564. On August 3,
vs. 1979, the order of November 3, 1966, was set aside.
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES,
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA,  On August 3, 1979, respondent Judge Romulo Untalan ruled,
respondents.
inter alia, that the sixty three parcels of land should be
included in the proceedings for the settlement of estate of
Rosendo Ralla and that said proceedings (both SP NO. 564
and SP NO. 1106, which were ordered consolidated by this
court) should proceed as probate proceedings.
  On June 11, 1981, the private respondents filed a
"Petition To Submit A new Motion For Consideration Of
PABLO RALLA,petitioner,
The Court . The Exclusion Of 63 Parcels of Land
vs. Subject Of The Project Of Partition In Civil Case No.
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, 2023." In his Order of July 16,1981, Judge Untalan
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, reconsidered his earlier Order, to wit: The Project of
respondents. Partition should, therefore, be respected and upheld.
Hence, the sixty-three (63) parcels referred to therein
should be excluded from the probate proceedings.
  Thereafter, the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the foregoing order but
PABLO RALLA,petitioner,
vs. the same was denied by respondent Judge
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, Reyes, to whose sala Special Proceedings No.
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, 564 and No. 1 1 06 were apparently
respondents.
transferred.
 ISSUE

PABLO RALLA,petitioner,
vs. WON the extrajudicial partition of the 63
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON.
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, parcels made after the filing of the petition for
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, the probate of the Will, and before said Will
respondents.
was probated is NULL
 RULING
The rule is that there can be no valid partition
among the heirs till after the will has been
probated. This, of course, presupposes that the
properties to be partitioned are the same
PABLO RALLA,petitioner, properties embraced in the will. Thus the rule
vs.
HON.ROMULO P.UNTALAN, HON. invoked is inapplicable in this instance where
DOMINGO CORONEL REYES,
AND LEONIE RALLA,PETER there are two separate cases (Civil Case No.
RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, 2023 for partition, and Special Proceedings No.
respondents.
564 originally for the probate of a will), each
involving the estate of a different person (Paz
Escarella and Rosendo Ralla, respectively)
comprising dissimilar properties.
G.R. No. 121157. July 31, 1997

HEIRS OF MANINGDING
VS
COURT OF APPEALS
 FACTS
Roque, together with Juan Maningding, Maria Maningding and
Segunda Maningding were the surviving children of Ramon Bauzon
y Untalan who died intestate in 1948. According to petitioners,
Roque Bauzon repudiated the co-ownership over the sugarland in
1965 and adjudicated it to himself, and that in 1970 Juan and Maria
Maningding renounced and quitclaimed their shares over the
riceland in favor of Roque Bauzon by virtue of an Affidavit of
Quitclaim and Renunciation. Subsequently, Roque Bauzon
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS transferred the riceland to his son Luis Bauzon and the sugarland to
his daughter Eriberta Bauzon, both transactions being evidenced by
deeds of sale.

On 31 July 1979 Segunda Maningding died. Her heirs allegedly

discovered the transfers made by Roque Bauzon in favor of his
children only in 1986. Consequently, the heirs sought the partition of
the properties as well as the accounting of the produce but were
unsuccessful.
 On the other hand private respondents aver that the
Affidavit of Quitclaim and Renunciation over the
riceland was executed not only by Juan Maningding
and Maria Maningding but also by Segunda
Maningding. With regard to the sugarland, Roque
Bauzon denied having executed the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication presented by petitioners. He claimed that
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS he acquired ownership over both the sugarland and
the riceland by donation propter nuptias from his
parents Ramon Bauzon and Sotera Zulueta on 21 April
1926 in consideration of his marriage to Petra Loresco.
Since the death of Ramon Bauzon in 1948, Roque had
been in open, continuous, notorious, adverse and
actual possession of the subject properties.
 The trial court found that the parcels of land formed part of the
estate of Ramon Bauzon and his wife Sotera Zulueta which, upon
their death, devolved by right of succession to their children
Segunda Maningding, Maria Maningding, Juan Maningding and
Roque Bauzon in equal pro-indiviso shares. The court a quo
however; awarded both parcels to Segunda Maningding and Roque
Bauzon as co-owners in equal shares after finding that Juan
Maningding and Maria Maningding had already executed an
Affidavit of Quitclaim and Renunciation. It rejected the deed of
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
donation for failure to prove its due execution and authenticity and
COURT OF APPEALS
ruled that the same was negated by the Affidavit of Quitclaim and
Renunciation of Juan Maningding and Maria Maningding in favor of
Roque Bauzon and nullified the deed of sale by Roque Bauzon in
favor of Luiz Bauzon as regards the riceland and to Eriberta Bauzon
with respect to the sugarland. It concluded that Roque Bauzon
could not have validly conveyed both parcels as one-half (½) of
each parcel rightfully belonged to Segunda Maningding and her
heirs.
 CA’s Ruling

It ruled that the properties validly pertained to Roque

Bauzon by virtue of the donation propter nuptias.
Consequently, the transfers made by Roque Bauzon must be
given effect. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the
same deed of donation was declared null and void by the
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS appellate court for failure to comply with Art. 633 of the old
Civil Code, the law then applicable, which required for the
validity of the deed of donation to be in a public instrument.
Nevertheless, the same court maintained that the properties
belonged to Roque Bauzon by virtue of acquisitive
prescription.
 ISSUE

HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS W/N the properties are acquired by Roque
Buanzon by virtue of acquisitive prescription
 RULING

Roque Bauzon acquired ownership over the subject properties by

acquisitive prescription. Prescription, in general, is a mode of
acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights through the
lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law,
namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner,
public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription
requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years.
In extraordinary prescription ownership and other real rights over
immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse
possession thereof for thirty (30) years, without need of title or of
good faith.
  The essential elements constituting acquisitive
prescription are present which negate the right of
plaintiffs to ask for partition of said properties. On this
point we find pertinent the following observation of the
trial court: ‘Any person who claims right of ownership
over immovable properties and does not invoke that
right but instead tolerated others in possession for thirty
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS years is guilty of laches and negligence and he must
COURT OF APPEALS suffer the consequence of his acts.’

In the instant case, Roque Bauzon possessed the subject

parcels of land in the concept of owner by virtue of the
donation propter nuptias. The possession was public as
it was Roque Bauzon who personally tilled and
cultivated the lots.
  Roque peacefully possessed the properties as he was never
ousted therefrom nor prevented from enjoying their fruits. His
possession was uninterrupted and in good faith because of his
well-founded belief that the donation propter nuptias was
properly executed and the grantors were legally allowed to
convey their respective shares in his favor. He likewise
appropriated to himself the whole produce of the parcels of
land to the exclusion of all others.
HEIRSOF MANINGDINGVS
COURTOF APPEALS The donation propter nuptias was effected as early as 21 April
1926. It was only in 1986 when the heirs of Segunda
Maningding demanded partition of the properties and
conveyance of the produce. Sixty (60) years have already
elapsed. Even granting that Roque Bauzon possessed the
properties only upon the death of his father in 1948, more than
thirty (30) years have already passed. In either case, acquisitive
prescription has already set in favor of Roque Bauzon.
  Prescription, as a rule, does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-
owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
ownership. Co-owners cannot acquire by prescription the
share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the
co-ownership. In order that title may prescribe in favor of one
of the co-owners, it must be clearly shown that he has
repudiated the claims of the others, and that they were
apprised of his claim of adverse and exclusive ownership,
before the prescriptive period would begin to run. Mere
refusal to accede to a partition, without specifying the grounds
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS for such refusal, cannot be considered as notice to the other
co-owners of the occupant’s claim of title in himself in
repudiation of the co-ownership. The evidence relative to the
possession, as a fact upon which the alleged prescription is
based, must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to
establish said prescription without any shadow of doubt; and
when upon trial it is not shown that the possession of the
claimant has been adverse and exclusive and opposed to the
rights of the others, the case is not one of ownership, and
partition will lie.
  Therefore while prescription among co-owners cannot
take place when the acts of ownership exercised are
vague and uncertain, such prescription arises and
produces all its effects when the acts of ownership do not
evince any doubt as to the ouster of the rights of the other
co-owners. As disclosed by the records, Roque Bauzon
and his heirs possessed the property from 1948 to 1986 to
the exclusion of petitioners who were never given their
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS
COURT OF APPEALS shares of the fruits of the properties, for which reason they
demanded an accounting of the produce and the
conveyance to them of their shares. Unfortunately they
slept on their rights and allowed almost thirty-six (36)
years to lapse before attempting to assert their right.
Perforce, they must suffer the consequence of their
inaction.
  Another Important point in the ruling

The disputed lots are unregistered lands, both

parcels being covered only by tax declarations
formerly in the name of Ramon Bauzon and
HEIRS OF MANINGDINGVS now transferred to Luiz and Eriberta Bauzon.
COURT OF APPEALS
While tax declarations and receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, yet, when
coupled with proof of actual possession, as in
the instant case, tax declarations and receipts
are strong evidence of ownership.
THANK YOU !