Wills Partition

8/10/2019 Wills Partition

1/10

G.R. No. L-46903 July 23, 1987

BUHAY DE ROMA,petitioner,vs.

HE HONORABLE !OUR O" A##EAL$ %&' "EL(!(DAD!AR(NGAL, %) Gu%*'+%& o Ro)%l+&'% ' Ro%,respondents.

!RU/, J.:

Candelaria de Roma had two legally adopted daughters, Buhay

de Roma and Rosalinda de Roma. She died intestate on April 30,

1971, and administration proeedings were instituted in the Court

o! "irst #nstane o! $aguna %y the private respondent as guardian

o! Rosalinda. Buhay was appointed administratri& and in due time

!iled an inventory o! the estate. 'his was opposed %y Rosalinda

on the ground that ertain properties earlier donated %y

Candelaria to Buhay, and the !ruits thereo!, had not %een

inluded.1

'he properties in (uestion onsisted o! seven parels o! oonut

land worth )10,*97.+0.*'here is no dispute regarding their

evaluation what the parties annot agree upon is whether these

lands are su%-et to ollation. 'he private respondent rigorouslyargues that it is, on!orma%ly to Artile 101 o! the Civil Code.

Buhay, !or her part, iting Artile 10*, laims she has no

o%ligation to ollate %eause the deedent prohi%ited suh

ollation and the donation was no t o!!iious.

'he two artiles provide as !ollows/

Artile 101. very ompulsory heir, who sueeds with

other ompulsory heirs, must %ring into the mass o! the

estate any property or right whih he may have reeived

!rom the deedent during the li!etime o! the latter, %y way

o! donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it

may %e omputed in the determination o! the legitime o!

eah heir, and in the aount o! the partition.

Artile 10*. Collation shall not tae plae

among ompulsory heirs i! the donor should

have so e&pressly provided, or i! the donor

should repudiate the inheritane, unless the

donation should %e redued as ino!!iious.

'he issue was resolved in !avor o! the petitioner %y the

trial ourt,2whih held that the deedent, when she made

the donation in !avor o! Buhay, e&pressly prohi%ited

ollation. oreover, the donation did not impair the

legitimes o! the two adopted daughters as it ould %e

aommodated in, and in !at was imputed to, the !ree

portion o! Candelaria4s estate.3

5n appeal, the order o! the trial ourt was reversed, the

respondent ourt22holding that the deed o! donation

ontained no e&press prohi%ition to ollate as an

e&eption to Artile 10*. Aordingly, it ordered ollation

and e(ually divided the net estate o! the deedent,

inluding the !ruits o! the donated property, %etween

Buhay and Rosalinda.6

'he pertinent portions o! the deed o! donation are as !ollows/

#A$A8A. a alang:alang sa aing pagmamahal,

pagtingin at pagsisil%i sa ain ng aing ana na siB; R5A, asal ay Ara%ella Castaneda, may

arampatang gulang, mamamayang )ilipino at

naninirahan at may pahatirang:sulat din dito sa $unsod

ng San )a%lo sa pamamagitan ng asulatang ito ay

usang:loo% ong i%ini%igay, ipinagaaloo% at inililipat

sa na%anggit na B; R5A, sa anyang mga

ahalili at tagapagmana, sa pamamagitan ng pag%i%igay

na di na ma%a%awing muli, ang lahat ng mga lagay ng

lupa na sinasa%i sa itaas, sa ilalim ng asunduan na

ngayon pa ay siya na ang nagmamay:aring tunay ng

mga lupang ito at anya nang maaring ipalipat ang mga

ho-a delaratoria ng mga lupang ito sa anyang

pangalan, datapwa4t samantalang ao ay na%u%uhay, ay

ao rin ang maiina%ang sa mga mapuputi atmamomosesion sa mga nasa%ing lupa

#A'$5. a pinagti%ay o na ao ay marami pang i%ang

mga pag:aari sa sapat pang aing ia%uhay at sa

pag%i%igay ong ito ay hindi masisira ang legitimate ng

mga tao na dapat magmana sa ain, sapag

lupang sinasa%i sa itaas ay %ahagui ng ain

na ao ay may layang ipamigay ahit na a

ung tawagin ay $i%re >isposiion. +

8e agree with the respondent ourt that there is noth

a%ove provisions e&pressly prohi%iting the ollation o

properties. As the said ourt orretly o%served, the

pamamagitan ng pag%i%igay na di na ma%a%awing m

desri%ed the donation as ?irrevoa%le? and should nonstrued as an e&press prohi%ition against ollation

that a donation is irrevoa%le does not neessarily e

su%-et thereo! !rom the ollation re(uired under Arti

8e surmise !rom the use o! suh terms as ?legitime?

portion? in the deed o! donation that it was prepared

and we may also presume he understood the legal

o! the donation %eing made. #t is reasona%le to supp

preise language o! the doument, that he would hav

therein an e&press prohi%ition to ollate i! that had %e

donor4s intention.

Anything less than suh expressprohi%ition will not sthe lear language o! Artile 10*.1awphil'he sugge

there was an impliedprohi%ition %eause the propert

were imputa%le to the !ree portion o! the deedent4s e

little onsideration. #mputation is not the (uestion her

laimed that the disputed donation is o!!iious 'he so

whether or not there was an e&press prohi%ition to o

see none.

'he intention to e&empt !rom ollation should %e e&p

and une(uivoally as an e&eption to the general rule

in Artile 10*. A%sent suh a lear indiation o! that

apply not the e&eption %ut the rule, whih is ategor

'here is no need to dwell long on the other error asspetitioner regarding the deision o! the appealed as

respondent ourt %eyond the 1*:month period presr

Artile @, Setion 11 1 o! the 1973 Constitution. As

in Marcelino v. Cruz,7the said provision was merely d
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntaahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntaahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntaahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fntaahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jul1987/gr_l-46903_1987.html#fnt1


2/10

!ailure to deide on time would not deprive the orresponding

ourts o! -urisdition or render their deisions invalid.

#t is worth stressing that the a!orementioned provision has now

%een reworded in Artile ###, Setion 1+, o! the 19D7 Constitution,

whih also impresses upon the ourts o! -ustie, indeed with

greater urgeny, the need !or the speedy disposition o! the ases

that have %een logging their doets these many years. Serious

studies and e!!orts are now %eing taen %y the Court to meet that

need.

85 ';)A5,

whom # named, that a!ter departing !rom this

li!e, he shall %e the one to arry or !ul!ill my

'estament, and that he shall have the power to

see and dispose all what # have stated, he shall

not hange what # have already stated in my

'estament so that there is truth in my will. # will

a!!i& my right thum%mar at the end o! my

written name %eause # do not now how to

read and write, a!ter it has %een read to me and

a!!irm all what is my 8in this */00 o4lo in the

a!ternoon this 6th day o! Septem%er 1937,

%e!ore those who are present and have heard

what # have stated, )io $a 'rinidad, Benguet,

6th Septem%er, 1937. 3

'he ontents o! this doument were read to the %ene!iiaries

named therein who at the time were already oupying the

portions respetively allotted to them. #n implementation o! this

doument, they then, on Septem%er 7, 1937, e&euted an

agreement providing as !ollows/

8e who are named hildren and who will inherit!rom our !ather ';)A5/ BA>5 ';)A5,

$AB#A AB#'5, E5S and $AB', and we also

whose lands are inluded, S;C>A> B;'#5F,

';$#FA );$:5' and A'5

parels o! land is to %e delivered a

also %e the one, to deliver to us ou

soon as we will demand the partitio

aordane with the will o! our !ath

as soon in the 'estament whih we

have heard %y all.

#t is also agreed upon among us inon!irmation that when our %rother

is appointed to distri%ute to us our

a!!irm in this instrument that will an

the e&penses when it shag %e surv

share o! eah will %e segregated s

the approval o! the title, whih sha

name o! eah o! us and that we do

the land whih we are atually wor

pertain to us as em%odied in the sa

!ather ';)A5.

8e e&eute this deed o! on!irmat

presene o! the otary )u%li here

that this 8ill, %e used as our agree

with the wig o! our !ather so that th

%e !ollowed as regard upon %y all a

our right thum%mar at the end o! o

name %eause we do not now ho


3/10

write this 7th day o! Septem%er, 1937 in the City

o! Baguio. 4

'wo days later, 5ld an 'umpao died.

'he parties remained in possession o! the lots assigned to them,

apparently in o%ediene to the wish o! 5ld an 'umpao as

e&pressed in his last ?will? and a!!irmed %y the other a%ove(uoted

instrument. But things hanged une&petedly in 190, twenty

three years later, that %rought this matter to the ourts.

5n ovem%er 6, 190, the respondents e&euted an e&tra-udiial

partition in whih they divided the property o! 5ld an 'umpao

among the three o! them only, to the e&lusion o! the other

persons mentioned in the a%ove:(uoted douments. By virtue o!

this partition, 5ld an 'umpao4s title was anelled and another

one was issued in !avor o! the three respondents. 6

#t is this title that is now %eing (uestioned %y the petitioners, who

are suing !or reonveyane. 'hey had %een sustained %y the trial

ourt, 7whih, however, was reversed %y the Court o! Appeals.

'hey are %e!ore this Court to hallenge that reversal.

#n deiding against them, the Court o! Appeals held that the ?will?e&euted %y 5ld an 'umpao was null and void %eause it had

not %een pro%ated 'he agreement o! partition among the

supposed %ene!iiaries o! the will was nulli!ied %eause it was a

partitioninter vivosand had not %een approved %y the >iretor o!

the Bureau o! on:Christian 'ri%es. #t was liewise held that the

land in dispute was a(uired during 5ld an 'umpao4s !irst

marriage although it was registered during his seond marriage

and so the petitioners were lia%le in rentals !or the lots oupied

%y them, as well as attorney4s !ees. 8

A!ter e&amining the musty reords, we sustain the ruling:made

%oth %y the trial ourt and the Court o! Appeals:that the will, not

having %een pro%ated as re(uired %y law, was inoperative as

suh. 'he settled priniple, as announed in a long line o!deisions in aordane with the Rules o! Court, is that no will

shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved or

allowed in ourt. 9

8e !ind, however, that the doument may %e sustained on the

%asis o! Artile 10+ o! the Civil Code o! 1D99, whih was in !ore

at the time the said doument was e&euted %y 5ld an 'umpao

in 1937. 'he said artile reads as !ollows/

Art. 10+. #! the testator should mae a partition

o! his properties %y an at inter vivos,or %y win,

suh partition shall stand in so !ar as it does not

pre-udie the legitime o! the !ored heirs.

5n this sore, we agree with the trial ourt. 'he applia%ledeision is!l"ela vs. !l"ela,10also deided %y the Court o!

Appeals, with Eustie E.B.$. Reyes as theponente.

#n this ase, Agustin Al%ela e&euted on Eanuary 19, 193+, a deed

o! partition dividing two parels o! land %etween hisdaughters,

duarda and Restituta, who indiated their on!ormity %y signing

the instrument. 'he too possession o! their respetive shares

upon his death, %ut !ourteen years later, Restituta e-eted

duarda !rom her lot, alleging title %y purhase !rom a third party

and denying the e&istene o! the partition. duarda sued !or

reovery and was upheld %y the trial ourt on the %asis o! the

deed o! partition.

$et Eustie E.B.$. Reyes, who later %eame a distinguished

mem%er o! this Court, tae over at this point/

#n their argument, appellants do not (uestion

the authentiity o! the a%ove doument, %ut

argue against its validity, on the grounds

summariGed in their %rie! p. 7, as !ollows/

'here!ore the allegations o! the plainti!!:

appellee, duarda Al%ela, rest on a doument

whih de!ies lassi!iation. #! it is a deed o!

partition, it is null and void %eause it is not

em%odied in a pu%li doument i! it is a simple

donation o! realty, it is also null and void,%eause it is not in a pu%li doument and there

is no aeptane i! it is a donation ortis

Causa, ertainly it is null and void %eause it

does not !ollow the rules governing

testamentary suession and i! ever it is to %e

lassi!ied as a will, more so, it is st

void %eause it does not on!orm t

re(uirements o! Setion 1D, At 1

amended %y At *6+.

one o! these o%-etions is valid in

appellants evidently !ail to realiGe t

10+ o! the Civil Code o! 1DD9 auth

testator to partition inter vivos his p

distri%ute them among his heirs, an

partition is not neessarily either aa testament, %ut an instrument o! a

harater, sui #eneris,whih is rev

time %y the causanteduring his li!e

does not operate as a onveyane

his death. #t derives its %inding !or

heirs !rom the respet due to the w

owner o! the property, limited only

reditors and the intangi%ility o! the

the !ored heirs. 4l testador es li%r

herederos han de pasar por lo (ue

uanto no per-udi(ue la legitime de

!orsoGos. #nutil es sonar en otras li

(ue no e&isten.4 7 anresa Comm

d., p. 39.

'hat suh partition is not governed

o! wills or donations inter vivos is a

onse(uene o! its speial nature.

learned anresa on this point/

Con estas pala%ras en ato entre

en el Artiulo 10+, omo en el 10+

despues e&aminaremos, alude a la

!ormalidades on (ue puede prat

partiion, no a los e!etos de esta,

(ue para ella no es preciso $ue int

%ormas solemnes $ue todo testam

de ultima voluntad en #eneral re$u

sera preciso #uardar las %ormalida

especiales de las donaciones, por

trata de disponer a titulo gratuito, s

a(uellos %ienes de (ue ya anterior


4/10

sedispuso en !orma legal mphasis supplied.

5p. Cit., p. 3+

#t was su!!iient, there!ore, that the partition

&hi%it A, should %e in writing. #t does not have

to %e in a pu%li doument e&ept to a!!et third

persons Art. 1*D0, %eing valid %etween the

parties who signed it in its present !orm.

#! any invalidity ould %e alleged against the

partition, it would lie in the a%sene o! aprevious testament preeding it $egasto v.

erGosa, +6 )hil. 7. And even this may not

%e indispensa%le in the present ase, !or the

testator4s partition did not depart !rom the

shares allotted to his heirs %y the law o!

intestay. or is a prior win neessary under

Artile 10D0 o! the new Civil Code, whih

replaed the word 4testator4 in Artile 10+ o! the

Code o! 1DD9 with the %roader term 4person.4

Be that as it may, the nullity o! the partition

&hi%it A would not alter the result. 'here %eing

only two daughters surviving the deeased

Agustin, eah one o! them would neessarily %e

entitled to one:hal! o! eah o! the two parels he

owned at his death, and Agustin4s !ormer

ownership is no longer disputed %y the

appellants in this instane. #n addition, sine

%oth daughters signed the partition &hi%it A, its

terms would %ind %oth, and estop them !rom

asserting a di!!erent interest. Appellants4 at in

appropriating the whole inheritane and its !ruits

an !ind no support in law or -ustie.

'here is no di!!erene in legal e!!et %etween Agustin Al%ela4s

deed o! partition and 5ld an 'umpao4s ?last will and testament.?

Both are sustaina%le under Artile 10+ o! the Civil Code, whihwas in !ore at the time they were e&euted ven as Agustin

Al%ela4s partition was signed %y the two daughters themselves, so

was 5ld an 'umpao4s ?will? a!!irmed %y the %ene!iiaries in their

agreement o! Septem%er 7, 1937, whih reiterated and

reogniGed the terms o! suh ?will.? 8hile not valid as a

partitioninter vivosunder Artiles D1 and 1*71 o! the old Civil

Code, it was nevertheless %inding on the parties as proo! o! their

on!ormity to the dispositions made %y 5ld an 'umpao in his

?last will and testament.?

As the trial ourt put it/

'he will alone, 4&h. B4, would %e inoperative !or

the simple reason that it was not pro%ated,

iretor o! the Bureau o! on:Chris

%eause the Administrative Code o! indanao and S

e&tended to the ountain )rovine. 11oreover, the

was not a onveyane o! properties or property right

#t remains to state that the property in dispute having

registered in 1917, the presumption is that it was a(

the seond marriage and so annot %e laimed %y th

respondents as the on-ugal property o! their mother

'umpao.


5/10

the primal ode o! the anient hills. ven so, though that past is

gone !orever, -ustie now, as it was then, is still !or the deserving.

8 signed %y

anuela and her hildren onstituted a valid partition o! the land,

su%-et to her li!etime usu!rut. 'he Court o! Appeals there%y

reversed the deision dated >eem%er *1, 1971 o! th

"irst #nstane o! Camarines orte, Branh 1.

'he land in (uestion is the paraphernal property o! p

anuel Buenavista de!endant in Civil Case o. 193

o! "irst #nstane o! Camarines orte who had si&

named Antonio, Rosario, Conepion, Ra(uel, )rese

"loserpina. 'he !irst three were the plainti!!s and the

with their mother, were the de!endants in Civil Case

5n Euly 11, 19+D, )resentaion ChaveG, with the onmother, anuela Buenavista, e&euted a deed o! sal

she sold her 1H undivided share o! the land in (uest

sister, Conepion ChaveG, !or ) 6+0.

'wo years later, on ay *, 190, "loserpina ChaveG

on!ormity o! her mother, also sold her 1H undivided

same land to her sister, Conepion, !or the same pr

5n ay 19, 190, Ra(uel, with the on!ormity o! her

liewise sold her undivided 1H share o! the same pr

Conepion ChaveG !or )00.


6/10

meaning that the owner, anuela Buenavista, had assigned or

distri%uted to her hildren, in e(ual pro:indiviso shares, her

paraphernal property situated at Sitio $angas, Barrio

Calangawan orte, inGons, Camarines orte, with an area o!

6.113 hetares more or less under 'a& >elaration o. 9303 and

assessed at )1,30.00. 'he owner, however, reserved !or hersel!

the possession o! the land and the en-oyment o! the !ruits during

her li!etime.

>espite the trans!ers or assignments her hildren had e&euted

with her on!ormity ten years earlier, anuela Buenavista, onAugust *7, 19D, signed a ?Bilihang )atuluyan ng $upa? o! the

entire property in !avor o! her daughter, Ra(uel ChaveG, and her

hus%and, Ferardo EimeneG. 5n 5to%er 7, 19D, Antonio, Rosario

and Conepion !iled Civil Case o. 1936 against their mother

anuela and their sister Ra(uel. 'hereupon, anuela sold the

entire property to )epito "errer, on "e%ruary 6, 199 &h. " with

right to repurhase. "errer was later sued as an additional

de!endant in Civil Case o. 1936.

A!ter the trial, -udgment was rendered %y the trial ourt dismissing

the omplaint, dissolving the preliminary in-untion it had

previously issued, and ordering the plainti!!s to pay the osts. 'he

ourt did not award damages.

'he plainti!!s, Antonio, Rosario and Conepion, appealed to the

Court o! Appeals CA:F.R. o. 670D:R.

5n arh *, 19D6, the Court o! Appeals reversed the trial ourt.

'he dispositive portion o! its deision reads/

8


7/10

ground o! estoppel o! the parties to assert the

rights o! a tenant in ommon as to parts o! land

divided %y parol partition as to whih

possession in severalty was taen and ats o!

individual ownership were e&erised. And a

ourt o! e(uity will reogniGe the agreement and

deree it to %e valid and e!!etual !or the

purpose o! onluding the right o! the parties as

%etween eah other to hold their respetive

parts in severalty.

A parol partition may also %e sustained on the

ground that the parties thereto have a(uiesed

in and rati!ied the partition %y taing possession

in severalty, e&erising ats o! ownership with

respet thereto, or otherwise reogniGing the

e&istene o! the partition. eeds o! Sale e&euted %y )resentaion, "loser!ina and Ra(uel,

all surnamed ChaveG &hs. A, B, and C in !avor o! Conepion

ChaveG as evidene o! a valid partition o! the land in (uestion %y

and %etween anuela Buenavista and her hildren as she not

only gave her authority thereto %ut also signed the sales. 'he>eeds o! Sale &hs. A, B, and C are not ontrats entered into

with respet to !eature inheritane %ut a ontrat per!eted and

onsummated during the li!etime o! anuela Buenavista who

signed the same and gave her onsent thereto. Suh

partitioninter vivos, e&euted %y the property owner hersel!, is

valid.

.... As the de!endants !reely partiipated in the

partition, they are now estopped !rom denying

and repudiating the onse(uenes o! their own

voluntary ats. #t is a general priniple o! law

that no one may %e permitted to disavow and go

%a upon his own ats, or to proeed ontrary

thereto. Eoa(uin vs. itsumine 36 )hil. D+D.

8here a piee o! land has %een inluded in a

partition, and there is no allegation that the

inlusion was e!!eted through improper means

or without the petitioner4s nowledge, the

partition %arred any !urther litigation on said title

and operated to %ring the property under the

ontrol and -urisdition o! the ourt !or proper

disposition aording to the tenor o! the

partition... 'hey annot atta the partition

ollaterally ... Ralla vs. Eudge ;ntalan, 17*

SCRA D+D, D+, iting the ase o! 'orres vs.

narnaion and >e Bor-a, o. $:6D1, Euly 31,

19+1, D9 )hil. 7D.

As well argued %y ounsel !or the respondents in their

memorandum, it would %e un-ust and ine(uita%le to allow anuela

Buenavista da. de ChaveG to revoe the sales she hersel!

authoriGed as well as the sale she hersel! e&euted in !avor o! her

son only to e&eute a simulated sale in !avor o! her daughter

Ra(uel who had already pro!ited !rom the sale she made o! the

property she had reeived in the partition inter vivos it would run

ounter to the dotrine that ?no person should %e allowed to

un-ustly enrih hersel! at the e&pense o! another.?

8almaio onterola !ormBueno and on the 8est, %y C. $irio Strean area o! two hundred seventy seven meters, more or less. Assessed at )3,3*0delaration o. *61.? #%id., p. 1+


8/10

Said parel o! land is %eing ontested %y Euana Al%ovias, hereinprivate respondent, on the one hand, and $eonida:Coronado,"eli& Bueno, elania RetiGos, Bernardino Buenseda and Eovitaonte!alon, herein petitioners, on the other hand.

Euana Al%ovias E;AA, !or %revity laims that the property in(uestion is a portion o! a %igger lot re!erred to as )arel F in thelast will and testament e&euted in 191D %y eleio Artiaga,grand!ather o! E;AA. 'his %igger lot was inherited under that will%y E;AA, her %rother >omingo Bueno, and two othergrandhildren, namely Boni!aio and oming Bueno. 'he southern portion in turn waspartitioned %etween E;AA and >omingo Bueno, the !ormer

getting the northern part ad-oining the lot o! the "ormenteras, andthe latter the southern part whih ad-oins the lot o! )er!etoanagas not owned %y >almaio onterola. 'he part alloatedto >omingo was later sold %y him to >almaio onterola, ownero! the ad-oining property #%id../ nad

oreover, E;AA laims that her property was inluded togetherwith the two parels o! land owned %y >almaio onterola, whihwere sold %y onterola4s suessor:in:interest $eonida Coronadonow married to "eli& Bueno to elania RetiGos on April 1D,1970. elania RetiGos in turn sold the lots, inluding that one%eing laimed %y E;AA, to the spouse Bernardino Buenasedaand Eovita onte!alon, now the present possessors thereo!,sometime in 1976 #%id., pp. 1:17.

5n the other hand, $eonida Coronado and her o:petitionersC5R5A>5, !or %revity laim that the property in (uestion was

%e(ueathed to $eonida Coronado under a 8ill e&euted %y >r.>almaio onterola, who was allegedly in possession thereo!even %e!ore the out%rea o! 8orld 8ar ## #%id., p. 107.

)arenthetially, said will was pro%ated under Sp. )ro. o. SC:*D3, entitled ?'estate state o! the >eeased onterola $eonida". Coronado, petitioner #%id., p. 10+. E;AA, together with her

hus%and, opposed the said pro%ate. >espite their opposition,however, the 8ill was allowed %y the then Court o! "irst #nstaneo! $aguna, Sta. CruG Branh #%id., p. 10. 5n appeal, saiddeision was a!!irmed %y the Court o! Appeals in CA:F.R. o.603+3, entitled ?$eonida ". Coronado, petitioner:appellee v. r. >almaio onterola, oppositors:appellants? #%id.. #t is notapparent, however, !rom the reord whether or not said deisionhas already %eome !inal and e&eutory.

As a result o! the on!liting laims over the property in (uestion,E;AA !iled an ation !or (uieting o! title, delaratory relie! anddamages against C5R5A>5 in the Regional 'rial Court o! the

"ourth Eudiial Region, Branh @@#, Sta. CruG, $aguna,doeted as Civil Case o. 736+ #%id., p. 6.

As adverted to a%ove !irst par., the lower ourt rendered-udgment in !avor o! E;AA.

ot satis!ied with the deision o! the lower ourt, C5R5A>5elevated the ase to the Court o! Appeals, whih a!!irmed thedeision appealed !rom #%id., p. *0. 5 raised the !ollowing assigned errors/#

'' C5;R' 5" A))A$S SR#5;S$= RR># ARR##F A' A C5C$;S#5 8 C#RC;S'ACS 5" ' #5' A))$=#F '. #%id., p. 116

###)R#A' RS)5>' #S # S'5))$ "R5J;S'#5#F ' '5 RA#S '

'C S;B#''> A> "AC'S A>#''> 5RC5R>. #' '


9/10

the running o! the period o! presription anila letri Companyv. #ntermediate Appellate Court, F.R. 71393, Eune *D, 19D9.

#n this ase, onterola, as !ound %y the respondent appellateourt and the lower ourt, never ategorially laimed ownershipover the property in (uestion, muh less his possession thereo! enonepto de dueno. Aordingly, he ould not have a(uired saidproperty %y a(uisitive presription.

Anent the ontention o! C5R5A>5 that $eonida Coronadoould ta her possession to that o! onterola, so that laim o!legal title or ownership over the su%-et property, even against thepetitioners, the Buenasesas, who are purhasers !or value and in

good !aith, is a !oregone or settled issue, the respondent appellateourt aptly answered the same in this wise/

?#t !ollows that $eonida Coronado ould not have derivedownership o! the land in (uestion !rom her predeessor:in:interest>almaio onterola, whether %y presription or %y some othertitle. either an she laim a(uisitive presription in her ownname. #t was only in 1970 a!ter the death o! >almaio onterolathat she asserted her laim o! ownership adverse to that o!plainti!!:appellee. 5 laims that E;AA isestopped !rom (uestioning the ownership o! $eonida Coronadoover the land in (uestion having !ailed to raise the same in the

estate proeedings in the trial ourt and even on appeal Rollo, p.119.

'he ontention is liewise without merit.

ormally, the pro%ate o! a will does not loo into its intrinsivalidity. 'he authentiation o! a will deides no other (uestionsthan suh as touh upon the apaity o! the testator and theompliane with those re(uisites or solemnities whih the lawpresri%es !or the validity o! the wills. #t does not determine noreven %y impliation pre-udge the validity or e!!iieny o! theprovisions o! the will, thus may %e impugned as %eing viious ornull, notwithstanding its authentiation. 'he (uestion relating tothese points remain entirely una!!eted, and may %e raised evena!ter the will has %een authentiated aninang, et al., v. Court o!Appeals, 116 SCRA 673 L19D*M. Conse(uently, E;AA is notestopped !rom (uestioning the ownership o! the property in(uestion, notwithstanding her having o%-eted to the pro%ate o!the will e&euted %y onterola under whih $eonida Coronado islaiming title to the said property./:ralaw

;nder the !ourth assigned error, it is alleged %y C5R5A>5 thatE;AA4s petition is wea !or want o! !atual and legal support theweaness o! E;AA4s position lies in the !at that she did not only!ail to identi!y the su%-et land, %ut also !ailed to e&plain thedisrepany in the %oundary o! the property she is laiming to %ehers Rollo, p. 1*+.

'he ontention is unavailing.

'he !at that E;AA !ailed to identi!y the property in (uestion andto e&plain the disrepany in the %oundary o! said property,assuming they are true, is immaterial, in view o! the !indings o! thelower ourt as to the identity o! the property in (uestion. oreover,

the lower ourt !ound su!!iient evidene to support the onlusionthat the property in (uestion is the same property ad-udiated toE;AA under the will o! eleio Artiaga, and that C5R5A>5has no right whatsoever to said property #%id., p. *0. Suh!indings are onlusive upon this Court Reynolds )hilippineCorporation v. Court o! Appeals, 19 SCRA **0 L19D9M.

)R#SS C5S#>R>, the deision appealed !A""#R>. S5 5R>R>.

Ml&+o-H***%, #%'+ll%, $%*+&R5%l%'o, JJ.,o&u*.

G.R. No. 137287 "*u%*y 1, 2000

REBE!!A ;(ADO NON, JO$E A. NON %&' DEL(A;(ADO,petitioners,vs.

HE HONORABLE !OUR O" A##EAL$, AL(!(A

!HERR( ;(ADO %&' "E "(DE$ ;(ADO,respondents

;(UG, J.:

)etitioners, in their petition !or review on certiorari un

o! the Rules o! Court, see a reversal o! the *9th ay

deision o! the Court o! Appeals, %asially a!!irming t

on 30 April 1991 %y the Regional 'rial Court ?R'C?

City, Branh *3, ad-udiating the property su%-et ma

litigation to respondents. 'he ase and the !atual se

%y the Court o! Appeals do not appear to deviate sign

that made %y the trial ourt.

>uring their li!etime, the spouses Eulian C. iado andiado owned several piees o! property, among them

lot loated at 167 #sarog Street, $a $oma, JueGon Ci

%y 'rans!er Certi!iate o! 'itle o. 6*D*. irginia ).

*0 5to%er 19D*. Eulian C. iado died three years la

ovem%er 19D+. Surviving them were their hildren I

$eah iado Eao%s, and herein petitioners Re%ea

married to Eose on, and >elia iado. ilo iado an

Eao%s %oth died on ** April 19D7. ilo iado le!t %e

own sole heirs herein respondents I his wi!e Aliia

their two hildren Cherri iado and "e "ides iado.

)etitioners and respondents shared, sine 1977, a o

residene at the #sarog property. Soon, however, ten

appear to have esalated %etween petitioner Re%e

respondent Aliia iado a!ter the !ormer had ased th

property %e e(ually divided %etween the two !amilies

room !or the growing hildren. Respondents, !orthwit

a%solute ownership over the entire property and dem


10/10

petitioners vaate the portion oupied %y the latter. 5n 01

"e%ruary 19DD, petitioners, asserting o:ownership over the

property in (uestion, !iled a ase !or partition %e!ore the JueGon

City R'C Branh 93.1wphi1.n/t

Respondents prediated their laim o! a%solute ownership over

the su%-et property on two douments I a deed o! donation

e&euted %y the late Eulian iado overing his one:hal! on-ugal

share o! the #sarog property in !avor o! ilo iado and a deed o!

e&tra-udiial settlement in whih Eulian iado, $eah iado Eao%s

through a power o! attorney in !avor o! ilo iado and petitionerRe%ea iado waived in !avor o! ilo iado their rights and

interests over their share o! the property inherited !rom irginia

iado. Both instruments were e&euted on * August 19D3 and

registered on 07 Eanuary 19DD %y virtue o! whih 'rans!er

Certi!iate o! 'itle o. 6*D* was anelled and new 'rans!er

Certi!iate o! 'itle o. 3736 was issued to the heirs o! ilo

iado.

)etitioners, in their ation !or partition, attaed the validity o! the

!oregoing instruments, ontending that the late ilo iado

employed !orgery and undue in!luene to oere Eulian iado to

e&eute the deed o! donation. )etitioner Re%ea iado, in her

partiular ase, averred that her %rother ilo iado employed

!raud to proure her signature to the deed o! e&tra-udiialsettlement. She added that the e&lusion o! her retardate sister,

>elia iado, in the e&tra-udiial settlement, resulted in the latter4s

preterition that should warrant its annulment. "inally, petitioners

asseverated that the assailed instruments, although e&euted on

*3 August 19D3, were registered only !ive years later, on 07

Eanuary 19DD, when the three parties thereto, namely, Eulian

iado, ilo iado and $eah iado Eao%s had already died.

Assessing the evidene %e!ore it, the trial ourt !ound !or

respondents and ad-udged Aliia iado and her hildren as %eing

the true owners o! the disputed property.

5n appeal, the Court o! Appeals a!!irmed the deision o! the trialourt with modi!iation %y ordering the remand o! the reords o!

the ase to the ourt a $uo !or !urther proeedings to determine

the value o! the property and the amount respondents should pay

to petitioner >elia iado !or having %een preterited in the deed o!

e&tra-udiial settlement.

)etitioners are now %e!ore the Supreme Court to see the

reversal o! the deision o! the Court o! Appeals.

'he appellate ourt ruled orretly.

8hen irginia ). iado died intestate in 19D*, her part o! the

on-ugal property, the #sarog property in (uestion inluded, wastransmitted to her heirs I her hus%and Eulian and their hildren

ilo iado, Re%ea iado, $eah iado and >elia iado. 'he

inheritane, whih vested !rom the moment o! death o! the

deedent,1remained under a o:ownership regime*among the

heirs until partition.3very at intended to put an end to indivision

among o:heirs and legatees or devisees would %e a partition

although it would purport to %e a sale, an e&hange, a

ompromise, a donation or an e&tra-udiial settlement. 6

#n de%uning the ontinued e&istene o! a o:ownership among

the parties hereto, respondents rely on the deed o! donation and

deed o! e&tra-udiial settlement whih onsolidated the title solely

to ilo iado. )etitioners assail the due e&eution o! the

douments on the grounds hereto!ore e&pressed.

;n!ortunately !or petitioners, the issues they have raised %oil

down to the appreiation o! the evidene, a matter that has %een

resolved %y %oth the trial ourt and the appellate ourt. 'he Court

o! Appeals, in sustaining the ourt a $uo, has !ound the evidene

su%mitted %y petitioners to %e utterly wanting, onsisting o!, %y

and large, sel!:serving testimonies. 8hile asserting that ilo iado

employed !raud, !orgery and undue in!luene in prouring the

signatures o! the parties to the deeds o! donation and o!

e&tra-udiial settlement, petitioners are vague, however, on how

and in what manner those supposed vies ourred. either have

petitioners shown proo! why Eulian iado should %e held

inapa%le o! e&erising su!!iient -udgment in eding his rights andinterest over the property to ilo iado. 'he asseveration o!

petitioner Re%ea iado that she has signed the de

e&tra-udiial settlement on the mistaen %elie! that th

merely pertained to the administration o! the property

tenuous to aept. #t is also (uite di!!iult to %elieve th

iado, a teaher %y pro!ession, ould have misunder

tenor o! the assailed doument.

'he !at alone that the two deeds were registered !iv

the date o! their e&eution did not adversely a!!et th

would suh irumstane alone %e indiative o! !raud

registration o! the douments was a ministerial at+

areated a onstrutive notie o! its ontents against a

persons.Among the parties, the instruments remain

ompletely valid and %inding.

'he e&lusion o! petitioner >elia iado, alleged to %e

!rom the deed o! e&tra-udiial settlement verily has ha

o! preterition. 'his ind o! preterition, however, in the

proo! o! !raud and %ad !aith, does not -usti!y a ollate

'rans!er Certi!iate o! 'itle o. 3736. 'he relie!, as

pointed out %y the Court o! Appeals, instead rests on

o! the Civil Code to the e!!et that where the preteritio

attended %y %ad !aith and !raud, the partition shall no

resinded %ut the preterited heir shall %e paid the val

share pertaining to her. Again, the appellate ourt haproperly in ordering the remand o! the ase !or !urthe

proeedings to mae the proper valuation o! the isaro

and asertainment o! the amount due petitioner >elia

iado.1wphi1.n/t

8

Wills Partition

Documents

Transcript of Wills Partition