Professional Documents
Culture Documents
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Since Evarista
died ahead of her brother Francisco, the latter inherited a portion of the
FACTS:
Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate, without issue and left (5)
parcels of land. At the time of her death, Evarista was survived by three
sets of heirs.
On April 20, 1989, the three sets of heirs of the decedent, executed
an extrajudicial settlement, adjudicating the properties of Evarista to them,
each set with a share of (1/3) pro-indiviso. Joselito P. Dela Merced,
illegitimate son of the late Francisco, filed a "Petition for Annulment of the
Extrajudicial and prayed that he be included to share in the (1/3) proindiviso share in the estate of corresponding to the heirs of Francisco.
ISSUE:
Verona kilario vs CA
DOCTRINE:It is not required that partition among heirs be in writing and
registered in order to be valid. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to third persons who might have interest on the said
property. Thus, it follows that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed
with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are
involved.
FACTS: Silverio Pada filed an ejectment case against the spouses Ricardo
and Verona Kilario. TheKilarios occupy a portion of the intestate estate of
Jacinto Pada, grandfather of Silverio and have been living there since 1960
by sheer tolerance. Upon the death of Jacinto Pada, his heirs entered into
extrajudicial partition of his estate in 1951. As a result thereof, Lot 5581
was allocated to Ananias and Marciano who became co-owners of the said
lot. Ananias died and his daughter succeeded in his right as co-owner.
Eventually, Juanita sold her right in the co-ownership to Engr. Paderes.
Maria, Marcianos heir, on the other hand, sold her share to her cousin
respondent Silverio Pada. The latter demanded spouses Kilario to vacate
the lot for their use but the spouses Kilario refused. On June 1995, a
complaint for ejectmentwas filed against the spouses Kilario. On July 1995
a deed of donation in their favor wasexecuted by heirs of Amador Pada.
ISSUE: Whether or not the partition was valid YES
HELD: The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his
heirs made in 1951 is VALID, even if executed in an unregistered private
document. It is not required that partition among heirs be in writing and
registered in order to be valid. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to third persons who might have interest on the said
property. Thus, it follows that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed
with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are
involved. Without creditors to take into consideration, it is competent for
the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution thereof in
a manner and upon a plan different from those provided by the rules from
which, in the first place, nothing can be inferred that a writing or other
formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The partition of inherited
MANG-OY VS CA
G.R. 144 SCRA 35
FACTS:
Old Tumpao begot 3 children (respondents) with his first wife. Upon her
death, he took himself a second wife but without issues. However she had
adopted 2 children according to the practice of Igorots. On September 4,
1937, Old Tumpao executed what he called last will and testament which
were read to and thumb mark affixed by all of the beneficiaries who at the
time were already occupying the portions respectively allotted to them.
After the death of Old Tumpao, the parties remained to be in possession of
the lots assign to them which was in accordance of the wishes of old
Tumpao which was also agreed upon by the parties in a public document.
On November 4, 1960, respondents executed an extra-judicial partition in
which they divided the property of Old Tumpao among the three of them
only. Petitioners sued for reconveyance , sustained by trial court but
reversed by CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will and testament of Old Tumpao be duly
allowed even without being proved in the court
RULING:
In accordance with the rules of court, no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved or allowed in court.
However the document maybe sustained by art 1056 of the Old Civil Code
which was the law in force at the time the document was made. The law
says: If the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act
inter vivors, or by will such partition shall stand in so far as it does not
prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs.
Such partition is not governed by the rules of wills or donation inter vivos,
which is a consequence of its special nature. Thus, the last will and
testament of Old Tumpao is sustained by the provision of Art 1056, Old
Civil Code, which became a binding law when the beneficiaries, parties
herein, agreed and confirmed with the disposition made by Old Tumpao.
CHAVEZ v. IAC
GR No. L-68282, November 8, 1990
ISSUE: Is partition inter-vivos, and sale based on such partition valid? Does
a last will supercede that of the partition inter-vivos?
The Heirs of Nilo and Rebecca lived on such property until they had a
dispute on how such land should be divided to accomodate the
growing kids.
3.
Heirs of Nilo won in RTC and CA, even though Rebecca contested the
document's registration only after 5 years after execution. Rebecca
also said that since the Extrajudicial settlement did not include Delia, a
retardant, it should be void for preterition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not such preterition makes the extrajudicial settlement void.
RULING + RATIO:
1. No. It does not avoid it.
The Court held that absent any fraud or bad faith, preterition of their
sister Delia does not avoid the otherwise valid extrajudicial settlement,
since such extrajudicial settlement already lead to the issuance of TCT
in favor of the Heirs of Nilo.