Partition & Legal Redemption Case Digests

XXVI. PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE

DIZON-RIVERA vs. DIZON 33 SCRA 554 FACTS: The testatrix distributed her properties to her heirs. It turns out that some of the heirs were prejudiced of their e!itime because the propert" actua " !i#en to them were not approximate to their correct e!itime. So these heirs wanted that to comp ete their ri!htfu share certain other properties shou d be !i#en to them. RULING: $ut it is #er" c ear in the wi of the testatrix that she wanted to !i#e certain properties to certain persons and those dispositions or those persons shou d be respected. If the e!itime or the ri!htfu shares of the other heirs are prejudiced% then that shou d be comp eted b" the de i#er" of cash in accordance with the wishes of the testator. 1 CA erred in den"in! probate to the wi of 3on -esus dated 2o#ember /4% /&5&, it erred in ho din! that 3on -esus bein! a part" to the extrajudicia partition of /&4& was contractua " bound b" the pro#isions thereof and hence cou d not re#o9e his participation therein b" the simp e expedience of ma9in! a new wi with contrar" pro#isions or dispositions. It is an error because the so1ca ed extrajudicia partition of /&4& is #oid and inoperati#e as a partition, neither is it a #a id or enforceab e contract because it in#o #ed future inheritance, it ma" on " be !i#en effect as a donation inter #i#os of specific properties to the heirs made b" the parents. 1 )pon carefu examination of the pro#isions of the ho o!raphic wi and codici of 3o4a Tina"% there was no indication whatsoe#er that 3o4a Tina" express " or imp ied " instituted both the husband and her chi dren as heirs to her free portion of her share in the conju!a assets. 1 Respondents insist that 3on -esus was bound b" the extrajudicia partition of 2o#ember '5% /&4& and had in fact conformed to said 7artition b" ma9in! a ho o!raphic wi and codici with exact " the same pro#isions as those of 3o4a Tina"% which CA sustained. =owe#er SC ru ed that 3on -esus was not fore#er bound thereb" for his pre#ious ho o!raphic wi and codici as such% wou d remain re#o9ab e at his discretion. Art. ?'? of the new Ci#i Code is c ear: @A wi ma" be re#o9ed b" the testator at an" time before his death. An" wai#er or restriction of this ri!ht is #oid.@ There can be no restriction that ma" be made on his abso ute freedom to re#o9e his ho o!raphic wi and codici pre#ious " made. This wou d sti ho d true e#en if such pre#ious wi had as in the case at bar already been probated 1 The e!itimes of the forced heirs were eft unimpaired% as in fact% not one of said forced heirs c aimed or intimated otherwise. The properties that were disposed of in the contested wi be on!ed who " to 3on -esus A suaAs free portion and ma" be diamond of b" him to whomsoe#er he ma" choose. 1 If he now fa#ored 5rancesca more% as c aimed b" pri#ate respondents% or 7ab o as in fact he was% <e cannot and ma" not sit in jud!ment upon the moti#es and sentiments of 3on -esus in doin! so.

ALSUA-BETTS v CA (BUENVIAJE AND ALSUA) &' SCRA 33' ()*RR*R+, -u " 3.% /&0&
NATURE Appea b" certiorari FACTS 1 +n 2o#ember '5% /&4&% 3on -esus A sua and his wife% 3o4a 5 orentina Re a% both of 6i!ao% A ba"% to!ether with a their i#in! chi dren% 5rancisca A sua1$etts% 7ab o A sua% 5ernando A sua thru this judicia !uardian C oti de Samson% and Amparo A sua de $uen#iaje% entered into a du " notari8ed a!reement% Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial % o#er the then present and existin! properties of the spouses 3on -esus and 3o4a 5 orentina. 1 +n -an. 5% /&55% 3on -esus and 3oa 5 orentina% a so 9nown as 3o4a Tina" separate " executed their respecti#e ho o!raphic wi s% the pro#isions of which were in conformit" and in imp ementation of the extrajudicia partition of 2o#. '5% /&4&. 1 +n Au!./4% /&5:% the spouses 3on -esus and 3o4a Tina" executed their mutua and reciproca codici s amendin! and supp ementin! their respecti#e ho o!raphic wi s. +n 5eb. /&% /&50% their respecti#e ho o!raphic wins and the codici s thereto were du " admitted to probate. 1 3o4a Tina" died in +ctober /&5&. In ear " 2o#. /&5&% 3on -esus cance ed his ho o!raphic and instructed his attorne" to draft a new wi . This subse;uent ast <i and Testament of 3on -esus executed on 2o#. /4% /&5& contained an express re#ocation of his ho o!raphic wi! of -an. 5% /&55 and the codici of Au!./4% /&5:, a statement re;uirin! that a of his properties donated to his chi dren in the 3eed of /&4& be co ated and ta9en into account in the partition of his estate, the institution of a his chi dren as de#isees and e!atees to certain specific properties, a statement be;ueathin! the rest of his properties and a that ma" be ac;uired in the future% before his death% to 7ab o and 5rancesca, and a statement namin! 5rancesca as executrix without bond. 1 3on -esus A sua died in /&:4. 7etitioner 5rancisca A sua $etts% as the executrix named in the wi of 2o#. /4% /&5&% fi ed a petition for the probate of said new wi of 3on -esus A sua before the C5I A ba" and was doc9eted as. +ppositions thereto were fi ed b" respondents 7ab o% Amparo and 5ernando. C5I a owed the the probate of the wi of 3on -esus A sua. CA re#ersed: denied the probate of the wi % dec ared nu and #oid the two sa es subject of the comp aint and ordered the defendants1petitioners% to pa" dama!es to the p aintiffs1pri#ate respondents. =ence% this petition. ISSUE <+2 CA erred in den"in! the probate of the wi HELD >*S

DIMAYUGA v CA /'& SCRA //. AB)I2+, Apri 3.% /&?4

FACTS (enaro 3ima"u!a is married to Se!unda (a"apanao in /&/5 ac;uired a Torrens tit e for that homestead in /&'?. Se!unda died intestate in /&4.% sur#i#ed b" her son% Canue % and her husband% (enaro. 3urin! their marria!e% (enaro had a mistress named *merenciana 7an!aniban b" whom he be!ot fi#e chi dren% named 5i omeno% 7acita% Ade aida% Remedios and Socorro. A sixth chi d% 2e ia 3ima"u!a% was born in /&44 or after Se!undaAs death *merenciana cu ti#ated a homestead adjoinin! the thirteen1hectare homestead in ;uestion. So% it was not surprisin! that she became the paramour of (enaro. (enaro% 5:% married *merenciana% 30% on 5ebruar" ':% /&40. That marria!e e!itimated 2e ia% who had been a du " ac9now ed!ed natura chi d% but it did not impro#e the status of her brother and four sisters who were adu terous or spurious chi dren. +n September /:% /&4?% or about a month before (enaroAs death a @partition of rea propert"@ was executed in *n! ish. It was du " notari8ed. It was si!ned b" (enaro% Canue % 5i omeno and 7acita and thumbmar9ed b" *merenciana% in representation of her minor chi dren Ade aida% Remedios% Socorro and 2e ia D*xh. AE% thou!h *merenciana had not been appointed judicia !uardian of their propert". In that partition% which the petitioners a so re!ard as a donation% (enaro treated the homestead as his so e propert" and not conju!a % which it actua " was. Canue was e#en as share fi#e and one1ha f hectares of the homestead Dsouthern portion adjoinin! *merencianaAs separate homesteadE. The six i e!itimate chi dren were !i#en se#en and se#en1tenth hectares Dnorthern portion a so adjoinin! *merencianaAs separate homesteadE. The partition was not re!istered. 2ineteen "ears ater% or on Ca" '?% /&0.% Canue ha#in! been ad#ised that the entire homestead was inherited b" him from his parents and freed from his fatherAs mora ascendanc"% executed an affida#it of adjudication which he re!istered. =e obtained a Torrens tit e for the thirteen1hectare homestead. About two months ater% the six i e!itimate chi dren fi ed a comp aint for the annu ment of Canue As tit e and for the di#ision of the homestead e;ua " amon! (enaroAs se#en chi dren inc udin! Canue . The tria court annu ed Canue As tit e% decreed that about one1ha f of the homestead shou d be di#ided e;ua " amon! the six i e!itimate chi dren and ordered Canue to pa" them 7'%5.. as mora and exemp ar" dama!es and attorne"As fees. Canue appea ed to the Court of Appea s which adjudicated to him three1fourth of the homestead and the other one1 fourth to 2e ia. The six i e!itimate chi dren appea ed to the SC. ISSUE

Partition & Legal Redemption Case Digests

<+2 Canue shou d be awarded three1fourth of the homestead and on " one1fourth to 2e ia HELD >es. 2o portion of the homestead% a re!istered and% ma" be ac;uired b" prescription. @2o tit e to re!istered and in dero!ation to that of the re!istered owner sha be ac;uired b" prescription or ad#erse possession.@ Ar !"#$ %&'( )* +$ )#, C!v!# C),$ -r)v!,$s +. /!* +$ $s . )r s+)0#, 1.2$ . -.r ! !)3 )* +!s -r)-$r 4 54 .3 ." !3 $r v!v)s6 )r 54 7!##6 s0"+ -.r ! !)3 s+.## s .3, !3s)*.r6 .s ! ,)$s 3) -r$80,!"$ +$ #$9! !1$ )* +$ *)r"$, +$!rs./ Ar !"#$ %&'( 7.s ")3s r0$, ) 1$.3 +. . -$rs)3 7+) 1.2$s .3 !3 $r v!v)s -.r ! !)3 10s *!rs $:$"0 $ . 7!##. I* +$ 7!## !s v)!,6 +$ -.r ! !)3 !s v)!,. ;! + 1)r$ r$.s)3 7)0#, +$ -.r ! !)3 5$ v)!, !* +$r$ 7.s 3) 7!##. T+$ %<=> -.r ! !)3 7.s 3) !3 ")3*)r1! 4 7! + #.7. It assumed that (enaro was the owner of the entire homestead which is wron!. +ne1ha f of the homestead% subject to the husbandAs usufructuar" e!itime% was inherited in /&4. b" Canue upon the death of his mother who was married to (enaro for twent"1fi#e "ears. (enaro cou d dispose b" an act inter #i#os on " one1ha f of the homestead. In that one1ha f portion% Canue and 2e ia% as (enaroAs e!a and forced heirs% had a two1third e!itime. In @donatin!@ the said one1ha f portion to his six i e!itimate chi dren% (enaro depri#ed Canue of his e!itime in his estate or% in effect% made him renounce his future inheritance. The /&5/ affida#it cannot be construed as a repudiation of his inheritance in his fatherAs estate because the document does not ha#e that tenor. 5or this reason% Canue is not estopped to i!nore that partition. The ru e in A for;ue #s. Fe oso% :5 7hi . '0'% cited b" the petitioners% does not app " to Canue . The facts in the A for;ue case are radica " different from the facts of the instant homestead case. The fi#e i e!itimate chi dren Dthe sixth chi d 2e ia was e!itimatedE ha#e no ri!hts whatsoe#er to the said homestead. As a read" said% the" were adu terous or spurious chi dren. As such% the" are not entit ed to successiona ri!hts but on " to support DArt. /3&% o d Ci#i CodeE Canue and 2e ia% as (enaroAs e!a and forced heirs% are entit ed to inherit (enaroAs one1ha f portion. It cannot be said that the fi#e adu terous chi dren ha#e no resources whatsoe#er. Their mother% *merenciana% has a homestead adjoinin! (enaroAs homestead in ;uestion. HELD %. YES. 1 In re#ersin! the tria court% the respondent court dec ared that the notice re;uired b" the said artic e was written notice and citin! the De Conejero v. Court of Appeals app ied b" the tria court% the respondent court he d that that decision% interpretin! a i9e ru e in Artic e /:'3% stressed the need for written notice a thou!h no particu ar form was re;uired. - Butte v. Uy: emphasi8ed that the written notice shou d be !i#en b" the #endor and not the #endees% conformab " to a simi ar re;uirement under Artic e /:'3.' ?. YES. !e Court in t!is case "ade an exception to t!e rule establis!ed in t!e cases of De Conejero and Butte. 1 The Court he d that the petition appears to be an i ustration of the =o mes dictum that @hard cases ma9e bad aws@ as the petitioners ob#ious " cannot ar!ue a!ainst the fact that there was rea " no written notice !i#en b" the #endors to their co1heirs. Strict " app ied and interpreted% Artic e /.?? can ead to on " one conc usion% to wit% that in #iew of such deficienc"% the 3. da" period for redemption had not be!un to run% much ess expired in /&00. 1 It stated that jud!es are not automatons. The" must not unfee in! " app " the aw as it is worded% "ie din! i9e robots to the itera command without re!ard to its cause and conse;uence. <hi e the Court ma" not read into the aw a purpose that is not there% it ne#erthe ess has the ri!ht to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In doin! so% it defers not to @the etter that 9i eth@ but to @the spirit that #i#ifieth%@ to !i#e effect to the aw ma9erAs wi . 1 In re;uirin! written notice% Artic e /.?? see9s to ensure that the redemptioner is proper " notified of the sa e and to indicate the date of such notice as the startin! time of the 3.1da" period of redemption. Considerin! the shortness of the period% it is rea " necessar"% as a !enera ru e% to pinpoint the precise date it is supposed to be!in% to ob#iate an" prob em of a e!ed de a"s% sometimes consistin! of on " a da" or two. 1 The instant case presents no such prob em because the ri!ht of redemption was in#o9ed not days but years after the sa es were made in /&:3 and /&:4. The comp aint was fi ed b" Tec a 7adua in /&00% /3 "ears after the first sa e and /4 "ears after the second sa e. The de a" in#o9ed b" the petitioners extends to more than a decade% assumin! of course that there was a #a id notice that to ed the runnin! of the period of redemption. 1 The Court ru ed that in the face of the estab ished facts% it cannot accept the pri#ate respondentsA pretense that the" were unaware of the sa es made b" their brother and sister in /&:3 and /&:4. $" re;uirin! written proof of such notice% it wou d be c osin! its e"es to the ob#ious truth in fa#or of their pa pab " fa se c aim of i!norance% thus exa tin! the etter of the aw o#er its purpose. The purpose is c ear enou!h: to ma9e sure that the redemptioners are du " notified. The Court was satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters were actua " informed% a thou!h not in writin!% of the sa es made in /&:3 and /&:4% and that such notice was sufficient. 1 <hi e the Court did not dec are that the period of redemption started from the dates of such sa es in /&:3 and /&:4% it did sa" that sometime between those "ears and /&0:% when the first comp aint for redemption was fi ed% the other co1 heirs were actua " informed of the sa e and that thereafter the 3.1da" period started runnin! and u timate " expired. This cou d ha#e happened an" time durin! the inter#a of thirteen "ears% when none of the co1heirs made a mo#e to redeem the properties so d. $" /&00% in other words% when Tec a 7adua fi ed her comp aint% the ri!ht of redemption had a read" been extin!uished because the period for its exercise had a read" expired. 1 <hi e the !enera ru e is% that to char!e a part" with aches in the assertion of an a e!ed ri!ht it is essentia that he shou d ha#e 9now ed!e of the facts upon which he bases his c aim% "et if the circumstances were such as shou d ha#e induced in;uir"% and the means of ascertainin! the truth were readi " a#ai ab e upon in;uir"% but the part" ne! ects to ma9e it% he wi be char!eab e with aches% the same as if he had 9nown the facts. 1 It was the perfect " natura thin! for the co1heirs to wonder wh" the spouses A on8o% who were not amon! them% shou d enc ose a portion of the inherited ot and bui d thereon a house of stron! materia s. This definite " was not the act of a temporar" possessor or a mere mort!a!ee. This certain " oo9ed i9e an act of ownership. >et% !i#en this unseem "

ALONZO V IAC /5. SCRA 5/0 CR)G, Ca" '?% /&?0

FACTS 1 5 brothers and sisters inherited in e;ua pro indiviso shares a parce of and re!istered in the name of their deceased parents. 1 Carch /5% /&:3: one of them% Ce estino 7adua% transferred his undi#ided share to petitioners b" wa" of abso ute sa e. 1 Apri ''% /&:4: *usta;uia 7adua% his sister% so d her own share to the same #endees% in an instrument denominated @Con 7acto de Retro Sa e.@ 1 $" #irtue of such a!reements% the petitioners occupied% after the said sa es% an area correspondin! to 'H5 of the said ot% representin! the portions so d to them. The #endees subse;uent " enc osed the same with a fence. In /&05% with their consent% their son *duardo A on8o and his wife bui t a semi1concrete house on a part of the enc osed area. 1 5ebruar" '5% /&0:: Cariano 7adua% one of the fi#e coheirs% sou!ht to redeem the area so d to the spouses A on8o% but his comp aint was dismissed when it appeared that he was an American citi8en . 1 Ca" '0% /&00: Tec a 7adua% another co1heir% fi ed her own comp aint in#o9in! the same ri!ht of redemption c aimed b" her brother. 1 The tria court dismiss the comp aint on the !round that the ri!ht had apsed /% not ha#in! been exercised within thirt" da"s from notice of the sa es in /&:3 and /&:4. A thou!h there was no written notice% it was he d that actual 9now ed!e of the sa es b" the co1heirs satisfied the re;uirement of the aw. ISSUES /. <+2 the notice re;uired in Artic e /.?? is written notice. '. <+2 the ri!ht of redemption in this case had apsed in spite of the absence of written notice.
1

Art. /:'3. The ri!ht of e!a pre1emption or redemption sha not be exercised except within thirt" da"s from the notice in writin! b" the prospecti#e #endor% or b" the #endors% as the case ma" be. The deed of sa e sha not be recorded in the Re!istr" of 7ropert"% un ess accompanied b" an affida#it of the #endor that he has !i#en written notice thereof to a possib e redemptioners. The ri!ht of redemption of co1owners exc udes that of the adjoinin! owners.

Art. /.??. Shou d an" of the heirs se his hereditar" ri!hts to a stran!er before the partition% an" or a of the co1heirs ma" be subro!ated to the ri!hts of the purchaser b" reimbursin! him for the price of the sa e% pro#ided the" do so within the period of one month from the time the" were notified in writin! of the sa e b" the #endor.

Partition & Legal Redemption Case Digests

situation% none of the co1heirs saw fit to object or at east in;uire% to ascertain the facts% which were readi " a#ai ab e. It too9 a of t!irteen "ears before one of them chose to c aim the ri!ht of redemption% but then it was a read" too ate. 1 The Court stated that in arri#in! at the abo#ementioned conc usion% it is de#iatin! from the strict etter of the aw% which the respondent court understandab " app ied pursuant to existin! jurisprudence. The said court acted proper " as it had no competence to re#erse the doctrines aid down b" this Court in the abo#e1cited cases. The Court c ear " stressed that it was not abandonin! the 3e Conejero and $utte doctrines. A it did was simp " adoptin! an exception to the !enera ru e% in #iew of the pecu iar circumstances of this case. 1The co1heirs in this case were undeniab " informed of the sa es a thou!h no notice in writin! was !i#en them. And there is no doubt either that the 3.1da" period be!an and ended durin! the /4 "ears between the sa es in ;uestion and the fi in! of the comp aint for redemption in /&00% without the co1heirs exercisin! their ri!ht of redemption. These are the justifications for this exception. HELD 2+ RATIO Artic e /.?. of the 2ew Ci#i Code a ows a person to ma9e a partition of his estate either b" an act inter vivos or b" wi and such partition sha be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the e!itimate of the compu sor" heirs. <hi e the aw prohibits contracts upon future inheritance% the partition b" the parent% as pro#ided in Art. /.?.% is a case express " authori8ed b" aw DArt. /340% par. '% Ci#i CodeE. Art. /.?. of the Ci#i Code c ear " !i#es a person two options in ma9in! a partition of his estate, either b" an act inter vivos or b" <I66. <hen a person ma9es a partition b" wi % it is imperati#e that such partition must be executed in accordance with the pro#isions of the aw on wi s, howe#er% when a person ma9es the partition of his estate b" an act inter vivos% such partition ma" e#en be ora or written% and need not be in the form of a wi % pro#ided that the partition does not prejudice the e!itime of compu sor" heirs. In numerous cases it has been he d or stated that paro partitions ma" be sustained on the !round of estoppe of the parties to assert the ri!hts of a tenant in common as to parts of and di#ided b" paro partition as to which possession in se#era t" was ta9en and acts of indi#idua ownership were exercised. And a court of e;uit" wi reco!ni8e the a!reement and decree it to be #a id and effectua for the purpose of conc udin! the ri!ht of the parties as between each other to ho d their respecti#e parts in se#era t". A paro partition ma" a so be sustained on the !round that the parties thereto ha#e ac;uiesced in and ratified the partition b" ta9in! possession in se#era t"% exercisin! acts of ownership with respect thereto% or otherwise reco!ni8in! the existence of the partition. REASONING In the instant case% the respondent appe ate court dec ared the 3eeds of Sa e executed b" 7resentacion% 5 oserfina and Ra;ue % a surnamed Cha#e8 in fa#or of Concepcion Cha#e8 as e#idence of a #a id partition of the and in ;uestion b" and between Canue a $uena#ista and her chi dren as she not on " !a#e her authorit" thereto but a so si!ned the sa es. The 3eeds of Sa e are not contracts entered into with respect to feature inheritance but a contract perfected and consummated durin! the ifetime of Canue a $uena#ista who si!ned the same and !a#e her consent thereto. Such partition inter vivos% executed b" the propert" owner herse f% is #a id. .... As the defendants free " participated in the partition% the" are now estopped from den"in! and repudiatin! the conse;uences of their own #o untar" acts. It is a !enera princip e of aw that no one ma" be permitted to disa#ow and !o bac9 upon his own acts% or to proceed contrar" thereto. D-oa;uin #s. Citsumine 34 7hi . ?5?.E

CHAVEZ v IAC /&/ SCRA '// (ri4o1A;uino, 2o#ember ?. /&&.

NATURE This is a petition for re#iew on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appe ate Court which D/E annu ed the sa e made b" Canue a $uena#ista of her propert" in fa#or of the spouses Ra;ue Cha#e8 and (erardo (imene8 and the subse;uent sa e b" said spouses of the same propert" to 7epito 5errer% and D'E dec ared that the ear ier deeds of sa e si!ned b" Canue a and her chi dren constituted a #a id partition of the and% subject to her ifetime usufruct. FACTS The and in ;uestion is the parapherna propert" of 7etitioner Canue $uena#ista who had six D:E chi dren% named Antonio% Rosario% Concepcion% Ra;ue % 7resentacion and 5 oserpina. The first three were the p aintiffs and the ast three% with their mother% were the defendants in Ci#i Case 2o. /&34. 7resentacion Cha#e8% with the conformit" of her mother% Canue a $uena#ista% executed a deed of sa e whereb" she so d her /H: undi#ided share of the and in ;uestion to her sister% Concepcion Cha#e8% for 7 45.. Two "ears ater% on Ca" '% /&:.% 5 oserpina Cha#e8% with the conformit" of her mother% a so so d her /H: undi#ided share of the same and to her sister% Concepcion% for the same price of 745.. Ra;ue % with the conformit" of her mother% i9ewise so d her undi#ided /H: share of the same propert" to Concepcion Cha#e8 for 7:... =a#in! ac;uired the shares of 7resentacion% 5 oserpina and Ra;ue % Concepcion thereb" became the owner of a tota undi#ided 4H: share of the and in ;uestion with Antonio and Rosario as owners of the remainin! 'H: shares. In a the documents% there was a stipu ation that the owner% Canue a $uena#ista% had assi!ned or distributed to her chi dren% in e;ua pro1indi#iso shares% her parapherna propert" situated at Sitio 6an!as% $arrio Ca an!cawan 2orte% Fin8ons% Camarines 2orte% with an area of 4.//:3 hectares more or ess under Tax 3ec aration 2o. &3.3 and assessed at 7/%:3..... The owner% howe#er% reser#ed for herse f the possession of the and and the enjo"ment of the fruits durin! her ifetime. 3espite the transfers or assi!nments her chi dren had executed with her conformit" ten "ears ear ier% Canue a $uena#ista% si!ned a @$i ihan! 7atu u"an n! 6upa@ of the entire propert" in fa#or of her dau!hter% Ra;ue Cha#e8% and her husband% (erardo -imene8. Antonio% Rosario and Concepcion fi ed Ci#i Case 2o. /&34 a!ainst their mother Canue a and their sister Ra;ue . Thereupon% Canue a so d the entire propert" to 7epito 5errer with ri!ht to repurchase. 5errer was ater sued as an additiona defendant in Ci#i Case 2o. /&34. -ud!ment was rendered b" the tria court dismissin! the comp aint% disso #in! the pre iminar" injunction it had pre#ious " issued% and orderin! the p aintiffs to pa" the costs. The court did not award dama!es. Court of Appea s re#ersed the tria court dec arin! the deeds of sa e in fa#or of Ra;ue Cha#e8 and (erardo -imene8 and the sa e in fa#or of defendant1appe ee 7epito 5errer as nu and #oid ab initio# and dec arin! further that the documents are e#idence of a #a id partition of the and in ;uestion b" and between Canue a $uena#ista and her chi dren% subject to her ri!ht of usufruct durin! her ifetime. 7etitioners fi ed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. ISSUE <+2 the IAC erred in dec arin! #a id the deeds of sa e as a partition b" an act inter vivos considerin! that examinin! the said exhibits wi re#ea that it is not a testament amountin! to a will of Canue a $uena#ista

BAUTISTA v GRI@O-AAUINO /:: SCRA 0:. (A2CA>C+, +ctober '?% /&??

FACTS 7etitioners instituted an action in the Court of 5irst Instance of Ri8a to dec are the deed of extrajudicia partition% deed of abso ute sa e% Transfer Certificates Tit e 2os. /4/?'% /4/?: and /5::5 a of Re!istr" of 3eeds of 7asa" Cit" and Tax 3ec aration 2o. 5/40% nu and #oid. $ased on the parties stipu ation of facts: The and in ;uestion was re!istered in the name of petitioner Canue $autista under TCT 2o. ''/.% and the atter inherited this and from his father% Cariano $autista. +n 3ec. ''% /&::% a 3eed of *xtrajudicia 7artition was executed. 7ri#ate respondents were si!natories to the deed% and the si!nature of petitioner Canue $autista was supposed to appear in that document% a thou!h petitioner Canue $autista denied ha#in! si!ned that *xtrajudicia 7artition. )pon re!istration of the 3eed of *xtrajudicia 7artition% T.C.T. 2o. ''/. was cance ed and in ieu thereof% T.C.T.T. /4/?' was issued. The pri#ate respondents% with the exception of Cano ito $autista% executed a 3eed of Abso ute Sa e in fa#or of Cano ito $autista of that propert". )pon re!istration of the 3eed of Sa e% T.C.T. T1/4/?' was cance ed and in ieu thereof% T.C.T. 2o. T1/4/?: was issued to Cano ito $autista. +n Au!ust 0% /&:&% Cano ito $autista executed a 3eed of Sa e in fa#or of the other pri#ate respondents and upon re!istration of said 3eed of Sa e% T. C.T. 2os. T1/ 5::5% T1/5:::% T1/5::0% T1/5::?% T1/5::&% T1 /5:0.% T1/5:0/% were issued to pri#ate respondents. 7etitioner Canue $autista married his second wife *mi iana Tama"o. Canue $autista and his second wife% *mi iana Tama"o% had on " a chi d% *#an!e ine $autista% born on Apri '&%/&4&. the propert" in ;uestion was the subject matter of extrajudicia partition of propert" on 3ecember ''%/&::% amon! the heirs of the ate -u iana 2ojadera% the first wife of Canue $autista. Canue $autista denied participation in the *xtrajudicia 7artition of

Partition & Legal Redemption Case Digests

7ropert". +n Au!ust /% /&04% a the parties a!reed to submit to the 2$I the ;uestioned si!nature of Canue $autista. The 2$I conc uded that the ;uestioned document was authentic. The tria court dismissed the comp aint with costs a!ainst p aintiffs. CA affirmed ISSUE <+2 the propert" of the sur#i#in! husband be the subject of an extrajudicia partition of the estate of the deceased wife HELD 2+ RATIO )nder Section /% Ru e 04 of the Ru es of Court an extrajudicia sett ement of the *state app ies on " to the estate left by t!e decedent who died without a wi % and with no creditors% and the heirs are a of a!e or the minors are represented b" their judicia or e!a representati#es. If the propert" does not be on! to the estate of the decedent certain " it cannot be the subject matter of an extrajudicia partition. As the subject propert" does not be on! to the estate of -u iana 2ojadera% the 3eed of *xtrajudicia 7artition% is void ab initio bein! contrar" to aw. To inc ude in an extrajudicia partition propert" which does not pertain to the estate of the deceased wou d be to depri#e the awfu owner thereof of his propert" without due process of aw. +n " propert" of the estate of the decedent which is transmitted b" succession can be the awfu subject matter of an extrajudicia partition. In this case% the said partition ob#ious " prejudices the ri!ht of Canue $autista as exc usi#e owner of the propert". The said partition a so effecti#e " resu ted in the preterition of the ri!ht of *#an!e ine $autista as a compu sor" heir of Canue $autista% dau!hter of the atter b" his second marria!e. It is difficu t to be ie#e that Canue $autista wou d wittin! " o#er oo9 and i!nore the ri!ht of her dau!hter *#an!e ine to share in the said propert". It is not surprisin! that he denied si!nin! the said document. Coreo#er% pri#ate respondents 9new *#an!e ine $autista who is their ha f1sister to be a compu sor" heir. The court finds that her preterition was attended with bad faith hence the said partition must be rescinded. The Court obser#es that after the execution of said extrajudicia partition and issuance of the tit e in their names% pri#ate respondents except Cano ito $autista in turn executed a deed of abso ute sa e of the propert" in fa#or of the atter in whose name the tit e was a so issued. And "et soon thereafter another deed of sa e was executed this time b" Cano ito $autista se in! bac9 the same propert" to pri#ate respondents in whose names the respecti#e tit es were thus subse;uent " issued. This series of transactions between and amon! pri#ate respondents is an indication of a c e#er scheme to p ace the propert" be"ond the reach of those awfu " entit ed thereto. Coreo#er% such extrajudicia partition cannot constitute a partition of the propert" durin! the ifetime of its owner% Canue $autista. 7artition of future inheritance is prohibited b" aw. B As said *xtrajudicia 7artition dated 3ecember ''% /&::% of propert" be on!in! exc usi#e " to petitioner Canue $autista% is nu and #oid ab initio it fo ows that a subse;uent transactions in#o #in! the same propert" between and amon! the pri#ate respondents are a so nu and #oid. 7rescription cannot be in#o9ed in this case as the petitionersA ri!ht to sue their co1owners for partition of the propert" is imprescriptib e. = And e#en assumin! that the present action ma" prescribe as ru ed b" the respondent court% petitioners *mi iana $autista and *#an!e ine $autista who are not parties to the said instrument asserted that the" disco#ered the same on " soon before the" fi ed the comp aint in court. Certain " the action has not prescribed. GARCIA vs. CALALIMAN Apri /0% /&?& FACTS: Respondents c aim that the 3.1da" period prescribed in Artic e /.?? for petitioners to exercise the ri!ht to e!a redemption had a read" e apsed and that the re;uirement of Artic e /.?? that notice must be in writin! is deemed satisfied because written notice wou d be superf uous% the purpose of the aw ha#in! been fu " ser#ed when petitioner (arcia went to the +ffice of the Re!ister of 3eeds and was for himse f% read and understood the contents of the 3eeds of Sa e. HELDC The Court too9 note of the fact that the re!istration of the deed of sa e as sufficient notice of sa e under the pro#ision of Section 5/ of Act 2o. 4&: app ies on " to re!istered ands and has no app ication whatsoe#er to a case where the propert" in#o #ed is unre!istered and. If the intention of the aw had been to inc ude #erba notice or na" other means of information as sufficient to !i#e the effect of this notice% then there wou d ha#e been no necessit" or reasons to specif" in Artic e /.?? that the said notice be made in writin! for% under the o d aw% a #erba notice or information was sufficient. In the interpretation of a re ated pro#ision DArtic e /:'3E written notice is indispensab e% actua 9now ed!e of the sa e ac;uired in some other manners b" the redemptioner% notwithstandin!. =e or she is sti entit ed to written notice% as exacted b" the Code% to remo#e a uncertaint" as to the sa e% its terms and its #a idit"% and to ;uiet an" doubt that the a ienation is not definiti#e. The aw not ha#in! pro#ided for an" a ternati#e method of notifications remains exc usi#e% thou!ht the Code does not prescribed an" particu ar form of written notice nor an" distincti#e method for written notification of redemption.