ARTICLE 1082

G.R. No. 65416

October 26, 1999

1.2.1

Yolanda Rozul

1.2.2

Pablita Rozul

1.2.3

Petrita Rozul

1.2.4

Lucia Rozul

1.2.5

Rosalina Rozul

2.

Maximino Crucillo

2.1

Carlomagno Crucillo

2.2

Maximino Crucillo, Jr.

2.3

Vicente Crucillo

3.

Perpetua Crucillo-Sarmiento

The facts that matter are as follows:

3.1

Nicasio Sarmiento

Balbino A. Crucillo was married to Juana Aure. They were blessed with eight (8)
children, namely, Elena, Maximino, Perpetua, Santiago, Adelaida, Miguel,
Rafael, and Vicente, all surnamed Crucillo.

3.2

Cipriano Sarmiento

3.3

Marcial Sarmiento

Balbino A. Crucillo died intestate in 1909. Juana Aure died on November 19,
1949. Balbino A. Crucillo left, among other things, two (2) parcels of
unregistered land situated at General Luna Street, Mendez-Nunez, Cavite, with
a total area of 1,998 square meters under Tax Declaration No.
376 2 of the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Cavite. He was survived by his
heirs, who became co-owners of the aforesaid lots and thereafter, entered into
the possession thereof.

3.4

Buenaventurada Sarmiento

4.

Santiago Crucillo

4.1

Conrado Crucillo

4.2

Lourdes Crucillo

It is worthy to note that when the present case was commenced below, the only
surviving children of Balbino A. Crucillo were Adelaida Crucillo, Miguel Crucillo,
and Rafael Crucillo. The other children above-named died, and were survived by
their respective heirs, to wit:

5.

Vicente Crucillo

5.1

Felicidad M. Crucillo (widow)

5.2

Nicolas Crucillo (son-now deceased)

5.3

Miguela C. Crucillo (widow of Nicolas)

CARLOMAGNO A. CRUCILLO, ADELAIDA C. PERENA, LUCIA ROZUL,

PRIMITIVA MENDOZA SUMAGUI, YOLANDA ROZUL, PABLITA ROZUL,
PETRITA ROZUL, ROSALINA ROZUL, MAXIMINO CRUCILLO, NICASIO
SARMIENTO, MARCIAL SARMIENTO, CIPRIANO SARMIENTO, CONRADO
CRUCILLO, LOURDES CRUCILLO, MIGUEL CRUCILLO, FELICIDAD
CRUCILLO, and MIGUELA CRUCILLO, petitioners,
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, LUCIO PERENA, RAFAEL A.
CRUCILLO, MIGUEL R. PERLADO, FELIX NOCEDA, BENITA GATPANDAN
NOCEDA, and THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF CAVITE, respondents.
PURISIMA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court seeking a reversal of the Resolution, 1 dated October 7, 1983, of the
former Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC-G.R. No. CV61084.

1.

Elena Crucillo-Mendoza

1.1

Primitiva Mendoza (daughter)

1.2

Lolita Mendoza-Rozul (daughter), deceased, with the following heirs:

Soon after the death of Balbino A. Crucillo, the following persons occupied and
possessed portions of subject parcels of land:

ARTICLE 1082

1.
Rafael Crucillo occupied and resided in the ancestral house erected on
a portion of subject lots;

at sa Kanluran, Kalye General Luna, sa libot ng bakod na bato at iba pang

matitibay na pananda sa panabi.

2.
Nicasio Sarmiento, son of Perpetua Crucillo Sarmiento, caused a
residential lot situated at Gen. Trias St., Mendez, Cavite, to be registered in his
name;

which parcel of land formed part of the estate of Balbino A. Crucillo.

3.
Miguel Crucillo possessed exclusively a residential lot situated at Gen.
Trias St., Mendez, Cavite;
4.
Vicente Crucillo, Buenaventurada Sarmiento (daughter of the deceased
Perpetua Crucillo-Sarmiento), and Atty. Conrado Crucillo (son of the deceased
Santiago Crucillo) owned in common an agricultural land situated in Sitio Niko,
Mendez, Cavite, covered by Tax Declaration No. 1179; 3
5.
The heirs of Elena Crucillo-Mendoza, Adelaida Crucillo, and Nicasio
Sarmiento owned in common an agricultural land in Pulong Munti, covered by
Tax Declaration No. 375; 4
6.
Buenaventurada Sarmiento and Vicente Crucillo owned in common
another property covered by Tax Declaration No. 663; 5
7.
Primitiva Mendoza possessed an agricultural land in Pulong Munti and
in Niko, Mendez, Cavite;
8.
Carlomagno Crucillo possessed an agricultural land situated in Sitio
Maykiling, Mendez, Cavite; and
9.
Miguel Crucillo occupied exclusively an agricultural land in Pulong Munti
and Ulo ng Bukal.
On March 28, 1969, respondent Rafael A. Crucillo executed and entered into a
"Patuluyang Bilihan Ng Isang Lagay Na Lupa" 6 with the co-respondents,
spouses Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan-Noceda, whereby Rafael A.
Crucillo, for the price of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, sold and
conveyed to the spouses Noceda a parcel of land more particularly described:
Isang lagay na lupang (solar) na may luang na APAT AT WALOMPONG (480)
metro cuadrados, humiguit kumulang (labing dalawang (12) metro and (sic)
haba simula sa linderong Ibaba hanggang Ilaya at apat na pung (40) metro and
haba simula sa kalye sa Kanluran hangang sa linderong Silangan) bahagui ng
isang lagay na lupang nasasaad sa Hoja Declaratoria Bilang 376 at kung
tuluyang mapahiwalay sa kalihon ay libot na mga sumusunod na karatig: Sa
Ibaba, lupang pagaari ni Adelaida Crucillo; sa Ilaya, Santiago Crucillo (ngayon,
Carlomagno Crucillo); sa Silangan, Crispin Llamado (ngayon, Simeon Manalo);

The spouses Noceda delivered the amount of P4,000.00 to Rafael A. Crucillo as

partial payment of the price agreed upon.
On April 15, 1969, the petitioner, Conrado Crucillo, wrote the Register of Deeds
of Cavite requesting the latter to hold in abeyance the registration of the said
land transaction for the reason that the same was done without the knowledge,
consent and authority of the co-owners of subject property and consequently,
null and void. 7 In connection therewith, petitioner Carlomagno Crucillo and
Anita Perena (daughter of petitioner Adelaida Crucillo) returned to respondents
Noceda the amount of P4,000.00 which the latter had partially paid to their corespondent, Rafael Crucillo.1wphi1.nt
Sometime in February 1971, respondent Rafael Crucillo presented to the office
of the Provincial Assessor of Cavite, Trece Martires City, Cavite, a "Kasulatan Sa
Partihang Labas sa Hukuman" 8 dated February 17, 1971, executed by and
between petitioners Primitiva Mendoza, Carlomagno Crucillo, Adelaida A.
Crucillo, and respondent Rafael Crucillo; dividing the estate into five (5) equal
parts with the following beneficiaries:
1.

Heirs of Elena A. Crucillo

2.

Heirs of Maximino Crucillo

3.

Adelaida A. Crucillo

4.

Rafael A. Crucillo

5.

Carlomagno A. Crucillo

On February 19, 1971, respondent Rafael A. Crucillo and the co-respondents

spouses, Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan-Noceda, executed a "Kasulatan
Sa Ganap Na Bilihan" 9 whereby Rafael A. Crucillo conveyed and sold to his
said co-respondents, for and in consideration of the sum of P25,000.00, a parcel
of land more particularly described as:
Isang lagay na lupa na nasa poblacion, munisipyo ng Mendez Nunez, Kabite,
may luang na DALAWANG DAAN AT APAT NA PU AT LIMANG (245) metros
cuadrados, humiguit kumulang nasasaad sa Hoja Declaratoria Bilang ___ at
libot ng mga sumusunod na karatig: Sa Ibaba, lupang pag-aari ni Adelaida A.
Crucillo; Sa Ilaya, Santiago A. Crucillo, ngayon ay Carlomagno A. Crucillo; sa

ARTICLE 1082

Silangan, Carlomagno A. Crucillo at sa Kanluran, Kalye General Trias, at libot ng

bakod na bato at iba pang buhay na bakod at mga panabi o hanganan.

plaintiff's failure to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise, as required by

Article 222 of the New Civil Code.

On February 23, 1971, the respondent Provincial Assessor of Cavite, by virtue of

the "Kasulatan sa Ganap na Bilihan" and "Kasulatan sa Partihang Labas sa
Hukuman", cancelled Tax Declaration No. 376 10 in the name of Balbino A.
Crucillo and issued in lieu thereof the following new tax declarations:

On May 4, 1972, when efforts to settle amicably failed, petitioners filed a

substantially similar Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-204, which
Complaint was amended on August 29, 1972 to implead as co-plaintiffs, the
petitioners, Felicidad Crucillo and Miguela Crucillo. 19

a.
Tax Declaration No. 5413 11 in the name of the heirs of Elena A.
Crucillo;

The petitioners, Primitiva Mendoza-Sumagui, Yolanda Rozul, Pablita Rozul,

Petrita Rozul, Lucia Rozul, Rosalina Rozul, Vicente Crucillo, Conrado Crucilio,
Lourdes Crucillo, Felicidad Crucillo, and Miguela Crucillo, were declared nonsuited for failure to attend the pre-trial conference on October 2, 1972.

b.
Tax Declaration No. 5414 12 in the name of the heirs of Maximino
Crucillo;
c.

Tax Declaration No. 5415 13 in the name of Adelaida A. Crucillo;

d.
Tax Declaration No. 5416 14 in the name of Carlomagno A. Crucillo,
married to Felicitas de Keyser; and

On October 31, 1975, after trial on the merits, the trial court came out with a
Decision, 20 disposing thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
a)

e.
Tax Declaration No. 5417 15 in the name of the Spouses Felix Noceda
and Benita Gatpandan Noceda.
Subsequently, the respondent spouses, Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan
Noceda, started possessing the property sold to them by Rafael Crucillo,
occupied the ancestral house standing on the property, and introduced
improvements thereon.

Declaring the Deed of Partition, Exh. "A", null and void;

b)
Declaring the defendants-spouses Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan
to be the true and lawful owners of the "ancestral house" and the lot upon which
it is erected, consisting of 249.75 square meters, more or less. Pursuant to Art.
1623 of the New Civil Code however, the plaintiffs are hereby given thirty (30)
days from notice to their counsel within which to exercise their right of legal
redemption;

On March 12, 1971, petitioner Carlomagno Crucillo's lawyer, Abraham

Sarmiento (later to become Associate Justice of this Supreme Court) wrote the
Provincial Assessor of Cavite, Trece Martires City, to request the latter to
withhold any future transactions on or transfers of the parcel of land covered by
Tax Declaration No. 5417 until the question of ownership of the land involved
shall have been settled by judicial adjudication. 16

c)
Declaring Tax Declaration Nos. 5413, 5414, 5415, 5416, and 5417 of
the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Cavite (Exhs. "C", "C-1" to "C-4") null
and void, and directing the Provincial Assessor of Cavite to cancel the same;

On August 14, 1971, the petitioners' counsel wrote respondent Felix Noceda,
asking the latter to "stop or refrain immediately from continuing any work or
construction which [you] may have started upon receipt of this letter" and to
"vacate the portion of land that you have occupied without the consent of all the
heirs of Balbino Crucillo . . . ." 17

1)
To the "Heirs of Elena Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area
of 249.75 sq.m., in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 6413;

On August 13, 1971, petitioners brought a complaint 18 against the respondents

for "Annulment of Extrajudicial Partition, Deed of Sale, and Tax Declaration Nos.
5413, 5414, 5415, 5416 and 5417 of the Office of the Provincial Assessor of
Cavite, with Damages", docketed as Civil Case No. TG-190, before Branch IV of
the defunct Court of First Instance of Cavite but the same was dismissed for

3)
To "Adelaida Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an area of 249.75
square meters, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5415;

d)
Directing the Provincial Assessor of Cavite to issue new Tax Declaration
in lieu of Tax Declarations No. 376 (Exh. "C-5"), as follows:

2)
To the "Heirs of Maximino Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an
area of 249.75 square meters in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5414;

4)
To "Carlomagno Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an area of
249.75 square meters, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5416;

ARTICLE 1082

5)
To the "Spouses Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan" for a parcel of
land containing an area of 249.75 square meters and the house erected
thereon, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5417;

3)
Appellees are hereby also directed to pay jointly and severally
appellants the sum of P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees and cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED.

6)
To the "Heirs of Vicente Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an area
of 249.75 square meters;
7)
To the "Heirs of Perpetua Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an
area of 249.75 square meters;

Private respondents presented a Motion for Reconsideration, dated June 21,

1983, of the said Decision of the appellate Court, and acting thereupon, the
appellate court resolved:

No pronouncement as to costs.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the decision of this Court on

May 24, 1983 is hereby set aside. Judgment is hereby rendered sustaining the
decision a quo declaring the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "B") valid and binding and
declaring the defendants-appellees Spouses Felix Noceda and Benita
Gatpandan to be the true and lawful owners of the ancestral house and lot upon
which it is erected consisting of 249.75 square meters more or less. Moreover,
plaintiffs-appellants have no right of legal redemption since it is not sanctioned
by law and evidence. Except for this modification, the judgment under appeal is
hereby affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

SO ORDERED. 22

The petitioners and respondents interposed Motions for Reconsideration on

January 7, 1976 and January 10, 1976 respectively, but the same were both
denied for lack of merit in the Order of September 30, 1976.

Undaunted, petitioners found their way to this Court via the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, theorizing
that:

On October 19, 1976, petitioners appealed the trial court Decision to the then
Intermediate Appellate Court which, in Decision 21 dated May 25, 1983,
modified the judgment of the trial court as follows:

8)
To "Miguel Crucillo" for a parcel of land containing an area of 249.75
square meters; all in accordance with the Sketch Plan (Exhs. "X" and "Y");
e)

Dismissing plaintiffs second and third causes of action;

f)

Dismissing defendant's counterclaim for insufficiency of evidence.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the judgment of the lower

court is hereby modified, in conformity with the above findings. Judgment is
hereby rendered:
1)
Declaring the Deed of Sale (Exh. "B") null and void. Appellees, spouses
Felix and Benita Noceda and/all persons claiming under them are hereby
directed to vacate the premises of the land subject of the Deed of Sale
aforementioned, and to surrender peacefully the possession thereof to
appellants, so that the same shall be returned or collated into the intestate
estate of Balbino Crucillo;
2)
All alterations made by appellees spouses Felix and Benita Noceda in
the "ancestral house" and the lot upon which it is erected are hereby forfeited in
favor of appellants. Appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally
appellants the amount of P10,000.00 for actual damages, and P10,000.00 for
and in the concept of moral damages;

IN SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN DECISION PROMULGATED ON MAY 25, 1983,

ANNEX "B" HEREOF, AND RECONSIDERING IT BY SUSTAINING THE
DECISION DATED OCTOBER 31, 1975, AMENDED RECORD ON APPEAL,
158-179, ANNEX "E" HEREOF, OF THE COURT A QUO, TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THE
EXISTENCE OF A PRIOR ORAL PARTITION OF THE ESTATE INHERITED
FROM BALBINO A. CRUCILLO, BY THE HEIRS OF BALBINO A. CRUCILLO,
THE RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT HAS DECIDED A
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH
LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE.
II
IN SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN DECISION PROMULGATED ON MAY 25, 1983,
ANNEX "B" HEREOF, AND RECONSIDERING IT BY SUSTAINING THE
DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO DATED OCTOBER 31, 1975, AMENDED
RECORD ON APPEAL, 158-179, ANNEX "E" HEREOF, TO THE EFFECT THAT
THE RESPONDENT RAFAEL A. CRUCILLO VALIDLY SOLD THE LOT

ARTICLE 1082

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE KASULATAN SA GANAP NA BILIHAN, EXHIBIT

"B", ALSO EXHIBIT "2" (ALSO ANNEX "2" COMPLAINT, AMENDED RECORD
ON APPEAL, 43-46, ANNEX "E" HEREOF), THE RESPONDENT
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR
JURISPRUDENCE.
III
IN SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN DECISION PROMULGATED ON MAY 25, 1983,
ANNEX "B" HEREOF, AND RECONSIDERING IT BY SUSTAINING THE
DECISION DATED OCTOBER 31, 1975, AMENDED RECORD ON APPEAL,
158-179, ANNEX "E" HEREOF, OF THE COURT A QUO, TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE KASULATAN SA GANAP NA BILIHAN, EXHIBIT "B", ALSO EXHIBIT
"2" (ALSO ANNEX "C", COMPLAINT, AMENDED RECORD ON APPEAL, 43-46,
ANNEX "E" HEREOF) WAS VALID, THAT THE RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES
FELIX NOCEDA AND BENITA GATPANDAN-NOCEDA ARE THE TRUE AND
LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE LOT SUBJECT MATTER OF EXHIBIT "B", ALSO
EXHIBIT "2", AS WELL AS OF THE ANCESTRAL HOUSE LOCATED
THEREON, AND THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT OF LEGAL
REDEMPTION THEREOF, THE RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY
NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE.
IV
IN SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN DECISION PROMULGATED ON MAY 25, 1983,
AND AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION OF THE COURT A
QUO DATED OCTOBER 31, 1975, AMENDED RECORD ON APPEAL, 158179, ANNEX "E" HEREOF, AND SUSTAINING, CONSEQUENTLY, THE
FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A QUO:
xxx

xxx

xxx

c)
Declaring Tax Declaration Nos. 5413, 5414, 5415, 5416, and 5417 of
the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Cavite (Exhs. "C", "C-1" to "C-4") null
and void, and directing the Provincial Assessor of Cavite to cancel the same;
d)
Directing the Provincial Assessor of Cavite to issue new Tax Declaration
in lieu of Tax Declarations No. 376 (Exh.
"C-5") as follows:
1)
To the "Heirs of Elena Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area
of 249.75 sq.m., in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5413;

2)
To the "Heirs of Maximino Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an
area of 249.75 square meters in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5414.
3)
To "Adelaida Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area of 249.75
square meters, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5415;
4)
To "Carlomagno Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area of
249.75 square meters, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5416;
5)
To the "Spouses Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan", for a parcel of
land containing an area of 249.75 square meters and the house erected
thereon, in lieu of Tax Declaration No. 5417;
6)
To the "Heirs of Vicente Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area
of 249.75 square meters;
7)
To the "Heirs of Perpetua Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an
area of 249.75 square meters;
8)
To "Miguel Crucillo", for a parcel of land containing an area of 249.75
square meters; all in accordance with the Sketch Plan (Exhs. "X" and "Y");
e)

Dismissing plaintiff's second and third causes of action;

xxx

xxx

xxx

THE RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT HAS DECIDED A

QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH
LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE.
It is petitioners' submission that the fact that Balbino A. Crucillo's heirs have
actually occupied, sold, taken possession of their respective shares from
Balbino A. Crucillo's estate does not suffice to establish a prior oral agreement
by and among the heirs of Balbino Crucillo.
The petition raises questions of fact which are not proper in an appeal on
certiorari. 23 Petitioners cited exceptions to the rule as when the factual
findings of the trial court and the appellate court conflict, when the appealed
decision is clearly contradicted by the evidence on record, or when the appellate
court miscomprehended the facts 24 justifying a review, but the exceptions
aforecited are inapplicable to the case under consideration, it appearing that the
appellate court correctly appreciated the facts in arriving at its questioned
resolution.

ARTICLE 1082

Even granting arguendo that the petition falls under any of the above exceptions
justifying a factual review of the respondent court, the petition cannot prosper.
The Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the assailed Resolution of the
respondent court has sufficient evidentiary support, on the basis of which the
respondent court abandoned its earlier Decision.
To begin with, the oral agreement for the partition of the property owned in
common is valid, binding and enforceable on the parties. 25
On the issue as to whether an oral partition, effected by the heirs of Balbino A.
Crucillo of his estate, has been sufficiently established, the Court rules in the
affirmative. It has been shown that upon the death of Juana Aure, the petitioners
and the respondent Rafael Crucillo partitioned the estate among themselves,
with each one of them possessing their respective shares and exercising acts of
ownership. Thus, the trial court found:
. . . Thus, aside from the disputed lot, Rafael had sold two other lots belonging to
the estate. Nicasio Sarmiento (son of Perpetua Crucillo) has caused a
residential lot situated at Gen. Trias St., Mendez, Cavite to be registered in his
name alone, Miguel Crucillo is in exclusive possession of a residential lot
located at General Trias St., Mendez, Cavite. An agricultural land located at Sitio
Niko, Mendez, Cavite, covered by Tax Declaration No. 1179 (Exh. "6"), is owned
in common by Vicente Crucillo (now occupied by his surviving spouse Felicidad
M. Crucillo). Buenaventurada Sarmiento (daughter of the deceased Perpetua
Crucillo), Adelaida Crucillo, and Atty. Conrado Crucillo (son of the deceased
Santiago Crucillo). Another agricultural land situated at Pulong Munti, covered
by Tax Declaration No. 375 (Exh. "7"), is owned in common by the Heirs of
Elena Crucillo, Adelaida Crucillo, and Nicasio Sarmiento. Still another property
covered by Tax Declaration No. 653 (Exh. "10") is owned in common by
Buenaventurada Sarmiento and Vicente Crucillo, whose share was acquired by
Miguel Crucillo.
Additionally, Primitiva Mendoza is in possession of an agricultural land in Pulong
Munti and also in Niko, Mendez, Cavite, while Carlomagno Crucillo possesses
an agricultural land at Sitio Maykiling, Mendez, Cavite, Miguel Crucillo is
exclusively occupying an agricultural land at Pulong Munti and Ulo ng Bukal,
and the remaining portion another agricultural land after the other portion thereof
had been sold by Rafael Crucillo.
xxx xxx xxx
When the Court conducted an ocular inspection of the property in dispute, it
observed that Dr. Carlomagno Crucillo had erected a building of strong
materials, which he utilizes as his clinic, on the southern portion of said land
fronting Gen. Luna St., that Adelaida Crucillo had constructed her residence,

which is also of strong materials, on the northern portion of said land fronting
Gen. Luna St.; that between the clinic of Dr. Carlomagno Crucillo and the
residential house of Adelaida Crucillo is the ancestral house', which is erected
on that portion of the said land which Rafael Crucillo sold to the defendantsspouses; and that the Heirs of Elena Crucillo had constructed a house of strong
materials on the northern portion of said land fronting Aure St., (of Exhs. "X" and
"Y") The Court further observed that a hollow block party wall separates the
respective portion occupied by the residential house of Adelaida, the "ancestral
house", and the clinic of Dr. Carlomagno Crucillo, Judging from their appearance
and condition, the improvements erected by Adelaida Crucillo, Dr. Carlomagno
Crucillo, and the Heirs of Elena Crucillo are not less than then (10) years old.
(Decision, Court of First Instance; see Amended Record on Appeal).
From the foregoing facts, it can be gleaned unerringly that the heirs of Balbino A.
Crucillo agreed to orally partition subject estate among themselves, as evinced
by their possession of the inherited premises, their construction of improvements
thereon, and their having declared in their names for taxation purposes their
respective shares. These are indications that the heirs of Balbino A. Crucillo
agreed to divide subject estate among themselves, for why should they
construct improvements thereon, pay the taxes therefor, and exercise other acts
of ownership, if they did not firmly believe that the property was theirs. It is
certainly foolhardy for petitioners to claim that no oral partition was made when
their acts showed otherwise. Moreover, it is unbelievable that the possession of
the heirs was by mere tolerance, judging from the introduction of improvements
thereon and the length of time that such improvements have been in existence.
Then too, after exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of the
contested estate, petitioners are estopped from denying or contesting the
existence of an oral partition. 26
Anent the second and third issues whether there was a valid conveyance by
Rafael Crucillo of the lot subject matter of the "Kasulatan Sa Ganap Na Bilihan"
to the spouses Felix Noceda and Benita Gatpandan-Noceda, and whether the
latter spouses acquired true and lawful ownership thereof, including the
ancestral house standing thereon, the Court also rules in the affirmative. As the
existence of the oral partition of the estate of Balbino A. Crucillo by his heirs has
been well established, it stands to reason and conclude that Rafael Crucillo
could validly convey his share therein to the spouses Felix Noceda and Benita
Gatpandan-Noceda who then became the true and lawful owners thereof,
including the ancestral house existing thereon. Petitioners have, therefore, no
right to redeem the same property from the spouses Noceda because when the
sale was made, they were no longer co-owners thereof, the same having
become the sole property of respondent Rafael Crucillo.

ARTICLE 1082

As regards petitioners' prayer for an award to them of actual and moral

damages and attorney's fees, the same is denied for want of proper basis in law
and jurisprudence.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated October 7, 1983 of the former Intermediate
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

ARTICLE 1082

G.R. No. 134329

January 19, 2000

VERONA PADA-KILARIO and RICARDO KILARIO, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SILVERIO PADA, respondents.

On June 14, 1978, Juanita Pada sold to Engr. Ernesto Paderes, the right of his
father, Ananias, as co-owner of Cadastral Lot No. 5881.
On November 17, 1993, it was the turn of Maria Pada to sell the co-ownership
right of his father, Marciano. Private respondent, who is the first cousin of Maria,
was the buyer.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

The victory1 of petitioner spouses Ricardo and Verona Kilario in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court2 in an ejectment suit3 filed against them by private
respondent Silverio Pada, was foiled by its reversal4 by the Regional Trial
Court5 on appeal. They elevated their cause6 to respondent Court of Appeals7
which, however, promulgated a Decision8 on May 20, 1998, affirming the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court.
The following facts are undisputed:
One Jacinto Pada had six (6) children, namely, Marciano, Ananias, Amador,
Higino, Valentina and Ruperta. He died intestate. His estate included a parcel of
land of residential and coconut land located at Poblacion, Matalom, Leyte,
denominated as Cadastral Lot No. 5581 with an area of 1,301.92 square meters.
It is the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581 which is the subject of the
instant controversy.
During the lifetime of Jacinto Pada, his half-brother, Feliciano Pada, obtained
permission from him to build a house on the northern portion of Cadastral Lot
No. 5581. When Feliciano died, his son, Pastor, continued living in the house
together with his eight children. Petitioner Verona Pada-Kilario, one of Pastor's
children, has been living in that house since 1960.
Sometime in May, 1951, the heirs of Jacinto Pada entered into an extra-judicial
partition of his estate. For this purpose, they executed a private document which
they, however, never registered in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte.
At the execution of the extra-judicial partition, Ananias was himself present while
his other brothers were represented by their children. Their sisters, Valentina
and Ruperta, both died without any issue. Marciano was represented by his
daughter, Maria; Amador was represented by his daughter, Concordia; and
Higina was represented by his son, Silverio who is the private respondent in this
case. It was to both Ananias and Marciano, represented by his daughter, Maria,
that Cadastral Lot No. 5581 was allocated during the said partition. When
Ananias died, his daughter, Juanita, succeeded to his right as co-owner of said
property.

Thereafter, private respondent demanded that petitioner spouses vacate the

northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581 so his family can utilize the said area.
They went through a series of meetings with the barangay officials concerned
for the purpose of amicable settlement, but all earnest efforts toward that end,
failed.
On June 26, 1995, private respondent filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Matalom, Leyte, a complaint for ejectment with prayer for damages against
petitioner spouses.
On July 24, 1995, the heirs of Amador Pada, namely, Esperanza Pada-Pavo,
Concordia Pada-Bartolome, and Angelito Pada, executed a Deed of Donation9
transferring to petitioner Verona Pada-Kilario, their respective shares as coowners of Cadastral Lot No. 5581.
On February 12, 1996, petitioner spouses filed their Answer averring that the
northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581 had already been donated to them by
the heirs of Amador Pada. They contended that the extra-judicial partition of the
estate of Jacinto Pada executed in 1951 was invalid and ineffectual since no
special power of attorney was executed by either Marciano, Amador or Higino in
favor of their respective children who represented them in the extra-judicial
partition. Moreover, it was effectuated only through a private document that was
never registered in the office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner
spouses. It made the following findings:
After a careful study of the evidence submitted by both parties, the court finds
that the evidence adduced by plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over . . .
Cadastral Lot No. 5581 . . . while defendants has [sic] successfully proved by
preponderance of evidence that said property is still under a community of
ownership among the heirs of the late Jacinto Pada who died intestate. If there
was some truth that Marciano Pada and Ananias Pada has [sic] been
adjudicated jointly of [sic] the above-described residential property . . . as their
share of the inheritance on the basis of the alleged extra judicial settlement, how
come that since 1951, the date of partition, the share of the late Marciano Pada
was not transferred in the name of his heirs, one of them Maria Pada-Pavo and
still remain [sic] in the name of Jacinto Pada up to the present while the part

ARTICLE 1082

pertaining to the share of Ananias Pada was easily transferred in the name of
his heirs . . ..
The alleged extra judicial settlement was made in private writing and the
genuineness and due execution of said document was assailed as doubtful and
it appears that most of the heirs were not participants and signatories of said
settlement, and there was lack of special power of attorney to [sic] those who
claimed to have represented their co-heirs in the participation [sic] and signing of
the said extra judicial statement.
Defendants were already occupying the northern portion of the above-described
property long before the sale of said property on November 17, 1993 was
executed between Maria Pada-Pavo, as vendor and the plaintiff, as vendee.
They are in possession of said portion of the above-described property since the
year 1960 with the consent of some of the heirs of Jacinto Pada and up to the
[sic] present some of the heirs of Jacinto Pada has [sic] donated . . . their share
of [sic] the above-described property to them, virtually converting defendants'
standing as co-owners of the land under controversy. Thus, defendants as coowners became the undivided owners of the whole estate . . . . As co-owners of .
. . Cadastral Lot No. 5581 . . . their possession in the northern portion is being
[sic] lawful.10
From the foregoing decision, private respondent appealed to the Regional Trial
Court. On November 6, 1997, it rendered a judgment of reversal. It held:
. . . [T]he said conveyances executed by Juanita Pada and Maria Pada Pavo
were never questioned or assailed by their co-heirs for more than 40 years,
thereby lending credence on [sic] the fact that the two vendors were indeed legal
and lawful owners of properties ceded or sold. . . . At any rate, granting that the
co-heirs of Juanita Pada and Maria Pada Pavo have some interests on the very
lot assigned to Marciano and Ananias, nevertheless, said interests had long
been sadly lost by prescription, if not laches or estoppel.
It is true that an action for partition does not prescribe, as a general rule, but this
doctrine of imprescriptibility cannot be invoked when one of the heirs possessed
the property as an owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription
because from the moment one of the co-heirs claim [sic] that he is the absolute
owner and denies the rest their share of the community property, the question
then involved is no longer one for partition but of ownership. . . . Since [sic] 1951
up to 1993 covers a period of 42 long years. Clearly, whatever right some of the
co-heirs may have, was long extinguished by laches, estoppel or prescription.
xxx

xxx

xxx

. . . [T]he deed of donation executed by the Heirs of Amador Pada, a brother of

Marciano Pada, took place only during the inception of the case or after the
lapse of more than 40 years reckoned from the time the extrajudicial partition
was made in 1951. Therefore, said donation is illegal and invalid [sic] the
donors, among others, were absolutely bereft of any right in donating the very
property in question.11
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Regional Trial Court reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, a judgment is hereby rendered, reversing the judgment earlier
promulgated by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Matalom, Leyte, [sic]
consequently, defendants-appellees are hereby ordered:
1. To vacate the premises in issue and return peaceful possession to the
appellant, being the lawful possessor in concept of owner;
2. To remove their house at their expense unless appellant exercises the option
of acquiring the same, in which case the pertinent provisions of the New Civil
Code has to be applied;
3. Ordering the defendants-appellees to pay monthly rental for their occupancy
and use of the portion of the land in question in the sum of P100.00
commencing on June 26, 1995 when the case was filed and until the termination
of the present case;
4. Ordering the defendants to pay to the appellant the sum of P5,000.00 as
moral damages and the further sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees;
5. Taxing defendants to pay the costs of suit.12
Petitioners filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the foregoing
decision of the Regional Trial Court.
On May 20, 1998, respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing
said petition. It explained:
Well-settled is the rule that in an ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de
facto or physical or material possession and not de jure. Hence, even if the
question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, the court may pass upon such
issue but only to determine the question of possession, specially if the former is
inseparably linked with the latter. It cannot dispose with finality the issue of
ownership, such issue being inutile in an ejectment suit except to throw light on
the question of possession . . . .

ARTICLE 1082

Private respondent Silverio Pada anchors his claim to the portion of the land
possessed by petitioners on the Deed of Sale executed in his favor by vendor
Maria Pada-Pavo, a daughter of Marciano, son of Jacinto Pada who was the
registered owner of the subject lot. The right of vendee Maria Pada to sell the
property was derived from the extra-judicial partition executed in May 1951
among the heirs of Jacinto Pada, which was written in a Bisayan dialect signed
by the heirs, wherein the subject land was adjudicated to Marciano, Maria
Pavo's father, and Ananias Pada. Although the authenticity and genuineness of
the extra-judicial partition is now being questioned by the heirs of Amador Pada,
no action was ever previously filed in court to question the validity of such
partition.1wphi1.nt

On June 16, 1998, respondent Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying

said motion.

Notably, petitioners in their petition admitted among the antecedent facts that
Maria Pavo is one of the co-owners of the property originally owned by Jacinto
Pada . . . and that the disputed lot was adjudicated to Marciano (father of Maria
Pavo) and Ananias, and upon the death of Marciano and Ananias, their heirs
took possession of said lot, i.e. Maria Pavo the vendor for Marciano's share and
Juanita for Ananias' share . . . . Moreover, petitioners do not dispute the findings
of the respondent court that during the cadastral survey of Matalom, Leyte, the
share of Maria Pada Pavo was denominated as Lot No. 5581, while the share of
Juanita Pada was denominated as Lot No. 6047, and that both Maria Pada Pavo
and Juanita were in possession of their respective hereditary shares. Further,
petitioners in their Answer admitted that they have been occupying a portion of
Lot No. 5581, now in dispute without paying any rental owing to the liberality of
the plaintiff . . . . Petitioners cannot now impugn the aforestated extrajudicial
partition executed by the heirs in 1951. As owner and possessor of the disputed
property, Maria Pada, and her vendee, private respondent, is entitled to
possession. A voluntary division of the estate of the deceased by the heirs
among themselves is conclusive and confers upon said heirs exclusive
ownership of the respective portions assigned to them . . ..

II.

The equally belated donation of a portion of the property in dispute made by the
heirs of Amador Pada, namely, Concordia, Esperanza and Angelito, in favor of
petitioner Verona Pada is a futile attempt to confer upon the latter the status of
co-owner, since the donors had no interest nor right to transfer. . . . This gesture
appears to be a mere afterthought to help petitioners to prolong their stay in the
premises. Furthermore, the respondent court correctly pointed out that the
equitable principle of laches and estoppel come into play due to the donors'
failure to assert their claims and alleged ownership for more than forty (40)
years . . . . Accordingly, private respondent was subrogated to the rights of the
vendor over Lot No. 5581 which include [sic] the portion occupied by
petitioners.13
Petitioner spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing decision.

Hence this petition raising the following issues:

I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT
PETITIONERS, AS CO-OWNERS, CANNOT BE EJECTED FROM THE
PREMISES CONSIDERING THAT THE HEIRS OF JACINTO PADA DONATED
TO THEM THEIR UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT WHAT

MARIA PADA SOLD WAS HER UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PROPERTY IN
DISPUTE.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE BUILDERS IN GOOD FAITH.14
There is no merit to the instant petition.
First. We hold that the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among
his heirs made in 1951 is valid, albeit executed in an unregistered private
document. No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be
registered in order to be valid.15 The requirement in Sec. 1, Rule 74 of the
Revised Rules of Court that a partition be put in a public document and
registered, has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the heirs
themselves against tardy claims.16 The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to others. It follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition
not executed with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors
are involved.17 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.18 The partition of inherited property need
not be embodied in a public document so as to be effective as regards the heirs
that participated therein.19 The requirement of Article 1358 of the Civil Code that
acts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property, must appear in a public
instrument, is only for convenience, non-compliance with which does not affect
the validity or enforceability of the acts of the parties as among themselves.20
And neither does the Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the New Civil Code

10

ARTICLE 1082

apply because partition among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance of real
property, considering that it involves not a transfer of property from one to the
other but rather, a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an
heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives the
inheritance.21 The 1951 extrajudicial partition of Jacinto Pada's estate being
legal and effective as among his heirs, Juanita and Maria Pada validly
transferred their ownership rights over Cadastral Lot No. 5581 to Engr. Paderes
and private respondent, respectively.22
Second. The extrajudicial partition which the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed
voluntarily and spontaneously in 1951 has produced a legal status.23 When
they discussed and agreed on the division of the estate Jacinto Pada, it is
presumed that they did so in furtherance of their mutual interests. As such, their
division is conclusive, unless and until it is shown that there were debts existing
against the estate which had not been paid.24 No showing, however, has been
made of any unpaid charges against the estate of Jacinto Pada. Thus, there is
no reason why the heirs should not be bound by their voluntary acts.

It is well-settled that both Article 44827 and Article 54628 of the New Civil Code
which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the
premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith,
i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.29 Verily,
persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not
possessors in good faith. Neither did the promise of Concordia, Esperanza and
Angelito Pada that they were going to donate the premises to petitioners convert
them into builders in good faith for at the time the improvements were built on
the premises, such promise was not yet fulfilled, i.e., it was a mere expectancy
of ownership that may or may not be realized.30 More importantly, even as that
promise was fulfilled, the donation is void for Concordia, Esperanza and Angelito
Pada were not the owners of Cadastral Lot No. 5581. As such, petitioners
cannot be said to be entitled to the value of the improvements that they built on
the said lot.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is HEREBY DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.

The belated act of Concordia, Esperanza and Angelito, who are the heirs of
Amador Pada, of donating the subject property to petitioners after forty four (44)
years of never having disputed the validity of the 1951 extrajudicial partition that
allocated the subject property to Marciano and Ananias, produced no legal
effect. In the said partition, what was allocated to Amador Pada was not the
subject property which was a parcel of residential land in Sto. Nino, Matalom,
Leyte, but rather, one-half of a parcel of coconut land in the interior of Sto. Nino
St., Sabang, Matalom, Leyte and one-half of a parcel of rice land in Itum, Sta.
Fe, Matalom, Leyte. The donation made by his heirs to petitioners of the subject
property, thus, is void for they were not the owners thereof. At any rate it is too
late in the day for the heirs of Amador Pada to repudiate the legal effects of the
1951 extrajudicial partition as prescription and laches have equally set in.
Third. Petitioners are estopped from impugning the extrajudicial partition
executed by the heirs of Jacinto Pada after explicitly admitting in their Answer
that they had been occupying the subject property since 1960 without ever
paying any rental as they only relied on the liberality and tolerance of the Pada
family.25 Their admissions are evidence of a high order and bind them insofar
as the character of their possession of the subject property is concerned.
Considering that petitioners were in possession of the subject property by sheer
tolerance of its owners, they knew that their occupation of the premises may be
terminated any time. Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily
bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand,
failing in which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
them.26 Thus, they cannot be considered possessors nor builders in good faith.

SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

11