estate of Estate of Ramirez v. Ramirez, et al.
The court distributed the estate by: to his widow and to the grandsons
GR No. L-27962, February 15, 1982
FACTS:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez died leaving as principal beneficiaries his widow,
MarcelleSemoron de Ramirez, a French woman; his two
grandnephewsRoberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion Wanda de
Wrobleski. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance.
According to the will shall go to Marcelle in full ownership plus usufruct of
the 1/3 of the whole estate; the grandsons shall have the of the whole
estate; and a usufruct in favour of Wanda.
ISSUE:
Is the partition according to the will valid?
RULING:
No. As to the usufruct granted to Marcelle, the court ruled that to give
Marcelle more than her legitime will run counter to the testators intention for
his dispositions even impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.As to
the usufruct in favour of Wanda, the Court upheld its validity.
The Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands
does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will
be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would be able to circumvent
the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for
devise of a piece of land. Notwithstanding this, the Court upholds the usufruct
in favour of Wanda because a usufruct does not vest title to the land in the
usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to aliens which is proscribed by the
Constitution.
but the usufruct of the second half shall go to Wanda.
ART 495
VDA de ESPINA v ABAYA
FACTS: Marcos Espina died on February 14, 1953 and was survived by his
spouses, Simprosa Vda. de Espina and their children namely, Recaredo, Timoteo,
Celia, Gaudiosa, Necifora, Sora and Jose, all surnamed Espina. Decedent's estate
comprises of 4 parcels of land located in Surigao del Sur.
In 1973, an action for partition of the land was filed by petitioners Simprosa and
her children Recaredo, Timoteo, Celia, Gaudencia and Necifora.
The complaint alleges that parcel No. 1 is the exclusive property of the deceased,
hence the same is owned in common by petitioners and private respondents in eight
(8) equal parts, while the other 3 parcels of land being conjugal properties, are also
owned in common, one-half (1/2) belongs to the widow Simprosa and the other half
is owned by her and her children in eight (8) equal parts.
Petitioners have several times demanded the partition of the properties, but
notwithstanding such demands private respondents refused to accede.
Private respondents alleged in their answer that in or about April, 1951, the late
Marcos Espina and his widow, Simprosa, together with their children made a
temporary verbal division and assignment of shares among their children. After the
death of Marcos, the temporary division was finalized by the heirs. Thereafter the
heirs took immediate possession of their respective shares on April 20, 1952. Private
respondents took actual physical possession of their respective shares including the
portions ceded to them by Simprosa.
Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the CAUSE
OF ACTION IS BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
RTC
Trial court granted petition.
Petitioners Contention
Petitioners contended that the present action is not for reconveyance but one for and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 Edition, 182-
partition. Hence, the rule insisted by the private respondents on prescriptibility of 183 citing Hernandez v. Andal, et. al., G.R. No. L275, March 29, 1957
an action for reconcile conveyance of real property based on an implied trust
is not applicable in the case at bar. They also argued that private respondents
cannot set up the defense of prescription or laches because their possession of the
property no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership.

The petitioners claim that the alleged oral partition is invalid and strictly under
the coverage of the statute of Frauds.

ISSUE:

1. WoN imprescriptibility of partition applies in the case - NO

2. WoN oral partition is valid YES

HELD:

1. NO. We already ruled in Lebrilla, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R.

No. 72623, December 18, 1989, 180 SCRA 188; 192) that an action for partition is
imprescriptible. However, an action for partition among co-heirs ceases to be
such, and becomes one for title where the defendants allege exclusive
ownership.

In the case at bar, the imprescriptibility of the action for partition cannot be invoked
because two of the co-heirs, namely private respondents Sora and Jose Espina
possessed the property as exclusive owners and their possession for a period of
twenty one (21) years is sufficient to acquire it by prescription. Hence, from the
moment these co-heirs claim that they are the absolute and exclusive owners of the
properties and deny the others any share therein, the question involved is no longer
one of partition but of ownership.

2. YES. "An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral

agreement for the partition of the property owned in common is valid and enforceable
upon the parties. The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind of agreements,
for partition is not a conveyance of property but simply a segregation and designation
of the part of the property which belong to the co-owners." (Tolentino, Commentaries