Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

University of the Philippines College of Law

JEAF, 2-D

Topic PARTITION OF DIVISION – Procedure for Partition


Case No. G.R. NO. 143297/ February 11, 2003

Case Name Sps. Castro vs. Miat


Ponente Puno, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Sps. Miat bought two parcels of land in Airport Village, Paranaque and in Paco, Manila. Both wre covered by TCTs.
Concordia Miat (wife) died on April 30, 1978. While working in Dubai, Moises Miat agreed that both the properties would
be given to their two children, Romeo and Alexander.
o However, when Moises returned in 1984, he renegotiated the agreement with Romeo and Alexander as he wanted
the Paranaque property for himself. They agreed.
o Moises was able to pay the balance on the Paco property only on Dec. 14, 1984 and was thus able to secure a title
over the property in his name.
 Romeo: Moises violated the agreement that it should be Romeo and Alexander’s names on the registered
title once the balance is paid.
 Upon demand, Moises gave the owner’s duplicate title of the PAco property to Romeo.
 The two brothers lived in the PAco property, paying taxes and fire insurance premiums. In 1985, Alexander left. In April
1988, Alexander agreed to sell his share to Romeo for P42, 750.
o Although Romeo was only able to pay P6,000 in partial payment, he executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of
Romeo as he had lots of work to do and no time and the title was in Romeo’s possession.
 Romeo discovered during his wedding in 1988 that Moises received P30,000 from his godmother, Rosalina Castro (mother
of petitioner) as downpayment for the sale of the PAco property to her son.
o He discovered in the MTC proceedings that Moises had executed a Deed of Sale dated Dec. 5, 1988 to Virgilio
Castro for P95,000.
 Romeo filed an action to nullify the sale and for a Deed of Conveyance/Assignment of the Paco property upon payment.
o In the proceedings, Moises testified that Romeo borrowed the title as he was going to mortgage the property to
his friend, Lorenzo. Later, as he ran into financial difficulties, he mortgaged the Paco land for P30,000 to the
Castros and informed the brothers that he would be forced to sell the property if they would not redeem the
mortgage. He claimed that they, along with the Castros, consulted with a judge and a lawyer in the Manila City Hall
as to its sale. He then sold the property.
o Alexander: Moises got 1/3 of the proceeds while he got 2/3, and that Romeo got none but the right to till their
Nueva Ecija property. In addition, he considered the P6,000 paid by Romeo a personal debt and not Romeo’s
downpayment of his share in the PAco property.
o Castro: Upon knowledge of the intention of Moises to sell the property, Romeo said “Bahala na siya” and
corroborated Moises as to the consultation with the judge & lawyer.
 Romeo: Three family members testified that the agreement that the PAco property would go to Romeo
and Alexander was made by Moises in public and even at the deathbed of Concordia. They also testified
as to the P6,000 given by Romeo as downpayment to Alexander for his share.
RTc: Alexander to execute a DOS to Romeo upon payment of P36,750; and for Romeo to recognize as valid the sale of Moises’ share
in the Paco house.

CA: nullified the DOS; Moises and Alexander to execute a Deed of Conveyance in favor of Miat upon payment of P36,750.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
University of the Philippines College of Law
JEAF, 2-D

W/N the Paco YES.


property is capita Art. 153(1), NCC: Conjugal property are: Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the
property of Moises - expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the
YES spouses;

Art. 160, NCC: „all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

1. The records show the Paco property was only acquired by onerous title during the marriage out
of the common funds, thus it is conjugal property. Even if Moises finished the payment, the title
was gained during the conjugal partnership.

W/N the oral YES.


partition between 2. Ceferino Miat, brother of Moises, testified that he repeated the partition in front of the extended
Moises and his sons family members. The consideration for the grnt to Romeo and Alexander was expressed in
was valid - YES Moises’ letter which thanked them for their understanding for his past mistakes to them and
their mother and said “lahat ng naipundar naming ng inyong nanay ay sa inyong dalawang
magkakapatid mapupunta.”
3. The oral partition is also not covered by the Statute of Frauds. It is enforceable because:
a. Alexander accepted the P60,000;
b. Romeo and Ceferino and other witness were intensely questioned by pet’s counsel.

Pada-Kilario vs. CA: No requirement for partition to be in writing and registered to be valid. Registration is
merely a constructive notice to others. 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.

 Partition among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance of real property as it is not transfer but
merely confirmation/ratification of title or right or property that an heir renounces in favor of
another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance.

4. Sps. Castro were also not in good faith. A buyer in good faith is one who buys property and pays a
full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or before any notice of some other personÊs
claim on or interest in it. In this case, the buyer of real property which was in possession of 3 rd
persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in
possession. If no inquiry, bad faith.

a.

RULING
University of the Philippines College of Law
JEAF, 2-D

WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court in CA- G.R. CV No. 43053 is affirmed. Costs against petitioners.

Вам также может понравиться