This is another case wherein the Supreme Court has ruled that the partition of the estate of a deceased person need not be in writing.
The deceased person in this case is Don Carlos. Aside from being blessed with riches consisting mostly of several parcels of land enough for all his children.
Don Carlos died intestate in 1909, followed by his wife Auring, 40 years later in 1949. Upon the death of Auring his eight children namely Estrella, Manuel, Perla, Sergio, Adela, Domingo, Pedro and Victor, personally or thru their offspring partitioned the estate among themselves with each of them possessing their respective shares and exercising acts of ownership.
Among the properties left by Don Carlos were two parcels of unregistered land situated in his town with a total area of 1,998 square meters under tax declaration No. 673, where the ancestral house was erected. This property was occupied and possessed by his son Pedro. Domingo obtained a residential lot at the poblacion. The son of Perla got another residential lot. One agricultural land was allocated among the heirs of Victor, Perla and Sergio. Another agricultural land was occupied and possessed by Adela and heirs of Estrella and Perla, while still another residential property went to the daughter of Estrella.
Upon acquiring the different properties, the heirs constructed improvements on the respective lands they acquired like building of strong materials and residential houses, declaring them in their names for taxation purposes.
Twenty years later, Pedro sold to the spouses Ben and Nora a portion of the 1,998 square meter lot containing an area of 480 square meters on which the ancestral house was standing. When the buyers, spouses Nora and Ben started possessing the property and introducing improvements thereon, Pedro's sister Adela, his brother Domingo and the heirs of his other deceased brother and sisters, Estrella, Manuel, Perla, Sergio and Victor, tried to stop them and asked them to vacate the land they have occupied without the consent of all the other heirs. They subsequently filed a complaint in court against Pedro, and the spouses Nora and Ben, to recover the said property. They contended that they still have a share in the property because there was no valid partition made. According to them, the fact that Don Carlo's heirs have actually occupied, taken possession of and even sold some of their respective shares in his estate does no suffice to establish a prior oral agreement of partition among them. Were they correct?
No. The oral agreement for the partition of the property owned in common is valid, binding and enforceable on the parties. In this case such oral partition has been sufficiently established. It has been shown that upon the death of Don Carlos' wife Auring, all of his heirs including Pedro divided his properties among themselves, with each one of them possessing their respective shares and exercising acts of ownership thereon like the construction of improvements and declaring them in their names for taxation purposes. These are indications that the heirs of Don Carlos agreed to divide his estate among themselves; for why should they construct improvements thereon, pay the taxes therefor and exercise acts of ownership if they did not firmly believe that the property was theirs? It is certainly foolhardy for them to claim that no oral partition was made when their acts show otherwise. Moreover it unbelievable that the possession of the heirs was by mere tolerance , judging from the introduction of improvement 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 estates these heirs are estopped from denying or contesting the existence of an oral partition (Crucillo et. al. vs. The Intermediate Appellate Court et. al. G. R. No. 65416 Oct. 26, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org