G.R. No.

180269 February 20, 2013

CASILANG, SR. vs. CASILANG-DIZON
FACTS
The late spouses Liborio and Francisca had eight children. Liborio died intestate on October
11, 1982 at the age of 83, followed not long after b his wife Francisca on !ece"ber 2#, 1982.
Their son $onifacio also died in 198%, while son &reneo died on 'une 11, 1992, survived b his
four children, herein respondents. The estate of Liborio, which left no debts, consisted of three
parcels of land located in (alasiao, )angasinan, na"el* +1, Lot -o. .%/%0 +2, Lot -o. ./1.0
and +3, Lot -o. .%18. 2espondent 2osario (asilang3!i4on, one of &reneo5s children, clai"ed
ownership of Lot .%18.
On 6a 2%, 199/, respondent 2osario filed with the 6T( a co"plaint for unlawful detainer to
evict her uncle, petitioner 'ose, fro" Lot -o. .%18. 2osario clai"ed that Lot -o. .%18 was
owned b her father &reneo, as evidenced b Ta7 !eclaration +T!, -o. ### issued in 199.
under her father5s na"e. On 8pril 3, 199/, the heirs of &reneo e7ecuted a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition with 9uitclai" hereb the ad:udicated Lot -o. .%18 to the"selves and renounced
their respective shares in Lot -o. .%18 in favor of 2osario. )etitioner 'ose raised the defense
that he was the ;lawful, absolute, e7clusive owner and in actual possession; of the said lot, and
that he ac<uired the sa"e ;through intestate succession fro" his late father, Liborio.; On
Februar 18, 1998, the !TC re"#ere# $u#%&e"' ()"#)"% Ro*ar)o 'o be '+e o,"er o( Lo' No.
-618, and ordering 'ose to re"ove his house and vacate Lot -o. .%18.
On 'une 2, 1998, the petitioners, the heirs of Liborio and Francisca, filed with the 2T( a
(o"plaint for ;8nnul"ent of !ocu"ents, Ownership and )eaceful )ossession with !a"ages;
against &reneo5s heirs, herein respondents. 8"ong the docu"ents sought to be annulled was
the 199/ !eed of =7tra:udicial )artition e7ecuted b &reneo5s children over Lot -o. .%18, as well
as T! -o. ###. T+e .e')')o"er* a//e%e# )" '+e)r 0o&./a)"' '+a' a// e)%+' 182 0+)/#re" o(
L)bor)o e"'ere# )"'o a 3erba/ .ar')')o" o( +)* e*'a'e, .ur*ua"' 'o ,+)0+ 4o*e ,a* a//o''e#
Lo' No. -618 a* +)* *+are0 that &reneo never clai"ed ownership of Lot -o. .%18, nor too>
possession of it, because his share was the southwestern 1?# portion of Lot -o. .%/%,
containing an area of 1,318 s< ", of which he too> e7clusive possession during his lifeti"e0 that
'ose has alwas resided in Lot -o. .%18 since childhood, where he built his fa"il5s se"i3
concrete house :ust a few steps awa fro" his parents5 old ba"boo hut0 that he too> in and
cared for his aged parents in his house until their deaths in 19820 that one of his children has
also built a house on the lot. 'ose, said to be the "ost educated of the (asilang siblings,
wor>ed as an insurance agent.
For her part, respondent 2osario alleged in her answer that she is the actual and lawful owner
of Lot -o. .%18, having ac<uired the sa"e b wa of a !eed of =7tra :udicial )artition with
9uitclai" dated 3 8pril 199/ which was dul e7ecuted a"ong &reneo5s heirs, and that her
ownership over sub:ect propert could be traced bac> to her late father &reneo which the latter
inherited b wa of intestate succession fro" his deceased father Liborio. 8fter a full trial on the
"erits, the 2T( ruled that 'ose is the lawful owner and possessor of Lot .%18 and that the
!eed of =7tra:udicial )artition with 9uitclai" dated 8pril 3, 199/ e7ecuted a"ong &reneo5s heirs
is null and void. (8 reversed the 2T( decision, reling "ainl on the 6T( decision on the
unlawful detainer case against 'ose.
&@@A=* B?- the verbal partition a"ong the heirs of Liborio, pursuant to which each of his eight
children received his or her share of his estate, is valid, and that Lot -o. .%18 is 'ose5s share
and not &reneo5s as clai"ed b &reneo5s heir, herein respondent 2osario
C=L!*
Des, t+e .ar')e*5 3erba/ .ar')')o" )* 3a/)#, a"# +a* bee" ra')()e# by '+e)r 'a6)"% .o**e**)o"
o( '+e)r re*.e0')3e *+are*. The validit of an oral partition is well3settled in our :urisdiction.
&n Vda. de Espina v. Abaya, this (ourt declared that an oral partition is valid*
Anent the issue of oral partition, We sustain the validity of said partition. "An aree!ent
of partition !ay be !ade orally or in writin. An oral aree!ent for the partition of the
property owned in co!!on is valid and enforceable upon the parties. "he #tatute of
$rauds has no operation in this %ind of aree!ents, for partition is not a conveyance of
property but si!ply a sereation and desination of the part of the property which
belon to the co&owners."
On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of e<uit have
enforce oral partition when it has been co"pletel or partl perfor"ed.
2egardless of whether a parol partition or agree"ent to partition is valid and enforceable at law,
e<uit will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actuall been consu""ated b the
ta>ing of possession in severalt and the e7ercise of ownership b the parties of the respective
portions set off to each, recogni4e and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties
thereunder. T+u*, )' +a* bee" +e/# or *'a'e# )" a "u&ber o( 0a*e* )"3o/3)"% a" ora/
.ar')')o" u"#er ,+)0+ '+e .ar')e* ,e"' )"'o .o**e**)o", e7er0)*e# a0'* o( o,"er*+)., or
o'+er,)*e .ar'/y .er(or&e# '+e .ar')')o" a%ree&e"', '+a' e8u)'y ,)// 0o"()r& *u0+
.ar')')o" and in a proper case decree title in accordance with the possession in severalt.
&n nu"erous cases it has been held or stated that parol partition "a be sustained on the
ground of estoppel of the parties to assert the rights of a tenant in co""on as to parts of land
divided b parol partition as to which possession in severalt was ta>en and acts of individual
ownership were e7ercised. 8nd a court of e<uit will recogni4e the agree"ent and decree it to
be valid and effectual for the purpose of concluding the right of the parties as between each
other to hold their respective parts in severalt.
A .aro/ .ar')')o" &ay a/*o be *u*'a)"e# o" '+e %rou"# '+a' '+e .ar')e* '+ere'o +a3e
a08u)e*0e# )" a"# ra')()e# '+e .ar')')o" by 'a6)"% .o**e**)o" )" *e3era/'y, e7er0)*)"% a0'*
o( o,"er*+). ,)'+ re*.e0' '+ere'o, or o'+er,)*e re0o%")9)"% '+e e7)*'e"0e o( '+e
.ar')')o".
4o*e5* .o**e**)o" o( Lo' No. -618 u"#er a 0/a)& o( o,"er*+). )* ,e// bor"e ou' by '+e
re0or#*. &t is also consistent with the clai"ed verbal partition with his siblings, and (u//y
0orrobora'e# b his sisters Felicidad, 'acinta, Leonora, and Flora, who further testified that
the each had ta>en possession of their own shares and built their houses thereon.
8 possessor of real estate propert is presu"ed to have title thereto unless the adverse
clai"ant establishes a better right. 6oreover, under 8rticle #.1 of the (ivil (ode, one who
possesses in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presu"ption that he possesses
with a :ust title, and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it. @i"ilarl, 8rticle .33 of the (ivil
(ode provides that actual possession under a clai" of ownership raises a disputable
presu"ption of ownership. T+u*, a0'ua/ .o**e**)o" a"# e7er0)*e o( #o&)")o" o3er #e()")'e
.or')o"* o( '+e .ro.er'y )" a00or#a"0e ,)'+ a" a//e%e# .ar')')o" are 0o"*)#ere# *'ro"%
.roo( o( a" ora/ .ar')')o" which the (ourt will not hesitate to uphold.
Ta7 #e0/ara')o"* a"# 'a7 re0e).'* are "o' 0o"0/u*)3e e3)#e"0e o( o,"er*+)..
&t is settled that ta7 declarations and ta7 receipts alone are not conclusive evidence of
ownership. T+ey are &ere/y indicia o( a 0/a)& o( o,"er*+).,
61
bu' ,+e" 0ou./e# ,)'+ .roo(
o( a0'ua/ .o**e**)o" o( '+e .ro.er'y, '+ey 0a" be '+e ba*)* o( 0/a)& o( o,"er*+). '+rou%+
.re*0r).')o". &n the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the
land for ta7 purposes does not prove ownership. Be have seen that there is no proof that
Liborio, or the (asilang siblings conveed Lot -o. .%18 to &reneo. There is also no proof that
&reneo hi"self declared Lot -o. .%18 for ta7 purposes, and even if he or his heirs did, this is not
enough basis to clai" ownership over the sub:ect propert. The (ourt notes that TO -o. ###
was issued onl in 199., two ears after &reneoEs death. 2osario even ad"itted that she began
paing ta7es onl in 199/. 6ore i"portantl, &reneo never clai"ed Lot -o. .%18 nor too>
possession of it in the concept of owner.
$ reling solel on the 6T(5s findings, the (8 co"pletel ignored the testi"onial, docu"entar
and circu"stantial evidence of the petitioners, obtained b the 2T( after a full trial on the
"erits. 6ore i"portantl, the (8 did not point to an evidence of 2osario that &reneo had
inherited Lot -o. .%18 fro" Liborio. 8ll it did was adopt the findings of the 6T(.
I"(er)or 0our'* are e&.o,ere# 'o ru/e o" '+e 8ue*')o" o( o,"er*+). ra)*e# by '+e
#e(e"#a"' )" a" e$e0'&e"' *u)', bu' o"/y 'o re*o/3e '+e )**ue o( .o**e**)o": )'*
#e'er&)"a')o" )* "o' 0o"0/u*)3e o" '+e )**ue o( o,"er*+)..
&t is well to be re"inded of the settled distinction between a su""ar action of e:ect"ent and a
plenar action for recover of possession and?or ownership of the land. Bhat reall
distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer fro" a possessor action +accion publiciana, and
fro" a reinvindicator action +accion reinvindicatoria, is that the first is li"ited to the <uestion
of possession de facto. Anlawful detainer suits +accion interdictal, together with forcible entr
are the two for"s of e:ect"ent suit that "a be filed to recover possession of real propert.
8side fro" the su""ar action of e:ect"ent, accion publiciana or the plenar action to recover
the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also
includes recover of possession, "a>e up the three >inds of actions to :udiciall recover
possession.