Você está na página 1de 1

SPOUSES MARCOS v HEIRS OF BANGI Isidro, already owned the subject property, having inherited the same from

t property, having inherited the same from his


October 15, 2014 | Reyes, J. | Petition for Review | Article 1079 father Alipio who died in 1918. Further, the CA did not give credence to the Deed of
PETITIONER: Spouses Dominador Marcos and Gloria Marcos Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim purportedly executed by Espedita and Jose Bangi
RESPONDENTS: Heirs of Isidro Bangi and Genoveva Diccion, represented by Nolito since it appears to have been caused to be executed by the petitioners as a mere
Sabiano afterthought.
SUMMARY: Parents of respondents bought from Eusebio Bangi 1/3 portion of a land in
Nov 1943. They took possession of it until death, and then respondents took possession ISSUE: WON the heirs of Alipio had already effected a partition of his estate prior to the
of it after. In 1998, they learned that the title of the property including the 1/3 portion was sale of the 1/3 portion of the property to the spouses Factual question; YES
transferred to petitioners, through 2 DOAS supposedly executed by Alipio, father of RULING: Petition denied. CA Decision affirmed.
Eusebio. They sought to nullify the 2 DOAS. RTC ruled in their favor. CA and SC RATIO:
affirmed, ruling that Eusebio, at the time he executed the DOAS in favor of Isidro, 1. The determination of whether the heirs of Alipio had already partitioned his estate
already owned the property having inherited it from Alipio. prior to the sale of the 1/3 of the subject property on November 5, 1943 necessarily
DOCTRINE: A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties requires an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties;
thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking possession in severalty, the doubt arises on the truth or falsity of the allegations of the parties. Still, even if the
exercising acts of ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise recognizing the petition falls under any of the exceptions justifying a factual review of the findings of the
existence of the partition. appellate court, the petition cannot prosper.
FACTS: 2. Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common
1. June 26, 1998, heirs of Isidro Bangi and Genoveva Diccion filed with the RTC a among those to whom it may belong. Every act which is intended to put an end to
complain for annulment of documents, cancellation of TCT, restoration of OCT and indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition.
recovery of ownership plus damages against Spouses Dominador and Gloria Marcos. Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the
Spouses Jose Dilla and Pacita Dilla, Ceasaria Alap, and spouses Emilio Sumajit and presumption. Thus, after a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition may be
Zenaida Sumajit were also impleaded. presumed.
2. Respondents: Their parents, Isidro and Genoveva, bought 1/3 portion of a land in 3. Hernandez v Andal: On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of
Pangasinan from Eusebio Bangi as evidenced by a DOAS (Nov 5, 1943). The OCT frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly
was registered in the name of Alipio Bangi, Eusebios father. After the sale, Isidro and performed. Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and
Genoveva took possession of the land until death, and then respondents took possession enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been
of the same. consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership
3. Sometime in 1998, they learned that the title of the property, including the portion sold by the parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such
to their parents, was transferred to petitioner Dominador, etc. through a DOAS (Aug 10, parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder. It has been held in cases
1995) supposedly executed by Alipio. Respondents claimed that this DOAS was a involving an oral partition under which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of
forgery since Alipio died in 1918 while Ramona (wife of Alipio) died in 1957. Through ownership, or otherwise partly performed the partition agreement, that equity will
that DOAS, TCT was issued to Dominador, etc. Another DOAS (Nov 21, 1995) was confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance with the possession
executed and TCT issued over same property in favor of petitioners. Respondents also in severalty. (See Doctrine)
claimed forgery in that DOAS. 4. Evidence presented by the parties show that after the death of Alipio, his heirs had
4. Petitioners: claimed that they are owners of the property including the 1/3 portion sold orally partitioned the estate, including the property, which was assigned to Eusebio.
by Eusebio to Isidro. Land was originally owned by Alipio; after his death, his children When Eusebio executed the DOAS in favour of Isidro, Eusebio already acquired interest
(Eusebio, Espedita and Jose) inherited the property; Espedita and Jose executed a Deed in the property through succession from Alipio, his father. Such interest extends to the
of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim wherein they waived their rights over the entire property, as can be gleaned from the testimony of Gloria herself, who said that her
property in favor of Eusebios children Ceasaria, Zenaida, Pacita and petitioner father Eusebio owned the entire lot because his siblings Espedita and Jose already had
Gloria. They further claimed that Eusebio could not have sold the 1/3 portion since he their share from other properties.
acquired the land by virtue of a donation propter nuptias from Alipio when he got 5. That there was no written memorandum of the partition among Alipio Bangis heirs
married, and such donation was fictitious or is void since it was not registered. cannot detract from appellees cause. It has been ruled that oral partition is effective
5. Respondents + Caesaria and Spouses Emilio and Zenaida entered into a compromise when the parties have consummated it by the taking of possession in severalty and the
agreement wherein they acknowledged the rights of respondents over the property and exercise of ownership of the respective portions set off to each. Here, it is obvious that
admitted the existence of the 1/3 portion. Eusebio took possession of his share and exercised ownership over it.
6. RTC held in favor of respondents and declared the two later Deeds null and void. It 6. Considering that Eusebio already owned the subject property at the time he sold the 1/3
upheld the DOAS over the 1/3 portion executed by Eusebio in favor of Isidro. CA portion thereof to the spouses, having been assigned the same pursuant to the oral
affirmed RTC and held that while the claim of donation propter nuptias was not partition of the estate of Alipio effected by his heirs, the lower courts correctly nullified
sufficiently established, Eusebio, at the time he executed the DOAS in favor of the the 2 DOAS.