30 v. Mandi

PARAS, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari, petitioner praying that this Court: 1) Declare the Writ of Execution, dated July 26, 1983 issued by the respondent Judge in S.P. No. R-6 (234) as well as the Order, dated September 30, 1983, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration as null and void and of no effect; 2) Order the return of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses Flaviana Maningo and Adriano Duenas to the administration of the petitioner so that she could proceed, pursuant to law with the closure of the same; 3) Order private respondents, jointly and severally, to render an accounting of the proceeds of the intestate estate, which they unwarrantedly and unlawfully appropriated unto themselves; 4) Restrain the Provincial Sheriff of Basilan from taking any further action relative to the said estate; and, 5) Grant petitioner such other and further relief which petitioner may be entitled to under the premises.

This petition emanated from a joint petition for partition of the intestate estate of the late spouses Adriano Duenas and Flaviana Maningo by the heirs of said spouses filed before the court a quo in Special Proceeding No. R-6 (234). The court was asked to appoint Petra Duenas as administratrix upon a petition supported by her three younger sisters. However, in view of the Opposition of Petra Duena's elder brother Emerito Duenas supported by four of their sisters and brother (private respondents herein) said court appointed Emerito Duenas instead as the administrator of the intestate estate of their deceased parents.

Subsequently, due to neglect in the performance of his duties as administrator, the court relieved Emerito Duenas of his rights and duties as administrator and directed him to turn over the administration of the properties to the newly appointed administratrix, Petra Duenas. He was also ordered to deliver the cash balance of P6,029.12 (as reflected in the accounting submitted to and approved by the court) with legal interest from 1978 until delivery to the administratrix for equal distribution among the heirs within a week from the turn-over to her. In the special matter of partition of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses the court a quo made the following ruling: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS and in order to put an end to indivision or family disunity, and in the furtherance of law and justice, this Court hereby assigns, confirms, partitions, declares that: 1.

A parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-75-(0-1552) in the name of Adriano Duenas, situated at San Roque, Isabela, Basilan Province, with an area of 13 hectares, 75 hectares and 98 centares, to be owned in common by all the nine heirs, namely: Victoria Duenas, married to Teofilo Pagal; Emerito Duenas, married to Concepcion Camance; Aproniana Duenas, married to Quiterio Cumayao; Laureano Duenas, married to Carmelita Torres; Petra Duenas, married to Florencio Hugo; Juha Duenas, married to Silverio Tabada; Maxima Duenas, married to Arnulfo Bacut; Cleotilde Duenas, married to Ramon Ikang; and Bernardita Duenas, married to Luis Manuel, in equal share or that the said nine heirs who are now pronounced co-owners, to be entitled to equal share, may either decide to manage the same as co-owners or to sell the property and the proceeds thereof be divided equally among them; 2.

A portion of a residential lot sold by Felipe Ikang in favor of Adriano Duenas with an area of 300 square meters and already a subject of a free patent in the name of Maxima Duenas, be likewise owned in common by all.

The Administratrix may officially inform the Bureau of Lands, with a copy of this decision and file an amended free patent application in the name of all the nine heirs and that the property or its interest over it may be sold to any interested party and its fruits or proceeds to be divided among the nine heirs; 3. The parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6907, marked as Exhibit "B", now divided into three tax declarations, namely, Tax Declaration No. 10255, with an assessed value of P1,200.00, and with an area of 2.3956 hectares, marked Exhibit "C"; Tax Declaration No. 10256 with an area of 2.3956 and assessed at P1,200.00, marked as Exhibit "D", Tax Declaration No. 10257, with an area of 4.3957, valued at P2,110.00, in the names of Cleotilde Duenas, Bernardita Duenas and Maxima Duenas, are hereby assigned to them respectively, since they have already been in possession of the same, and this Court hereby confirms said interest; 4.

A parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6901 and subsequently cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 10122, dated November 8, 1972, then ultimately covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2939 consisting of 2 hectares with a total value of P1,200.00, is hereby assigned to Petra Duenas and therefore this Court confirms this arrangement; 5. A parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6911 in the name of Adriano Duenas covering 2.1862 hectares with a total value of P1,160.00 situated at Calvario, Isabela, is hereby assigned to Juha Duenas since this has been already in her possession before the Administratrix Petra Duenas took over by virtue of the Order of this Court, as Administratrix; 6. All the coconut plantation covered by three tax declarations, namely: Tax Declaration No. 920, situated at Matarting (formerly Isabela) now Lantawan, Basilan, with an area of 1.3269 hectares and valued at P1,760.00, marked as Exhibit "Q", a parcel of land situated at San Roque covered by Tax Declaration No. 2069, with an area of 1.8313 hectares and valued at P2,200.00; and, parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2012, situated at Palma Grava, Isabela, Basilan, with an area of 1.5000 hectares and valued at P1,000.00, are hereby assigned to Emerito Duenas, Victoria Duenas, Aproniana Duenas and Laureano Duenas, to be owned in common or they may sell any or all of these properties and the proceeds thereof be equally divided among the four heirs on a fair and amicable basis.

The relieved administrator, Emerito Duenas, based upon the annual report of accounting which was approved by this Court for the purpose of turning over the administration of the properties and cash to Petra Duenas, is hereby ordered to deliver the cash amount of P6,029.12, with legal interest from 1978 until delivered to the administratrix for equal distribution within a week from delivery to her. If the relieved administrator refuse, his properties shall answer for it, in accordance with law and in order to finally adjudicate this case, once and for all SO ORDERED.1 I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT AN ORAL PARTITION WAS MADE BY THE LATE ADRIANO DUENAS DURING HIS LIFETIME BUT AFTER THE DEATH OF FLAVIANA MANINGO, WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL HIS CHILDREN, COVERING FIVE (5) OUT OF THE TOTAL EIGHT (8) PARCELS OF LAND, BELONGING TO THE SPOUSES, THELATE ADRIANO DUENAS AND FLAVIANA MANINGO.

II THERE BEING AN ORAL PARTITION, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ASSIGNING THE ONLY TITLED REAL PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF ALL THE HEIRS OF THE LATE ADRIANODUENAS AND FLAVIANA MANINGO.ℒαwρhi৷ III EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORAL PARTITION, THE LOWER COURT STILL ERRED IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE REAL PROPERTIES COMPRISING THE ESTATES OF THE LATE ADRIANO DUENAS AND FLAVIANA MANINGO IN FAVOR OF THE HEIRS-THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE.

Petra Duenas and her co-appellees (Maxima, Cleotilde and Bernardita) did not appeal the lower court's judgment but instead filed with the court a quo a new complaint for quieting of title which was dismissed by said court as it was "barred by the final judgment of this Court in Special Proceedings No. R-6 (234). " This Order of Dismissal was brought by Petra Duenas, et al., to Us on a Petition for Review by certiorari in G.R. No. 56548, which We denied as per Our resolution, dated November 2 5, 1981 (Annex "I"

p. 117) The appellate court rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the court a quo with slight modification, with its pertinent provisions quoted hereunder: For its factual background, we shall adopt, by way of reference, the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court as spread in its decision, except its findings and conclusions on the land declared under Tax Dec. No. 6901, and now covered by OCT No. P-2939 in the name of Petra Duenas, which it ruled to be completely collated to the mass of property hereditable from the deceased parents.

We take note that on December 25, 1972, Adriano Duenas sold the whole land to Petra Duenas, as shown by a notarial deed of absolute sale, marked Exh. L, for P500.00. The validity of this sale is not challenged by the parties, and so, its validity is to be sustained insofar, however, as it pertains only to the undivided one-half of this property, it being deemed to be a conjugal property of the deceased Adriano Duenas and his wife.

And since the wife was already dead at the time Adriano Duenas sold the whole land to Petra Duenas, he could have not validly sold the shares of his children on the property which was transmitted to them, by operation of law, upon the death of their mother. Consequently, what should be collated into the mass of the hereditary estate is one-half or one hectare of the land covered by OCT No. P-2939. When the whole property was titled exclusively in the name of Petra Duenas, it shall be deemed to have been done so in trust of their parents, or of the legal heirs of the deceased spouses Adriano Duenas and Flaviana M. Duenas.

Consequently, the one-half of the lot covered by OCT No. P-2939 is subject to a reconveyance to the heirs of Adriano and Flaviana Duenas.7!ᕼdMᗄ7 Now, we come to the first assigned error. It is the contention of appellants that the lands covered by Exhibits A, B, I, 0 and T were orally partitioned and assigned by Adriano Duenas, during his lifetime but already after the death of Flaviana Maningo Duenas, to certain children like Emerito, Victoria, Aproniana, Laurena and Juha as regards the property covered by Exh. A; to Cleotilde, Bernardita, and Maxima, as regards the property covered by Exh.

B; to Duenas, as regards the property covered by Exh. 1; to Julia Duenas, as regards the property covered by Exh. O; and to Maxima Duenas, as regards the property covered by Exh.

T. And so they say that this partition made by their father should be respected and the distributees should respectively hold their assigned shares to the exclusion of the other heirs. This alleged oral partition was denied and contested by the appellees. We rule that this oral partition could not have been valid, even between the parties, because Adriano Duenas could have not validly made such a partition without the consent and approval of all the co-owners to the properties.

If a deed of extra-judicial partition which did include the co-heirs who had no knowledge of and consent to the same is considered fraudulent and vicious (Villaluz, et al., vs. Nene, et al, 7 SCRA 27), with more reason should we say that an alleged partition, which has not been positively established, be considered nonexistent, and being non-existent, it can not furnish a spring or source from which rights can arise. While it is true that oral partition can be a valid distribution of hereditary properties among the heirs (Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 PhiL 196); that in this jurisdiction, on grounds of equity, it is competent for the heirs of an estate, where no rights of creditors are involved, to enter into an oral agreement for distribution of the estate among themselves (Barcelona, et al., vs. Barcelona, et al., 100 Phil. 251), yet such partition must be participated in by all the heirs in order that it be binding on all.

In the case at bar, it was not even an oral partition or designation of properties by the father in favor of five children, without the participation of the four others. Under what legal authority Adriano Duenas has assigned to his five children the five properties we can not see. Adriano Duenas was only a co-owner to the undivided one-half of each of the five properties.

He did not execute a valid donation over his undivided one-half interest on each of the properties to the recipient of the assignment. So, there was not even a valid transmission of rights to any of his five children as regards his undivided shares, in the five properties. Indeed, his undivided interest to each of the five properties were transmitted upon his death to all of the nine children.

Now, when, before the death of Adriano Duenas, he and his five children had executed an Extra-judicial partition (Exh. P) of the properties, where the other four children, the herein appellees,2 had refused to consent and to sign the deed, then the appellees are not bound by the said extra-judicial partition. They retain their rights to every inch of ground, or area, in each of every property that was the subject of the extra-judicial partition.

The recipients of certain properties under the extra-judicial partition can not take exclusive interests on the property to the exclusion of the co-heirs who did not participate in the partition. And so, appellees had a right to demand partition of each of the eight parcels of land-the mass of property inherited from their parents. (Rollo, pp. 15-17) In view of the aforementioned findings, the appellate court' found it necessary to revise the distribution of the estate made by the court a quo by not including one-half (1/2) of the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6901 in the mass of collated hereditary property, the court ruling as follows: There is available for partition 30.8211 hectares, and each of the nine heirs is entitled to an average of 3.4245 hectares.

We now make the distribution, giving and granting unto each of the following heirs, as their share in the eight parcels of lands, subject of this partition, thus: A. Cleotilde Duenas 1. On a portion of the lot covered by Tax Dec. No. 6907 (Exhibit B), containing an area of...

2.3956 has. 2. On a portion of the lot covered by OCT No. 75- (0-1522) of the Register of deeds of (Zamboanga) Basilan City, containing an area of 1.0256 has.

3. A portion of a residential lot, now identified as Lot No. 916-GSS-09-000002 (See Exh. V), containing an area of .0033 has.

Total share