Case Digest: Chavez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-68282, November 8, 1990

Succession | Act Inter Vivos

Art. 1080. Should a person make partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of the right granted him in this article, by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not assigned, be paid in cash.

Ponente:

Griño-Aquino, J.:

Facts:

Manuela Buenavista vda. de Chavez owned a land in Camarines Norte as a paraphernal property.

She had six (6) children:

1. Antonio
2. Rosario
3. Concepcion
4. Raquel
5. Presentacion
6. Floserpina 

In 1958, Presentacion, with the conformity of her mother, executed a deed of sale of her 1/6 undivided share of the land to her sister, Concepcion for P 450.

In 1960, Floserpina, with the conformity of her mother, also sold her 1/6 undivided share of the same land to her sister, Concepcion, for the same price of P450. 

In the same year, Raquel, with the conformity of her mother, likewise sold her undivided 1/6 share of the same property to Concepcion for P600. 

Having acquired the shares of Presentacion, Floserpina and Raquel, Concepcion thereby became the owner of a total undivided 4/6 share of the land in question with Antonio and Rosario as owners of the remaining 2/6 shares.

In all the documents, Manuela had distributed to her children, in equal pro-indiviso shares, her paraphernal property while reserving for herself the possession of the land and the enjoyment of the fruits during her lifetime.

In 1968, Manuela signed a "Bilihang Patuluyan ng Lupa" of the entire property in favor of her daughter, Raquel, and her husband, Gerardo Jimenez.

Antonio, Rosario and Concepcion filed a civil case against their mother Manuela and their sister Raquel. 

In 1969, Manuela sold the entire property to Pepito Ferrer, with right to repurchase. Ferrer was later sued as an additional defendant.

CFI-Camarines Norte: Dismissed the complaint.

IAC now CA: Reversed the decision of the Trial Court, declaring the deeds of sale in favor of Raquel Chavez and Gerardo Jimenez and the sale in favor of defendant-appellee Pepito Ferrer as null and void ab initio.

Issue: WoN the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) erred in declaring valid the deeds of sale as a partition by an act inter vivos considering that examining the said exhibits will reveal that it is not a testament amounting to a will of Manuela Buenavista. NO

Held:

We find those contentions not well-taken.

Article 1080 of the New Civil Code allows a person to make a partition of his estate either by an act inter vivos or by will and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitimate of the compulsory heirs. While the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, the partition by the parent, as provided in Art. 1080, is a case expressly authorized by law (Art. 1347, par. 2, Civil Code of the Phil. by Padilla, 1987 Edition, p. 744.)

Art. 1080 of the Civil Code clearly gives a person two options in making a partition of his estate; either by an act inter vivos or by will. 

When a person makes a partition by will, it is imperative that such partition must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the law on wills; however, when a person makes the partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a will, provided that the partition does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs.

In numerous cases it has been held or stated that parol partitions may be sustained on the ground of estoppel of the parties to assert the rights of a tenant in common as to parts of land divided by parol partition as to which possession in severalty was taken and acts of individual ownership were exercised. And a court of equity will recognize the agreement 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 severalty.

A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking possession in severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of the partition. (Hernandez vs. Andal, et al., 78 Phil. 196, 203.)

In the instant case, the respondent appellate court declared the Deeds of Sale executed by Presentacion, Floserfina and Raquel, all surnamed Chavez in favor of Concepcion Chavez as evidence of a valid partition of the land in question by and between Manuela Buenavista and her children as she not only gave her authority thereto but also signed the sales. The Deeds of Sale are not contracts entered into with respect to future inheritance but a contract perfected and consummated during the lifetime of Manuela Buenavista who signed the same and gave her consent thereto. Such partition inter vivos, executed by the property owner herself, is valid.

.... As the defendants freely participated in the partition, they are now estopped from denying and repudiating the consequences of their own voluntary acts. It is a general principle of law that no one may be permitted to disavow and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto. (Joaquin vs. Mitsumine 34 Phil. 858.)

Where a piece of land has been included in a partition, and there is no allegation that the inclusion was effected through improper means or without the petitioner's knowledge, the partition barred any further litigation on said title and operated to bring the property under the control and jurisdiction of the court for proper disposition according to the tenor of the partition... They cannot attack the partition collaterally ... (Ralla vs. Judge Untalan, 172 SCRA 858, 865, citing the case of Torres vs. Encarnacion and De Borja, No. L-4681, July 31, 1951, 89 Phil. 678.)

As well argued by counsel for the respondents in their memorandum, it would be unjust and inequitable to allow Manuela Buenavista Vda. de Chavez to revoke the sales she herself authorized as well as the sale she herself executed in favor of her son only to execute a simulated sale in favor of her daughter Raquel who had already profited from the sale she made of the property she had received in the partition inter vivos; it would run counter to the doctrine that "no person should be allowed to unjustly enrich herself at the expense of another."

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. No. CV-64708, the same is affirmed in toto. The petition for review is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioners