Marcos v. Bangi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, heirs of Isidro and Genoveva Bangi, filed a complaint for annulment of documents, cancellation of titles, and recovery of ownership against petitioners, Spouses Dominador and Gloria Marcos, and others. Respondents claimed their parents bought one-third of a parcel of land in 1943 from Eusebio Bangi, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. They took possession until their deaths, after which respondents continued possession. In 1998, respondents discovered the title was transferred to Dominador, Primo Alap, Jose Dilla, and Emilio Sumajit via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995, purportedly from Alipio Bangi (Eusebio's father) and his wife Ramona. Respondents alleged this deed was forged as Alipio died in 1918 and Ramona in 1957. Consequently, OCT No. 22361 was cancelled and TCT No. 47829 was issued. Subsequently, Primo, Jose, and Emilio sold the property to petitioners via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 21, 1995, leading to TCT No. T-48446 in petitioners' names. Respondents claimed this second deed was also forged as Primo died in 1972. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995, and November 21, 1995, as null and void, along with TCT Nos. T-47829 and T-48446. It ordered the reinstatement of OCT No. 22361 and declared the sale by Eusebio Bangi to Isidro and Genoveva Bangi as valid and effective. The RTC found the August 10, 1995 deed forged because Alipio died in 1918. It upheld the November 5, 1943 deed, noting petitioners' failure to prove Eusebio's signature was falsified and that the donation propter nuptias was fictitious. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The CA found that while the donation propter nuptias was not sufficiently established, Eusebio owned the property by inheritance from his father Alipio, who died in 1918. The CA also disregarded the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim dated May 8, 1995, as a mere afterthought. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing the CA erred in affirming the RTC's upholding of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1943, between Eusebio and the spouses Isidro and Genoveva, claiming the sale was invalid due to lack of partition among Alipio's heirs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC Decision which upheld the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1943, over the one-third portion of the subject property executed by Eusebio Bangi in favor of the spouses Isidro and Genoveva. Whether the heirs of Alipio Bangi had already effected a partition of his estate prior to the sale of the one-third portion of the subject property to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva on November 5, 1943.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated September 30, 2008, and Resolution dated December 4, 2008, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89508 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC Decision which upheld the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1943: The Court held that the petition primarily raises a question of fact, specifically whether the heirs of Alipio Bangi had partitioned his estate prior to the sale in question. Such a determination requires an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, which is generally outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. The Court reiterated that a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, whereas a question of fact arises when doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. Since the resolution of the issue necessitates a review of evidence, it is a question of fact. Even if the Court were to delve into the factual aspect, it found no reversible error in the CA's ruling. The CA correctly concluded that an oral partition of Alipio's estate had been effected among his heirs, assigning the subject property to Eusebio. This conclusion was supported by the testimony of Gloria Marcos herself, indicating Eusebio owned the entire lot as his siblings had received their shares from other properties. The fact that there was no written memorandum of this partition did not detract from its validity, as oral partitions are effective when consummated by possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership. On the issue of whether the heirs of Alipio Bangi had already effected a partition of his estate prior to the sale of the one-third portion of the subject property to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva on November 5, 1943: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that an oral partition had indeed taken place. The Court cited Article 1079 of the Civil Code, defining partition as the separation and assignment of a thing held in common, and Article 1082, stating that every act intended to end indivision among co-heirs is deemed a partition. The Court further relied on jurisprudence, such as Hernandez v. Andal, which established that equity can enforce oral partitions when they have been completely or partly performed by taking possession in severalty and exercising acts of ownership. The Court found that the evidence indubitably showed an oral partition after Alipio's death, with the subject property assigned to Eusebio. This oral partition was consummated by Eusebio's possession and exercise of ownership, validating his subsequent sale of the one-third portion to Isidro and Genoveva. The Court also found the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim executed in 1995 by Eusebio's siblings to be a suspicious afterthought, intended to thwart the respondents' claim, and merely confirmed the earlier oral partition.
Main Doctrine
An oral partition, even if not in writing, may be recognized and enforced by equity if it has been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership over the respective portions set off to each party, or if the parties have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by their actions.