Lejarzo v. Ciar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint for partition of properties left by the deceased Ciriaco Ciar was filed. Plaintiff Sabina Lejarzo was the widow of Ciriaco Ciar in his third marriage. Plaintiff Paciano Ciar was the sole issue from the first marriage, and defendant Rosario Ciar was the sole issue from the second marriage. Eleven properties were involved, with plaintiffs alleging nine were conjugal properties of Ciriaco Ciar and Sabina Lejarzo, and two were private properties of Ciriaco Ciar. The defendant alleged that an extra-judicial deed of partition was executed on February 3, 1937, by which the parties took possession of their respective adjudicated parcels. Procedural History: The defendant alleged that parcels 1-A, 4-D, and 5-E were private properties of the deceased. Plaintiffs admitted this for parcels 4-D and 5-E, limiting the controversy to parcel 1-A. Defendant also alleged parcel 11-B was the paraphernal property of her deceased mother, Damasa Guevara. The lower court declared property 1-A as belonging to the conjugal partnership of Ciriaco Ciar and Sabina Lejarzo, and property 11-B as a privative property of Ciriaco Ciar. The lower court also found the extra-judicial deed of partition binding. The Petition: The defendant appealed the lower court's decision, questioning the classification of property 1-A and property 11-B, and the binding effect of the deed of partition. The defendant also claimed damages and costs.
Issue(s)
Whether property 1-A is conjugal property of Ciriaco Ciar and Sabina Lejarzo. Whether property 11-B is the paraphernal property of Damasa Guevara or a privative property of Ciriaco Ciar. Whether the extra-judicial deed of partition dated February 3, 1937, is binding upon the parties. Whether the partition proceedings should continue for properties not included in the extra-judicial deed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision with modifications. It declared property 1-A as conjugal property, property 11-B as a privative property of Ciriaco Ciar, upheld the binding effect of the extra-judicial deed of partition, and ordered that partition proceedings continue for properties not included in the deed and for the actual division of properties included therein.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of property 1-A: The Court found the testimony of Sabina Lejarzo more credible than that of Rosario Ciar. Sabina Lejarzo testified that she and her husband bought the property in 1918, and the house was built by them, and they lived there until Ciriaco Ciar's death. Rosario Ciar vaguely testified that the property was her father's absolute property and not conjugal, and that the land was bought by her father but she did not know when. The Court noted that Sabina Lejarzo's testimony was specific, while Rosario Ciar's was vague and indefinite. Given that the property was acquired during the marriage, it is presumed conjugal in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, applying established jurisprudence. The Court also noted that the lower court erred in admitting Exhibit B, a mere copy of a deed of sale, without proper proof of execution or genuineness. On the classification of property 11-B: The Court found that the evidence established property 11-B as a privative property of the deceased Ciriaco Ciar. Rosario Ciar's claim that it was her mother's paraphernal property, based on a lost deed of sale, was not given much weight because she could not read Spanish and the translator did not testify, making her testimony hearsay. Witnesses Lorenzo Vecina, Isidoro Vecina, and Pedro Pasco testified that the land originally belonged to Julia Ciar and Fausta Belen, from whom Ciriaco Ciar inherited, and that Damasa Guevara did not own it by purchase. They also testified that the land was possessed by Ricardo Ciar and Rosario Ciar only from the death of Ciriaco Ciar, and that Ciriaco Ciar was in possession thereof, not Rosario Ciar. The Court found no reason to disturb the lower court's pronouncement. On the binding effect of the extra-judicial deed of partition: The Court held that the extra-judicial deed of partition executed on February 3, 1937, was binding upon the parties, including the waivers contained therein. The deed comprehended six parcels of land agreed upon as conjugal properties of Ciriaco Ciar and Sabina Lejarzo. The parties agreed to adjudicate undivided halves, with waivers of rights in the other half. The Court stated that as long as the properties remained undivided, any party may initiate an action for actual division and partition. However, parties are duty-bound to abide by the mutual waivers agreed upon in the document. On the continuation of partition proceedings: The Court ruled that partition proceedings should continue not only for the partition of properties not included in the extra-judicial deed of February 3, 1937, but also for the actual division and partition of the properties mentioned therein. This ensures a complete and final settlement of all properties left by the deceased Ciriaco Ciar, respecting the usufructuary rights of the widow in properties not covered by the deed.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in a partition case, clarifying the classification of properties as conjugal or private based on evidence, and emphasizing the binding effect of a duly executed deed of partition while allowing further proceedings for properties not included therein.