PARTITION
RULE 69
Accounting for rent and profits in action
for partition
❖ a party shall recover from another his just share of rents and profits
received by such other party from the real estate in question
❖ the judgment of partition shall include an allowance for the rents and
profits received
2
Power of guardian in Partition
proceedings
❖ The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or person judicially declared to
be incompetent may do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or
thing respecting the partition of real estate, which the minor or person
judicially declared to be incompetent could do in partition proceedings if he
were of age or competent
❑ approval of the court must be secured first
3
Costs and expenses to be taxed and
collected
❖
The court shall equitably tax and apportion between or among the parties the
costs and expenses which accrue in the action,
❖ Factors:
o the compensation of the commissioners,
o the interests of the parties
❖ Execution may be issued
4
judgment and its effect
1. Actual Partition
2. Assignment of Whole Property to one of the parties after payment
3. Property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court
5
judgment and its effect
Actual Partition was Made
❖ Content of Judgment: state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate
description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party
❖ Effect of Judgment: to vest in each party to the action in severalty the portion
of the real estate assigned to him
6
judgment and its effect
Assignment of Whole Property to one of the parties after payment
❖ Upon payment to the other parties the sum ordered by the court
❖ Content of Judgment: state the fact of such payment and of the assignment of
the real estate to the party making the payment
❖ Effect of Judgment: to vest in the party making the payment the whole of the
real estate free from any interest on the part of the other parties to the action
7
judgment and its effect
Property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court
❖ Content of Judgment: state the name of the purchaser or purchasers and a
definite description of the parcels of real estate sold to each purchaser
❖ Effect of Judgment: to vest the real estate in the purchaser or purchasers
making the payment or payments, free from the claims of any of the parties to
the action
8
copy to be recorded in registry of deeds
❖ Certified copy of the judgment of partition whether it resulted properly in
actual partition, assignment or sale shall be:
1. recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the real estate is
situated,
2. the expenses of such recording shall be taxed as part of the costs of the
9
paramount rights nor amicable partition Is
not affected
❖ Provision on Partition under Rule 69 of the ROC shall not be construed so as to
prejudice, defeat, or destroy:
1. the right or title of any person claiming the real estate involved by title
under any other person, or
2. by title paramount to the title of the parties among whom the partition
may have been made
❖ Judgment of Partition is without prejudice to rights of Third Persons
❖ Partition is not Conveyance
10
paramount rights nor amicable partition
Is not affected
❖ Provision on Partition under Rule 69 of the ROC shall not be construed so as to
restrict or prevent persons holding real estate jointly or in common from
making an amicable partition by agreement and suitable instruments of
conveyance without recourse to an action
❖ Extrajudicial Partition is Recognized
❖ There is no law that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid
(Vda. De Reyes vs. CA, GR no. 92436, July 26, 1991)
11
Vda. De Reyes vs. CA, GR no. 92436, July
26, 1991
FACTS: The ascendant of the petitioner owned a parcel of land, which was transferred to the
petitioners; the petitioners partitioned the said property amongst themselves albeit not deduced into
writing.
One of the heirs sold his share of the property to the private respondent, the petitioners now claim that
since the same was never validly partitioned and was extrajudicial settled the said sale was allegedly
void.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was valid partition.
RULING: Yes. The requirement that a partition be put in a public document and registered has for its
purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of the heirs themselves against
tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. There is nothing in
law from which it can be inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential requisite to the validity
of the partition. Accordingly, an oral partition is valid.12
Heirs of Teves v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
109963 October 13, 1999
FACTS: Spouses Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves died intestate and without debts. Their
children executed extrajudicial settlements purporting to adjudicate unto themselves the ownership
over parcels of land left by the spouses and to alienate their shares in favor of Asuncion, their sister, for
a consideration. After the death of Asuncion, private respondents, Asuncion’s heirs, extrajudicially
settled her property, adjudicating unto themselves said lots.
Herein petitioners, heirs of the Spouses, filed a complaint for the partition and reconveyance of the
subject of land, alleging that the extrajudicial settlements were spurious.
ISSUE: Whether or not the extrajudicial settlements be upheld?
13
Heirs of Teves v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
109963 October 13, 1999
RULING: Yes. An extrajudicial settlement is a contract, and it is a well-entrenched doctrine that the
law does not relieve a party from the effects of a contract, entered into with all the required
formalities and with full awareness of what he was doing, simply because the contract turned out to
be a foolish or unwise investment. Therefore, although plaintiffs-appellants may regret having
alienated their hereditary shares in favor of their sister Asuncion, they must now be considered
bound by their own contractual acts. The subject extrajudicial settlements were never registered.
However, in the case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the Court, interpreting Section 1 of Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court, upheld the validity of an oral partition of the decedent’s estate and declared that the
non-registration of an extrajudicial settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity. Thus, despite its
non-registration, the extrajudicial settlements are legally effective and binding among the heirs of
Marcelina Cimafranca since their mother had no creditors at the time of her death.
14
Partition of personal property
❖ Insofar as applicable, Provisions of Rule 69 of ROC apply to:
o partitions of estates composed of personal property, OR
o partitions of estates composed of of both real and personal property
15
Prescription of Action
❖ General rule: The right of action to demand partition does not prescribe, (De Castro
v. Echarri, G.R. No. 5609, 1911)
❑ Exception: Where one of the interested parties openly and adversely occupies
the property without recognizing the co-ownership
(Cordova v. Cordova, G.R. No. L-9936, 1958)
16
MARIATEGUI V. CA GR No. L-57062 January 24,
1992
FACTS: Lupo Mariateguie died without a will. He had 3 marriages with 8 children all in
all. He left four properties. His descendants by his 1st and 2nd marriages executed a
deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated one of the lots unto
themselves.
Lupo’s children with the 3rd wife, who were claiming continuous enjoyment and
possession of the land, protested. They claimed that when the court adjudicated one of
the four lots to their co-heirs, they were deprived of their respective shares in the lot.
They prayed for the partition of the entire estate (all 4 lots) and the annulment of the
deed of extrajudicial partition.
The defendants (other heirs) filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of
action and prescription.
17
MARIATEGUI V. CA GR No. L-57062 January 24,
1992
ISSUE: Whether or not prescription barred private respondents’ right to demand
partition of the estate.
RULING: No. Prescription does not run against private respondents for the filing of the
action for partition so long as the heirs/co-owners for whose benefit the prescription is
invoked have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership. Petitioner’s
registration of the properties in their names in 1971 did not operate as a valid
repudiation of co-ownership because it was not clearly made known to the other heirs
and especially since there was fraud involved.
18
Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR no.
75886, August 30, 1988
FACTS: The property was registered originally in the name of Januario Avendaño, a
bachelor who died intestate and without issue. His intestate heirs executed a document
entitled "Paghahati at Pagtagabuyan ng Mana sa Labas ng Hukuman.“ The co-ownerheirs, in consideration of P500.00, transferred their collective and undivided (3/4) share
to respondent Ernesto Roque and Victor Roque. They purportedly sold a (3/4) undivided
portion of the property to their half-sister, petitioner Concepcion Roque.
Petitioner filed a Complaint for "Partition with Specific Performance" against
respondents Ernesto and the heirs of Victor.
Respondents impugned the genuineness and due execution of the "Bilihan Lubos at
Patuluyan”.
19
Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR no.
75886, August 30, 1988
ISSUE: Whether or not an action for Partition is the proper remedy in this case.
RULING: Yes. The petitioner is correct in instituting the action for partition. The case of
Jardin v. Hallasgo,provides that, While the action for the partition of the thing owned in
common does not prescribe, the co-ownership does not last forever since it may be
repudiated by a co-owner. In such a case, the action for partition does not lie. What may
be brought by the aggrieved co-owner is an accion reivindicatoria or action for recovery
of title and possession. That action may be barred by prescription. In this case, there is
no valid repudiation.
20
Figuracion v. Vda. De Figuracion, G.R. No.
154322 August 22, 2006
FACTS: Leandro Figuracion executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in favor
of his six children. When he died, he left behind two parcels of land..
What gave rise to the complaint for partition, however, was a dispute between two
sisters-petitioner and respondent, over the eastern half of Lot. While petitioner points
out that the estate is allegedly without any debt and she and respondents are Leandro
Figuracion’s only legal heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the CA that “certain
expenses” including those related to her father’s final illness and burial have not been
properly settled.
21
Figuracion v. Vda. De Figuracion, G.R. No.
154322 August 22, 2006
ISSUE: Is an action for partition appropriate in this case?
RULING: No. In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable
to the estate, partition is inappropriate. Petitioner does not dispute the finding of the CA
that "certain expenses" including those related to her father’s final illness and burial
have not been properly settled. Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to
submit their father’s estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses
cannot be done in an action for partition.
If it is any consolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties may
take possession thereof even before the settlement of accounts, as long as they first file
a bond conditioned on the payment of the estate’s obligations
22
THANKS FOR
LISTENING!
23