Hernandez v. Andal
G.R. No. L-273, March 29, 1947
Cresencia, Maria, Aquilina, Pedro and Basilia Hernandez are brother and
sisters, who acquired in common a parcel of land from their deceased father. Maria and
Aquilina sold to the spouses Andal a portion thereof, which they purport to be their
combined shares by virtue of a verbal partition made among the siblings Hernandez.
After the sale, Cresencia attempted to repurchase the land sold to Andal but the latter
refused to sell the same. Later, Andal resold the same to Maria and Aquilina. Maria and
Aquilina alleged that there had been an oral partition among them and their brother and
sisters, and that there are witnesses ready to prove such partition. However, Cresencia
asserted that under the Rules of Court, parol evidence of partition is inadmissible.
ISSUE: Whether or not oral evidence is admissible in proving a contract of partition
among heirs
As a general proposition, transactions, so far as they affect the parties, are
required to be reduced to writing either as a condition of jural validity or as a means of
providing evidence to prove the transactions. Written form exacted by the statute of
frauds, for example, “is for evidential purposes only.” The Civil Code, too, requires the
accomplishment of acts or contracts in a public instrument, not in order to validate the
act or contract but only to insure its efficacy so that after the existence of the acts or
contracts has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the
document. It must be noted that where the law intends a writing or other formality to be the essential requisite to the validity of the transactions it says so in clear and
unequivocal terms. Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court contains no such express
or clear declaration that the required public instruments is to be constitutive of a contract of partition or an inherent element of its effectiveness as between the parties. 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. It must follow that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the
prescribed formalities does not come into play when, as in this case, there are no
creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected. No rights of creditors being involved,
it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution in a
manner and upon a plan different from those provided by law. Judgment reversed.
