Favor v. CA
G.R. No. 80821 February 21, 1991
Regino Favor died intestate leaving three sons and several parcels of land in his
name. Before the property could be divided among the three brothers, one of them died
without issue, leaving Gregorio and Prudencio as the surviving brothers. Gregorio filed a
complaint against Prudencio for partition over the several parcels of land, which the
latter moved to dismiss, alleging that the properties had already been partitioned under
a Compromise Agreement concluded between Gregorio and him on October 4, 1948,
and acknowledged before the justice of the peace of Luzuriaga, Negros Oriental. The
motion to dismiss was denied and Gregorio filed an amended complaint for partition and
invalidation of the Compromise Agreement on the ground of fraud and mistake.
Gregorio claimed that he signed the said agreement mistaking It to be a mortgage
receipt and not a partition, and that he could neither read nor speak English. On the
other hand, Prudencio narrated under oath that after the death of their father and later
of their brother Hilario, he and Gregorio verbally partitioned their inheritance, but in 1948 Gregorio asked for a new partition. He refused. Gregorio then filed a complaint against him which was, however, withdrawn after they signed the Compromise Agreement. He insisted that the agreement was a valid and binding document that justified the dismissal of the new complaint.
The trial court declared the Compromise agreement as null and void. This was
reversed by the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Compromise Agreement and
ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Compromise Agreement is valid and binding
YES. The said agreement, although denominated as a Compromise Agreement
is deemed a deed of partition under Article 1082 of the Civil Code, which categorically
provides that “Every act which is intended to put an end to in division among co-heirs
and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a
sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.” The court upheld said
agreement since a public instrument enjoys the presumption of validity that has not
been overcome by the petitioner in this case with the full, clear and convincing
evidence. The document appears to have been duly notarized, and by the then justice
of the peace, and ex officio notary public, of the town where it was executed. Although it
was written in English, the Court presumed that its contents were sufficiently explained
to the parties thereto, who both claimed to be illiterate That claim is believable in
Prudencio, who declared he was a farmer and merely affixed his thumbmark to the
document, but it is not as credible with respect to Gregorio, who actually signed the
agreement. Gregorio was in fact a businessman and even ran for the position of
barangay captain, for which the ability to read and write is prescribed as an
indispensable qualification.
However, while the Court upheld the Compromise Agreement, it held that the
complaint for partition should not have been entirely dismissed since there are still
certain properties of Regino Favor that have not been distributed between the brothers,
as a close examination of the Compromise Agreement will reveal. As the Compromise
Agreement was entered into in 1948, the provision therein for the co-ownership of one
of the lots is deemed to have expired in 1958, no extension thereof having been
established. Hence, these two lots must now be the subject of a separate partition
conformably to the prayer in the complaint. The case was remanded to the RTC while
the rest of the challenged decision was affirmed.
