LIM V CA
G.R. No. 124715, January 24, 2000
Petitioners, heirs of Cresencia, alleged that since the demise of the spouses Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa, the subject properties had been administered by respondent Lorenzo. They claimed that before her death, Cresencia had demanded their partition from Lorenzo. After Cresencia’s death, they likewise clamored for their partition. Their efforts proved fruitless.
Respondent Lorenzo and Hermogenes adamant stance against partition is based on various contentions. Principally, they urge: (1) that the properties had already been partitioned, albeit, orally; and (2) during her lifetime, the late Cresencia had sold and conveyed all her interests in said properties to respondent Lorenzo. They cited as evidence the “Deed of Confirmation of Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa” and a receipt of payment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the late Crescencia sold her inheritance share in favor of the respondent Lorenzo.
The Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the trial court which voided the Deed of Confirmation of Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa and Sale on the ground that it was not understood by the late Cresencia when she signed it. As to the receipt, it speaks of the late Cresencia’s pro-indiviso share of the subject properties or her share before division. The SC noted that the subject lots are still covered by tax declarations in the name of their parents. If these lots had already been partitioned to the different heirs and then occupied by them, it appears strange that their tax declarations have not been adjusted to reflect their ownership considering the long time that has elapsed since 1930. Respondent Lorenzo testified that he took possession of the lot supposed to belong to the late Crescencia in 1966, yet, he himself did not cause any change in its tax declaration.. To say the least, the omission buttresses the conclusion that the properties have not been partitioned.
