This case involves a dispute over ownership of land originally covered by a single title. The petitioners claimed the land was never validly partitioned, while the respondent argued it had been orally partitioned long ago. The courts ruled that an oral partition could be inferred from the long-standing separate possession and exercise of ownership by the family members over distinct areas. While an oral partition may not be valid in law, equity recognizes such arrangements when the agreement has been substantially performed by taking possession and control of individual portions. The Supreme Court partly affirmed this finding.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land originally covered by a single title. The petitioners claimed the land was never validly partitioned, while the respondent argued it had been orally partitioned long ago. The courts ruled that an oral partition could be inferred from the long-standing separate possession and exercise of ownership by the family members over distinct areas. While an oral partition may not be valid in law, equity recognizes such arrangements when the agreement has been substantially performed by taking possession and control of individual portions. The Supreme Court partly affirmed this finding.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land originally covered by a single title. The petitioners claimed the land was never validly partitioned, while the respondent argued it had been orally partitioned long ago. The courts ruled that an oral partition could be inferred from the long-standing separate possession and exercise of ownership by the family members over distinct areas. While an oral partition may not be valid in law, equity recognizes such arrangements when the agreement has been substantially performed by taking possession and control of individual portions. The Supreme Court partly affirmed this finding.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land originally covered by a single title. The petitioners claimed the land was never validly partitioned, while the respondent argued it had been orally partitioned long ago. The courts ruled that an oral partition could be inferred from the long-standing separate possession and exercise of ownership by the family members over distinct areas. While an oral partition may not be valid in law, equity recognizes such arrangements when the agreement has been substantially performed by taking possession and control of individual portions. The Supreme Court partly affirmed this finding.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
NOTARTE V. NOTARTE (G.R. NO.
180614; AUGUST 29, 2012)
CASE DIGEST: LEONARDO NOTARTE, GUILLERMO NOTARTE, REGALADO NOTARTE AND HEIRS OF FELIPE NOTARTE,Petitioners, v. GODOFREDO NOTARTE, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioners Leonardo, Guillermo, Regalado, all surnamed Notarte, and the heirs of Felipe Notarte were co-owners of a 263,233-square meter land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 48098.
On October 15, 1984, respondent Godofredo Notarte (Godofredo) bought a portion of the said land from Patrocenia Nebril-Gamboa (Patrocenia), cousin of Felipe Notarte. Thereafter, Godofredo filed a complaint before the MTC to correct and remove the overlapping of boundaries of the lots originally covered by OCT No. 48098. He averred that the said parcel of land is no longer undivided as it had been physically segregated into the designated shares of the registered owners.
Leonardo, et al. countered that the land was never validly partitioned since there was neither extrajudicial nor judicial partition executed. They claimed that their respective areas of possession were just orally assigned to each one of them.
ISSUE:
Is an oral partition of co-owned property valid?
HELD: We sustain the RTC and CA in finding that the property covered by OCT No. 48098 had already been partitioned long before respondent purchased his lot. Under Article 1082 of the Civil Code, every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, or any other transaction. Partition may thus be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption. The validity of an oral partition is already well-settled. In another case, we have held that after exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of the contested estate, petitioners are estopped from denying the existence of an oral partition.
On this point, this Court has ruled that: "on general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed. Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder."
President Uhuru Kenyatta's Speech During The Extraordinary Session of The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of The African Union, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
