LEGASTO v.

VERSOZA RATIO:
March 31, 1930 | Villa-real, J. | Partition 1.
a. From a decision of the Spanish Supreme Court and the commentary
PETITIONERS: Vivencio Legasto, special administrator of the Intestate estate of the learned and authoritative commentator Manresa, the Court
of Sabina Almadin agrees that a testator may, by an act inter vivos, partition his
RESPONDENTS: Maria Versoza et al property, but he must first make a will with all the formalities
provided for by law.
Doctrine: ART. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his property by i. It could not be otherwise, for without a will there can be no
an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not testator; when the law, therefore, speaks of the partition
inter vivos made by a testator of his property, it
prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs –> the provision contemplates a valid
necessarily refers to that property which he has devised
and existing will. If there is no will, the partition is NULL and VOID. to his heirs.
ii. A person who disposes of his property gratis inter vivos in
not called a testator, but a donor.
FACTS: iii. In employing the word "testator," the law evidently
1. On May 13, 1925, Sabina Almadin executed a will, devising certain parcels desired to distinguish between the one who freely
of land belonging to her, to her four nieces (daughters of her sister Catalina donates his property in life and one who disposes of it
Almadin) - Maria Verzosa, Oliva Verzosa, Toribia Verzosa, and Ruperta by will to take effect his death.
Palma designating the parcels to be given to each. b. As Sabina Almadin's will was disallowed for the reason that it did
2. On Aug 8, 1925, Sabina partitioned her property among her aforesaid sister not contain all the essential requisites provided by law for its
and nieces, executing a deed to her niece, Maria, assigning and making over validity, the partition is not valid
to her three parcels of her land. 2.
a. On September 23, 1925, Maria and Sabina appeared before the a. Article 633 of the Civil Code provides that in order that a donation
deputy provincial assessor and municipal secretary of Biñan, of real property be valid, it must be made by public instrument, in
Laguna, and made two sworn statements to the effect that a sale was which the property donated must be specifically described, and that
made by Sabina to Maria. the acceptance may be made in the same deed of gift or in a separate
3. The same types of transactions – partition and sale were made for the parcels instrument, but in the latter case notice thereof should be given the
designated to each niece (Olivia, Toribia, and Ruperta) donor in due form, and a note to that effect inserted in both
instruments.
4. The assignees (nieces) took possession of their respective parcels thus ceded
b. There is no question that the documents Exhibits 2, 31, 42, and 73
by Sabina, and have to this day been cultivating them as exclusive owners
contain all the requisites for public instruments. However, they do
thereof.
not show the acceptance of the respective donees.
5. Sabina passed away on February 22, 1926 and on March 12th the same year, c. The sworn statements signed by Sabina Almadin in which it appears
her sister, Catalina Almadin, presented by Attorney Federico Marino, that she has assigned to each of her nieces, respectively, the parcels
propounded her will, for probate. The will was not admitted to probate. of land in litigation, and wherein each of said nieces states that she
6. Vivencio Legasto, then, the special administrator appointed by the CFI to has purchased the same parcels of land from her aunt Sabina
take charge of Sabina Almadin's estate, filed a complaint claiming the Almadin, CANNOT constitute a gift and an acceptance at the same
delivery of the parcels of land given to the nieces back to the estate time to merit it a donation, as the statements contemplate a sale and
not to a gift and cannot, therefore, be considered as public
ISSUE/S: instruments of gifts showing the acceptance of the donees.
1. WON partition made was valid – NO. d. Even if the sworn statements constitute separate deeds of
2. WON conveyances (as a donation) are valid – NO. acceptance, there is still lacking the legal requisite of notification in
due form to the donor of the donee's acceptance, and the annotation
thereof in the deed of gift and in the instrument of acceptance. The
 formal notice calls for the agency of the same notary who
authenticated the acceptance and he should under his authority
make the annotation of said notice, as indicated
e. Furthermore, the aforesaid sworn statements are not deeds
transferring title but mere acknowledgments made under oath of the
fact of the transfer, required by the law in order that the provincial
assessor may make the proper transfer of the tax declarations of the
vendor to the vendee, where the transfer has not been recorded in
the registry of deeds.

DISPOSITIVE: judgment is affirmed, with costs.