G.R. No. 148635 - Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile

The case involves a petition for review of an appellate decision reversing a Regional Trial Court ruling on partition, accounting, and damages.
Petitioners are a group of heirs of Bernardo Cavili, including Marilla Mayang Cavile, Don C. Dela Cruz, and several others, all asserting their rights concerning properties inherited from their common ascendant.
Respondents are the heirs of Clarita Cavile and other related parties, asserting a different interpretation of the inheritance and partition of properties.
The dispute centers on the partition of properties acquired by Bernardo Cavili, who had three marriages and left descendants from each.

First marriage with Ines Dumat-ol resulted in Simplicia.
Second marriage with Orfia Colalho produced Fortunato and Vevencia.
Third marriage with Tranquilina Galon resulted in Castor, Susana, and Benedicta.

During his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired six parcels of land, which became the subject matter of the partition dispute.
Following Bernardo’s death, his son from the third marriage, Castor, assumed administrative possession of the properties on behalf of all co-owners.

In October 1977, respondents (descendants from the first and second marriages) initiated a complaint for partition against the petitioners (descendants from the third marriage).

The complaint alleged co-ownership of the inherited properties.
When Castor died, his children took possession of the lands and refused the respondents’ request for partition.

The petitioners, having failed to file an answer within the prescribed period, were declared in default, allowing respondents to present evidence ex parte.
On October 5, 1979, the trial court ordered the partition of the properties.
A motion for new trial was later filed by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, who were not properly served, leading the trial court to permit the presentation of additional evidence.

Among the new evidence was a Deed of Partition dated April 5, 1937, executed by the heirs of Bernardo Cavili.

On May 7, 1991, the trial court dismissed the partition complaint, relying on the documentary evidence of partition in 1937.

The Deed of Partition (marked as Exhibit a1a) demonstrates the division of the properties:

The properties were divided into two parts – one part reflecting Bernardo Cavili’s share (further subdivided among the heirs of the first, second, and third marriages) and another part equally divided among the children of the third marriage.
The deed also provided for subsequent sales of shares to Castor Cavili, with specified consideration amounts for certain parcels.

Respondents argued that the document was not proven to be genuine or duly executed.
Testimonies were offered by Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja, questioning the thumbmark authentication and pointing to the fact that Simplicia Cavili resided in Mindanao during the period.

Despite these contentions, the trial court found that the properties had already been partitioned among the heirs.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling on partition, holding that the Deed of Partition could not be admitted without clear proof of its authenticity and due execution.
Respondents raised a procedural issue regarding the certification against forum shopping:

Only one of the twenty-two petitioners, Thomas George Cavili, Sr., signed the required certificate.
The appellate court noted this as an error but ultimately focused on the evidentiary matter concerning the deed.

Petitioners contended that the Deed of Partition being a public document acknowledged before a notary should be presumed genuine and that its authenticity need not be further proven.
The petitioners also raised the issue of prescription concerning their open and adverse occupation of the properties for over forty-five years, though this issue was deemed unnecessary for discussion following the dispositive ruling.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the notarized Deed of Partition, as a public document, required proof of genuineness and due execution.
Whether the evidence concerning the thumbmark allegedly being an inkblot, and the testimonies relating to Simplicia Cavili’s whereabouts, were sufficient to cast doubt on the decree of partition.

Whether the execution of the certificate against forum shopping by only one petitioner, Thomas George Cavili, Sr., constitutes a procedural defect.
Whether such defect can be remedied by the doctrine of substantial compliance in light of the common interest amongst the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners’ claim regarding the lapse of time (over forty-five years of adverse possession) should have precluded the partition action.
The necessity to rule on the prescription issue considering the partition evidence already deemed dispositive.