G.R. No. 174719 - Heirs of Pacres vs. Heirs of Ygona

Lot No. 9, a 1,007-square-meter parcel located at Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City, originally belonged to Pastor Pacres, who died intestate in 1962.
His heirs, including Margarita, Simplicia, Rodrigo, Francisco, Mario (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners), and VeAaranda (petitioner), began occupying distinct portions of the lot; the front part housed the ancestral home and Rodrigo’s hut, while Mario’s house was at the back.

In 1968, the heirs leased the ground floor of the ancestral home together with a 300-square-meter lot area to Hilario Ramirez, who immediately took possession.
In 1974, four Pacres siblings (Rodrigo, Francisco, Simplicia, and Margarita) sold their shares in the ancestral home and lot to Ramirez.
Subsequent sales in 1971 and 1983 by some siblings to Cecilia YgoAa resulted in respondent YgoAa acquiring a total of 493 square meters of the property.

In 1993, the Pacres siblings executed a Confirmation of Oral Partition/Settlement of Estate which purportedly allocated the front portion (to Mario and VeAaranda) and the rear shares to the others.
An ejectment suit filed in 1994 by Mario (predecessor-in-interest) against Ramirez’s successor clarified that no outright sale of the front or rear lots occurred; instead, co-ownership was implied.
In 1996, VeAaranda and the heirs of Mario filed a complaint for specific performance against YgoAa and Ramirez, asserting that an oral partition and certain additional obligations were part of the agreement between the parties.

Petitioners alleged that prior to the sales, the heirs had agreed on an oral partition and extra obligations for YgoAa—such as surveying Lot No. 9, delivering separate titles for each partitioned portion, and assuming estate/realty taxes—for which YgoAa had partly complied by surveying her purchased lots and paying taxes.
Respondents denied any privity with an alleged oral partition and maintained that their entitlement arose purely from the written sales documents and their good faith possession.

At the Regional Trial Court, the complaint was dismissed for failure to prove the alleged oral partition and additional obligations; an order was issued for a survey based on a sketch by petitioner Valentina representing the actual occupation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint, holding that the written agreements governed the parties’ rights and that the evidence presented did not support the existence of an enforceable oral partition.
There was also an unresolved matter regarding the expropriation of the front portion of Lot No. 9 by the DPWH in 1993 and the corresponding entitlement to the expropriation payment, which was not properly litigated in the present action.

Whether petitioners were able to prove the existence of the alleged oral partition dividing Lot No. 9 among the heirs.
Whether petitioners proved the existence of additional, unwritten obligations imposed on respondent YgoAa (such as surveying, titling, and tax obligations), which they claim were part of the sale consideration.

Whether the issue regarding the ownership of the front portion of Lot No. 9 and the entitlement to the expropriation payment can properly be decided in the present specific performance action or should be addressed in the expropriation court.

Whether the lower courts committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on the evidence (including Valentina’s sketch) and their findings regarding the actual occupation and absence of an oral partition.
Whether the contested evidence should be re-evaluated despite the appellate court’s adherence to the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.