Case Summary (G.R. No. 148635)
Procedural History and Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners regarding the partition of properties left by their common ascendant, Bernardo Cavile. In October 1977, the respondents sought judicial partition of the lands, asserting co-ownership of the properties inherited from Bernardo. Following the death of Castor Cavile, the son of Bernardo and Tranquilina Galon from the third marriage, the petitioners took possessory control of the lands and resisted partition claims, ultimately leading to the trial court's initial decision in 1979 that favored partition.
Trial Court Rulings
Upon reopening the case due to the involvement of parties previously not served, the trial court revisited the evidence, including a Deed of Partition allegedly executed by Bernardo Cavile’s heirs in 1937. In its decision on May 7, 1991, the trial court dismissed the complaint for partition, concluding that the properties had already been divided amongst the heirs in accordance with the mentioned Deed of Partition, which was deemed valid and executed with the concurrence of all relevant parties.
Court of Appeals Decision
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision, determining that the Deed of Partition had not been properly authenticated and was therefore inadmissible as evidence. The appellate court concluded that the execution lacked proof of due execution and authenticity, primarily due to conflicting testimonies regarding the presence of Simplicia Cavile, one of the signatories, at the time of the document's execution.
Legal Issues Raised by Petitioners
In the petition for review, the petitioners raised two significant issues: the admissibility of the notarized Deed of Partition as evidence without proof of its authenticity, and the claim of prescription based on their longstanding possession of the properties without recognition of co-ownership from the respondents.
Respondents' Counterarguments
The respondents contended that the petitioners failed to comply with procedural rules regarding forum shopping, as the certification was signed by only one petitioner. They also maintained that the Deed of Partition should not be accepted into evidence as its authenticity was disputed, notably alleging that Simplicia Cavile was not present to sign it, thus implying forgery.
Procedural Compliance and Findings
Addressing the procedural issue, the Court remarked that while the certificate of non-forum shopping should ideally be signed by all petitioners, substantial compliance was observed due to shared interest and a collective defense against the partition complaint. The substantive aspects of the case were deemed significant enough to allow the Court to consider the petition, despite procedural discrepancies.
Affirmation of Trial Co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148635)
Case Background
- This case centers on a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 21, 2000.
- The case was originally titled "Heirs of Clarita Cavili, et al. vs. Heirs of Perfecta Cavili, et al." and involves a dispute over partition, accounting, and damages regarding properties left by the common ancestor, Bernardo Cavili.
- Bernardo Cavili had three marriages, resulting in multiple descendants:
- First marriage to Ines Dumat-ol produced one child, Simplicia.
- Second marriage to Orfia Colalho produced two children, Fortunato and Vevencia.
- Third marriage to Tranquilina Galon produced three children, Castor, Susana, and Benedicta.
- Six parcels of land acquired by Bernardo became the subject of this partition dispute, initiated by the descendants of his first two marriages against the descendants of his third marriage.
Procedural History
- In October 1977, the respondents filed a complaint for partition, claiming co-ownership of the properties inherited from Bernardo Cavili.
- Following the death of Castor, his children took over possession of the properties and denied the respondents' demands for partition.
- The trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering partition on October 5, 1979.
- After a motion for a new trial by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, who were not served summons, the trial court later dismissed the partition complaint on May 7, 1991, based on a 1937 Deed of Partition presented as evidence by the new parties.
Key Issues
- The primary issue revolved around whether there had been a valid partition of the propertie