Title
Heirs of Arturo E. Bandoy and Angelita E. Bandoy vs. Alexander E. Bandoy
Case
G.R. No. 255258
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2022
Heirs of Arturo and Angelita sued Alexander for partition of Lot 3516-B; SC ruled oral partition invalid, ordered division of remaining 5,436 sqm.
partition
ownership
civil procedure

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22345)

Factual Background

Ambrocio and Matilde Bandoy acquired several properties including Lot No. 3516, Cad-392-D, containing 14,765 square meters, originally titled in Ambrocio’s name. After Ambrocio’s death in 1981, Matilde waived her interest in his estate in favor of their three children, Arturo E. Bandoy, Angelita E. Bandoy, and Alexander E. Bandoy. The heirs executed an “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Ambrocio Bandoy with Absolute Deed of Sale,” by which a 9,329 square meter portion of Lot No. 3516 was sold to Florencio Benitez and the remainder became Lot No. 3516-B, covered by Tax Declaration No. 08-01-14-01014. Arturo and Angelita later died and were succeeded by their respective heirs. Petitioners alleged that the remaining 5,436 square meters of Lot No. 3516-B continued to be co-owned by the heirs of Arturo, the heirs of Angelita, and Alexander, but Alexander refused to partition the property, claiming sole ownership.

Subsequent Dispositions of the Property

After the extrajudicial settlement with sale, the record showed several transfers of portions of Lot No. 3516 by Alexander E. Bandoy: on June 14, 1992 (400 sqm, part to Silverio B. Bautista with Arturo also named as vendor), December 10, 1996 (600 sqm to Lucita F. Elizalde), June 2, 1997 (440 sqm to Vicente Bangoy), and February 21, 2012 (556 sqm to spouses Joel P. Hayag and Zyra H. Hayag). The parties reported that the remaining lot area was reduced by these dispositions, and the parties disputed the legal effect of these transfers on each heir’s aliquot share.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

The heirs of Arturo E. Bandoy and Angelita E. Bandoy instituted a partition action against Alexander E. Bandoy. Branch 40, Regional Trial Court, Tandag City rendered a Decision dated October 26, 2017 ordering partition of Parcel 1 (Lot No. 3516-B) such that the heirs of Arturo received 2,390 square meters, the heirs of Angelita received 2,390 square meters, and Alexander received 656 square meters. The RTC ordered Alexander to deliver his co-heirs’ shares, to participate in the partition, and to submit an accounting of fruits and proceeds from his exclusive possession. The RTC denied the claim for damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It concluded that the siblings had effectuated an oral partition and that the remaining portion of Lot No. 3516 belonged solely to Alexander E. Bandoy. The appellate court gave weight to Angelita’s post hoc handwritten note and affidavit that purportedly stated that only her and Arturo’s shares were sold to Benitez, and it relied on Alexander’s subsequent acts of ownership and the absence of protest from the other siblings at the time of Alexander’s dispositions to uphold the oral partition. The Court of Appeals denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered the entry of judgment.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court distilled three issues: (I) whether an oral partition may be valid; (II) whether Angelita’s handwritten note and affidavit may be admitted to prove the purported oral partition; and (III) whether the 9,329 square meter portion sold to Benitez comprised only the aliquot shares of Angelita and Arturo.

Petitioners’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that Lot No. 3516-B remained co-owned by the heirs of Arturo, the heirs of Angelita, and Alexander; that no written or oral partition had been agreed upon; that prior sales were of aliquot shares only and did not extinguish the co-ownership; that, even if an oral partition had occurred, Alexander’s share would have amounted to only 656 square meters; that they were not estopped from asserting their claims; that Alexander’s signature on the extrajudicial settlement is conclusive against him; that the parol evidence rule barred Angelita’s handwritten note and affidavit; that those documents were hearsay; and that failure to timely object did not automatically confer probative value on hearsay.

Respondent’s Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Alexander E. Bandoy maintained that he and his siblings had entered into an oral partition which was ratified by their subsequent acts of ownership; that the sale to Benitez involved only the shares of Angelita and Arturo; that Angelita’s handwritten note and affidavit should be given greater weight because she was a party to the extrajudicial settlement; that a party may introduce evidence to modify or explain a written agreement when the pleading puts such matters in issue; that Angelita’s statements were declarations against interest and an exception to the hearsay rule; and that the parties waived cross-examination by agreeing to resolve the case on position papers and documentary evidence.

Legal Principles on Extrajudicial Settlement and Oral Partition

The Court reiterated that judicial administration and appointment of an administrator is the general rule upon death, but that Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court permits extrajudicial settlement by agreement among heirs when conditions are met. The Court confirmed that an oral partition may be valid and binding among heirs and is not per se barred by the statute of frauds, citing Vda. De Reyes v. Court of Appeals, Hernandez v. Andal, and Barcelona v. Barcelona. The Court also emphasized that the party alleging that a written agreement failed to express the parties’ true intent bore the burden of proof.

Application of the Parol Evidence Rule and Admissibility of Angelita’s Statements

The Court analyzed Section 9, Rule 130, Rules of Court (the parol evidence rule) and held that Angelita’s handwritten note and affidavit could not be admitted as an exception to that rule to alter the clear terms of the extrajudicial settlement. The Court distinguished admissions against interest from declarations against interest and, following Lazaro v. Agustin, concluded that Angelita’s statements were admissions against interest that were admissible only against her and her successors-in-interest if genuine and duly executed. The Court held that those statements could not be used to bind the successors-in-interest of Arturo under the res inter alios acta principle.

Evaluation of the Evidence and Weight of Documents and Conduct

The Court found that the extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale was not ambiguous and, on its face, showed that Arturo, Angelita, and Alexander sold pro indiviso a total of 9,329 square meters to Benitez, leaving 5,436 square meters. The Court gave greater weight to that written instrument, which was signed by all heirs, and to Alexander’s subsequent conduct, notably the June 14, 1992 deed of sale in which both Arturo and Alexander were expressly identified as co-owners and vendors when they sold a portion to Silverio Bautista. The Court reiterated the distinction between admissibility and probative weight and concluded that admissible evidence may still be accorded little weight if the court so evaluates.

Computation of Shares and Legal Effect of Prior Dispositions

Applying Article 1078 and the Civil Code rules on co-ownership, the Court reasoned that, at the time of Ambrocio’s death, each heir received an aliquot share of 4,921 square meters. The 9,329 square meters sold to Benitez, as shown by the extrajudicial settlement, reduced the aggregate estate and required apportionment among the heirs. The Court accepted Angelita’s admission that she had sold her entire aliquot share of 4,921 square meters to Benitez and therefore concluded that the remaining 4,408 square meters of the 9,329 sold were taken from the pro indiviso shares of Arturo and Alexander equally at 2,204 square meters each. Consequently, only 5,436 square meters remained and these were to be divided equally between Arturo and Alexander at 2,718 square me

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms