Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Kilario vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 134329
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2000
Heirs dispute land partition validity; 1951 extrajudicial division upheld, donation void, petitioners' possession by tolerance, ejectment affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155065)

Petitioners

Spouses Ricardo and Verona Pada-Kilario, long-time occupants of the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581.

Respondents

Silverio Pada (ejectment plaintiff and assignee of Marciano’s hereditary share) and the Court of Appeals.

Key Dates

1951 – Extra-judicial partition among Jacinto’s heirs (unregistered).
1960 – Verona began occupying the disputed portion by family consent.
1978 – Juanita Pada (heir of Ananias) sold her co-ownership interest.
1993 – Maria Pada-Pavo (heir of Marciano) sold her co-ownership interest to Silverio.
1995 – Ejectment suit filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
1996 – Municipal Trial Court ruled for petitioners.
1997 – Regional Trial Court reversed in favor of Silverio.
1998 – Court of Appeals affirmed reversal.
2000 – Supreme Court decision denying the petition for review.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution.
– Civil Code: Art. 1358 (public instrument requirement as matter of convenience), Art. 1403 (Statute of Frauds), Arts. 448 and 546 (reimbursement of improvements).
– Rule 74, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of Court (partition formalities).
– Principles of ejectment, prescription, laches, and estoppel.

Undisputed Facts

  1. Jacinto’s estate included a residential parcel (C.L. No. 5581, 1,301.92 sqm).
  2. Heirs divided the estate in 1951 by a private, unregistered agreement: C.L. 5581 was allotted to Marciano and Ananias.
  3. Verona, descended from Pastor (son of Feliciano), occupied the northern portion since 1960 with heirly consent.
  4. Juanita (heir of Ananias) sold her share in 1978; Maria (heir of Marciano) sold hers to Silverio in 1993.
  5. Heirs of Amador executed a deed of donation in 1995 transferring their undivided interest to Verona.

Procedural History

– Municipal Circuit Trial Court (1996): Found petitioners in lawful co-ownership and possession; dismissed ejectment.
– Regional Trial Court (1997): Held that Maria and Juanita’s undisturbed possession for over 40 years extinguished co-heirs’ claims by prescription, laches, or estoppel; reversed and ordered ejectment, damages, rent, and attorney’s fees.
– Court of Appeals (1998): Affirmed that ejectment focused on material possession; recognized Silverio’s right as subrogated vendee of Maria’s share; deemed petitioners’ donation futile and barred by laches and estoppel.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether petitioners, as co-owners by donation from Amador’s heirs, could be ejected.
  2. Whether Maria’s sale conveyed only her undivided hereditary share.
  3. Whether petitioners qualified as builders in good faith entitled to improvement reimbursement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The petition is DENIED. Petitioners must vacate the premises, costs taxed against them.

Court’s Rationale

  1. Validity of 1951 Extrajudicial Partition
    – Partition among heirs need not be in a public, registered document to be valid inter sese.
    – Formalities in Rule 74 and Civil Code Art. 1358 serve constructive notice and creditor protection; absence of creditors does not invalidate partition.

  2. Conclusive Effect and Prescription
    – Voluntary division of inheritance creates a conclusive status among heirs, binding unless unpaid debts exist (none here).
    – Heirs of Amador lacked any right over C.L. 5581; their belated donation (44 years later) is void and attempts to revive prescription-barred rights fail.

  3. Estoppel and Laches
    – P

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.