View full case

VERONA PADA-KILARIO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land in Matalom, Leyte. The land was originally owned by Jacinto Pada, who had six children. During Jacinto's lifetime, his half-brother Feliciano built a house on the northern part of the land with Jacinto's permission. After Feliciano's death, his son Pastor and his children, including petitioner Verona Pada-Kilario, continued to live in the house. In May 1951, an extra-judicial partition of Jacinto's estate was made, allocating the northern portion to Jacinto's sons Ananias and Marciano. Ananias later passed away, and his share was inherited by his daughter, Juanita. In 1978, Juanita sold her co-ownership right to Engr. Ernesto Paderes. In 1993, Maria, Marciano's daughter, sold her co-ownership right to private respondent Silverio Pada, who is also Maria's cousin. Private respondent demanded that petitioner spouses vacate the northern portion of the land. After failed attempts at settlement, private respondent filed an ejectment suit against petitioner spouses. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the decision was reversed on appeal by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, leading the petitioners to file a petition for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners, as co-owners, cannot be ejected from the premises considering that the heirs of Jacinto Pada donated their undivided interest in the property in dispute.

  2. Whether what Maria Pada sold was her undivided share in the property in dispute.

  3. Whether the extrajudicial partition of Jacinto Pada's estate, which was not executed in a public document and registered, is valid.

  4. Whether the heirs of Amador Pada can dispute the validity of the extrajudicial partition after 44 years.

  5. Whether the petitioners, who have been occupying the subject property without paying rent, are possessors or builders in good faith.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his heirs is valid, even though it was executed in an unregistered private document. The requirement in Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court that a partition be in writing and registered in order to be valid does not apply. Since the heirs executed a voluntary division of the estate among themselves, said partition is conclusive and confers exclusive ownership on the respective portions assigned to them. Hence, the petitioners, as co-owners, can be ejected from the premises.

  2. The Court ruled that what Maria Pada sold was not just her undivided share in the property in dispute, but the entire property allotted to her in the extrajudicial partition. Thus, as the owner and possessor of the disputed property, Maria Pada and her vendee are entitled to possession.

  3. The extrajudicial partition of Jacinto Pada's estate is valid and effective among his heirs, even if it was not executed in a public document and registered. The requirement of a public document and registration under the Revised Rules of Court for a partition is for the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves. Without creditors involved, the heirs can enter into an agreement for the distribution of the estate in a different manner. The partition does not need to be embodied in a public document to be effective among the heirs.

  4. The extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs of Jacinto Pada is conclusive, unless unpaid debts against the estate are proven. No unpaid charges against the estate have been shown, so there is no reason to invalidate the partition. The belated act of the heirs of Amador Pada in donating the subject property after 44 years does not produce any legal effect.

  5. The petitioners, who have been occupying the subject property by the tolerance of its owners, are not possessors or builders in good faith. They are bound by an implied promise to vacate the property upon demand. Therefore, they cannot be considered entitled to reimbursement for the improvements they built on the property.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In an ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de facto or physical or material possession and not de jure. The court may pass upon the issue of ownership, but only to determine the question of possession. Ownership is inutile in an ejectment suit, except to throw light on the question of possession.

  • A voluntary division of the estate of the deceased by the heirs among themselves is conclusive and confers upon said heirs exclusive ownership of the respective portions assigned to them.

  • The extrajudicial partition of an estate among heirs does not have to be in writing and registered to be valid.

  • The requirement of a public document and registration for a partition is for the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves. Without creditors involved, a partition can be valid and effective among the heirs.

  • An extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs is conclusive, unless unpaid debts against the estate are proven.

  • Persons who occupy another person's land by tolerance or permission, without a contract, are bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand. They are not possessors or builders in good faith.