G.R. G.R. NO. NO. 160 16095 956 6 Febr Februa uary ry 13, 13, 200 2008 8 QUIMPO, SR. vs. D !"#R$N F$%#S& Eustaquia died intestate in 1948 leaving 4 parcels of land (Parcel 1, 2, 3, & 4) to her grandchild and great grandchildren, nael!, "oaquin #uipo and respondents $onsuelo, %reneo, anilo, 'arites, nita and elen, all surnaed *ad+ %n 19, "oaquin and respondents undertoo- an oral partition of parcel %%% (.an "ose propert!) and parcel %/+ %/+ alf of the properties 0as given to "oaquin and the other half to the respondents+ o0ever, no docuent of partition 0as eecuted, *ecause "oaquin refused to eecute a deed+ $onsuelo and %reneo occupied their respective shares in the .an "ose propert!, and installed several tenants over their share in parcel %/+ "oaquin, on the other hand, *ecae the adinistrator of the reaining undivided properties and of the shares of respondents anilo, 'arites, nita and elen, 0ho 0ere still inors at that tie+ %n 1989, anilo, 'arites, nita and elen 0anted to ta-e possession of the portions allott allotted ed to the, the, *ut "oaqui "oaquin n preve prevente nted d the the fro fro occ occup! up!ing ing the sae+ sae+ "oaqui "oaquin n also also refused to heed respondents deand for partition of parcels % and %%, "oaquin clais that the respondents clais lac- of cause of action and prescription+ e asserted a*solute o0nership over parcels %%% and %/, claiing that he purchased these lands fro Eustaquia in 194, evidenced *! deeds of sale eecuted on ugust 23, 194 and ece*er 2, 194+ e, li-e0ise, claied continuous, peaceful and adverse possession of these lots since 194, and alleged that $onsuelos occupation of the portion of the .an "ose propert! 0as *! ere tolerance+ he $ ruled that the respondents are co5o0ners co5o0ners of all properties left *! Eustaquia, giving no credence to the eeds of .ale *et0een her and "oaquin, considering that at the tie of the eecution of such deeds, Eustaquia 0as alread! 91 !ears old and "oaquin 0as not gainfull! eplo!ed or no -no0n source of incoe+ he $ also sustained the oral part partit itio ion n aon aong g the the heir heirs s in 19 19++ cco ccord rdin ing g to the the tria triall cour court, t, the the poss posses essi sion on and and occupation of land *! respondents $onsuelo and %reneo, and "oaquins acquiescence for 23 !ears, furnish sufficient evidence that there 0as actual partition of the properties+ %t held that "oaquin "oaquin and his heirs are no0 estopped estopped fro claiing claiing o0nership o0nership over the entire .an "ose propert! as 0ell as over parcel %/+ he $ affired the $+ ISSUS& 1+ 67 the the eed eeds s of .ale .ale are are valid valid 2+ 67 the the oral oral partit partition ions s are val valid id 3+ 67 the action action institut instituted ed 0as *arred *arred *! presc prescriptio ription n and laches laches RU"ING& 1+ 7, for laclac- of considerat consideration ion and consent+ consent+ he stated stated considera consideration tion for the sale sale are P:,;;;+;; and P,;;;+;;, respectivel!, an aount 0hich 0as so difficult to raise in the !ear !ear 194+ 194+ espo esponde ndents nts esta*l esta*lish ished ed that that at the tie tie of the purpor purported ted sale sale "oaq "oaqui uin n #ui #uipo po 0as 0as not not gain gainfu full ll! ! epl eplo! o!ed ed++ e 0as 0as stud stud!i !ing ng in 'a 'ani nila la and and Eustaquia 0as the one supporting hi< that 0hen Eustaquia died t0o (2) !ears later, later, "oaq "oaqui uin n 0as 0as not not a*le a*le to cont contin inue ue his his stud studie ies+ s+ Ece Ecept pt for for the the incr incred edi* i*le le and and unpersuasive testion! of "oaquins daughter, delia 'agsino, no other testionial or
docuentar! evidence 0as offered to prove that "oaquin 0as dul! eplo!ed and had the financial capacit! to *u! the su*=ect properties in 194+ deed of sale, in 0hich the stated consideration has not *een, in fact, paid is a false contract< that it is void a* initio+ contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect 0hatsoever 0here it appears that the sae is 0ithout cause or consideration 0hich should have *een the otive thereof, or the purchase price 0hich appears thereon as paid *ut 0hich in fact has never *een paid *! the purchaser to the vendor+ >i-e0ise, *oth the trial court and the $ found that Eustaquia 0as 91 !ears old, 0ea- and senile, at the tie the deeds of sale 0ere eecuted+ %n other 0ords, she 0as alread! entall! incapacitated *! then, and could no longer *e epected to give her consent to the sale+ 2+ ?E., @or fort!5three (43) !ears, $onsuelo and %reneo occupied their portions of the .an "ose propert! and significantl!, "oaquin never distur*ed their possession+ he! also installed tenants in parcel %/, and "oaquin did not prevent the fro doing so, nor did he assert his o0nership over the sae+ hese unerringl! point to the fact that there 0as indeed an oral partition of parcels %%% and %/+ parol partition a! also *e sustained on the ground that the parties thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the partition *! ta-ing possession in severalt!, eercising acts of o0nership 0ith respect thereto, or other0ise recogniAing the eistence of the partition+ nu*er of cases have specificall! applied the doctrine of part perforance, or have stated that a part perforance is necessar!, to ta-e a parol partition out of the operation of the statute of frauds+ %t has *een held that 0here there 0as a partition in fact *et0een tenants in coon, and a part perforance, a court of equit! 0ould have regard to and enforce such partition agreed to *! the parties+ 3. 7, *ecause respondents are co5o0ners of the su*=ect properties, having inherited
the sae fro a coon ancestor+ "urisprudence is replete 0ith rulings that a'y ()*)+'er ay -ea'- a a'y /e e ar//)' ) e ())' r)ery u'ess a ()*)+'er as reu-/ae- e ()*)+'ers/+ #/s a(/)' )r ar//)' -)es ') res(r/be a'- /s ') sub4e( ) a(es.
