Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 207 views

    235 Casilang V Casilang Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Montenegro - Araujo
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a property dispute between siblings. It details that the parents owned three parcels of land and had eight children. Through a verbal agreement, the siblings partitioned the land, with Jose receiving Lot 4618. However, heirs of one deceased sibling, Ireneo, later executed a deed partitioning Lot 4618 to themselves. Jose contested this, arguing he owned the lot through intestate succession. The court ultimately found the verbal partition between siblings was valid, as oral partition agreements are enforceable. It also found Jose had open, continuous possession of the lot. Therefore, the deed executed by Ireneo's heirs was invalid as it violated Jose's right as a compulsory heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    235 Casilang V Casilang Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Montenegro - Araujo
    207 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a property dispute between siblings. It details that the parents owned three parcels of land and had eight children. Through a verbal agreement, the siblings partitioned the land, with Jose receiving Lot 4618. However, heirs of one deceased sibling, Ireneo, later executed a deed partitioning Lot 4618 to themselves. Jose contested this, arguing he owned the lot through intestate succession. The court ultimately found the verbal partition between siblings was valid, as oral partition agreements are enforceable. It also found Jose had open, continuous possession of the lot. Therefore, the deed executed by Ireneo's heirs was invalid as it violated Jose's right as a compulsory heir.

    Original Title

    235 Casilang v Casilang Dizon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a property dispute between siblings. It details that the parents owned three parcels of land and had eight children. Through a verbal agreement, the siblings partitioned the land, with Jose receiving Lot 4618. However, heirs of one deceased sibling, Ireneo, later executed a deed partitioning Lot 4618 to themselves. Jose contested this, arguing he owned the lot through intestate succession. The court ultimately found the verbal partition between siblings was valid, as oral partition agreements are enforceable. It also found Jose had open, continuous possession of the lot. Therefore, the deed executed by Ireneo's heirs was invalid as it violated Jose's right as a compulsory heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    207 views2 pages

    235 Casilang V Casilang Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Montenegro - Araujo
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a property dispute between siblings. It details that the parents owned three parcels of land and had eight children. Through a verbal agreement, the siblings partitioned the land, with Jose receiving Lot 4618. However, heirs of one deceased sibling, Ireneo, later executed a deed partitioning Lot 4618 to themselves. Jose contested this, arguing he owned the lot through intestate succession. The court ultimately found the verbal partition between siblings was valid, as oral partition agreements are enforceable. It also found Jose had open, continuous possession of the lot. Therefore, the deed executed by Ireneo's heirs was invalid as it violated Jose's right as a compulsory heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    235 Casilang v.

    Casilang-Dizon
    G.R. No. 180269, February 20, 2013
    FACTS:
    Spouses Liborio and Francisca owns three parcels of land: (1) Lot No. 4676; (2)Lot
    No. 4618; (3) Lot No. 4704.
    8 children: Felicidad, Ireneo (deceased), Marcelina, Jacinta, Bonifacio(deceased),
    Leonara, Jose (petitioner), Flora.
    Respondents: heirs of Ireneo: Rosario Casilang-Dizon, Mario, Angelo,
    RodolfoCasilang.
    Rosario filed with the MTC a complaint for unlawful detainer against her uncle
    Jose Casilang for the lot hes cu
    rrently occupying, Lot No. 4618.
    In his answer he stated that hes the lawful, absolute, exclusive owner and in
    actual possession of said lot, which he acquired through intestate successionfrom
    his late father.
    MTC: in favor of Rosario and ordering Jose to remove his house and vacate thesaid
    lot. That the lot was owned by Ireneo through extrajudicial partition and hisheirs are
    entitled to the land.
    Petitioners (children of Liborio and Francisca), filed with the RTC a complaint for
    Annulment of Documents, Ownership and Peaceful Possession with Damages
    against respondents. They also moved for the issuance of a writ of
    preliminaryinjunction or temporary restraining order which was denied by the RTC.
    Among the documents sought to be annulled was the 1997 Deed of Extrajudicial
    Partition executed by Ireneos children over lot no. 4618.
    RTC affirmed Joses ownership and possession of Lot No. 4618.
    CA reversed the RTC ruling mainly on the factual findings and conclusions of
    theMTC.\
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim executed
    bythe heirs of Ireneo is valid?
    HELD: No. It grossly violated the substantive right of Jose Casilang Sr. as
    directcompulsory heir. Petition is granted and CA decision is reversed and set aside.
    RATIO:
    From the conclusion of the RTC is well-supported that there was indeed a
    verbalpartition among the heirs of Liborio, pursuant to which each of his eight
    children
    received his or her share of his estate, and that Joses share was Lot No. 4618.

    The parties verbal partition is valid, and has been ratified by their taking
    possession of their respective shares.
    "An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral agreementfor
    the partition of the property owned in common is valid and enforceable uponthe
    parties. The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind of agreements,for
    partition is not a conveyance of property but simply a segregation anddesignation
    of the part of the property which belong to the co-owners."
    Joses possession of Lot No. 4618 under a claim of ownership is well borne out
    by the records. It is also consistent with the claimed verbal partition with hissiblings,
    and fully corroborated by his sisters Felicidad, Jacinta, Leonora, andFlora, who
    further testified that they each had taken possession of their ownshares and built
    their houses thereon.

    A possessor of real estate property is presumed to have title thereto unless


    theadverse claimant establishes a better right.

    Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership.

    You might also like