Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Fajardo V CUA

    Uploaded by

    RICHIE SALUBRE
    The Supreme Court ruled that an oral partition agreement between heirs is valid and binding, even if not written. In this case, the heirs of Ceferina Cua agreed to an oral partition during mediation discussions to settle the estate. They later drafted a written Compromise Agreement, but one heir, Victoria, did not sign it due to inability to travel. Still, the oral agreement reached during mediation was valid and bound all heirs, including Victoria. The written document only formalized the prior valid oral partition agreement. Therefore, the partition was upheld even though Victoria did not sign the written document.

    Copyright:

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

    Fajardo V CUA

    Uploaded by

    RICHIE SALUBRE
    52 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that an oral partition agreement between heirs is valid and binding, even if not written. In this case, the heirs of Ceferina Cua agreed to an oral partition during mediation discussions to settle the estate. They later drafted a written Compromise Agreement, but one heir, Victoria, did not sign it due to inability to travel. Still, the oral agreement reached during mediation was valid and bound all heirs, including Victoria. The written document only formalized the prior valid oral partition agreement. Therefore, the partition was upheld even though Victoria did not sign the written document.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that an oral partition agreement between heirs is valid and binding, even if not written. In this case, the heirs of Ceferina Cua agreed to an oral partition during mediation discussions to settle the estate. They later drafted a written Compromise Agreement, but one heir, Victoria, did not sign it due to inability to travel. Still, the oral agreement reached during mediation was valid and bound all heirs, including Victoria. The written document only formalized the prior valid oral partition agreement. Therefore, the partition was upheld even though Victoria did not sign the written document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views3 pages

    Fajardo V CUA

    Uploaded by

    RICHIE SALUBRE
    The Supreme Court ruled that an oral partition agreement between heirs is valid and binding, even if not written. In this case, the heirs of Ceferina Cua agreed to an oral partition during mediation discussions to settle the estate. They later drafted a written Compromise Agreement, but one heir, Victoria, did not sign it due to inability to travel. Still, the oral agreement reached during mediation was valid and bound all heirs, including Victoria. The written document only formalized the prior valid oral partition agreement. Therefore, the partition was upheld even though Victoria did not sign the written document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    G.R. No.

    213666, March 27, 2019

    DOCTRINE:

                   An oral partition may be valid and binding upon the heirs; there is no
    law that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

    FACTS:

                   Belen filed an Amended Complaint for Partition and Accounting with
    Damages against her siblings.

    In the Amended Complaint respondent Belen alleged that she and the defendants
    siblings are compulsory heirs of their late mother, Ceferina Toregosa Cua. Ceferina
    died intestate on June 10, 1998 and had left certain real and personal properties, as
    well as interest in real properties.

    On April 6, 2004, defendants Ramon, Adelaida, Emelita, and Elena filed their
    Answer, alleging that they were willing to settle the partition case amicably; that
    respondent Belen was receiving her share from the income of the properties left by
    their late mother, Ceferina; that it was respondent Belen who intentionally refused to
    show documents pertaining to the supposed properties left by Ceferina; and that
    respondent Belen is not entitled to the reliefs she prayed for.

    Meanwhile, on August 14, 2004,  Victoria filed an Answer alleging that she is in favor
    of the partition and accounting of the properties of Ceferina.

    The case was referred to mediation and arrived at an agreement on the manner of
    partition of Cerefina’s estate. The mediator issued an Order requiring Belen’s counsel
    to draft written compromise agreement. A meeting was then scheduled on April 8,
    2010 for the signing of the document entitled Compromise Agreement, which reduced
    into writing the prior agreement reached by the parties during the mediation
    conferences.

    On said date, Victoria did not appear, while all her other siblings appeared. It was
    subsequently explained by petitioner Victoria’s counsel that petitioner Victoria was
    not able to attend the meeting as she did not have enough money to travel from
    Manila to Calabanga, Camarines Sur. Respondent Belen and the other siblings
    proceeded to sign the Compromise Agreement and submitted the same before the
    RTC for approval.

    ISSUE:

                   Whether or not there is a valid and binding partition considering that
    Victoria did not sign it?

    RULING:

                   YES. The fact that petitioner Victoria failed to sign the written document
    bearing the terms of the parties’ agreement is of no moment. As explicitly held in Vda.
    de Reyes v. Court of Appeals, an oral partition may be valid and binding upon the
    heirs; there is no law that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

    Citing Hernandez v. Andal, the Court in the above-mentioned case explained that
    under Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, “there is nothing in said section from
    which it can be inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential requisite to
    the validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral partition is valid.” The Court
    further added that the partition among heirs or renunciation of an inheritance by
    some of them is not exactly a conveyance of real property because it does not involve
    transfer of property from one to the other, but rather a confirmation or ratification of
    title or right of property by the heir renouncing in favor of another heir accepting and
    receiving the inheritance. Hence, an oral partition is not covered by the Statute of
    Frauds.

    Therefore, even if the document titled Compromise Agreement was not signed by
    petitioner Victoria, there was already an oral partition entered into by the parties that
    bound all of the siblings. The written agreement only served to reduce into writing for
    the convenience of the parties the terms of the agreement already entered into during
    the mediation conferences.

    You might also like