NOCEDA vs. CA (September 2, 1999)

NOCEDA vs.
CA (September 2, 1999)
A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him.
In legal succession, Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs subject to the
payment of debts of the deceased.
Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. The purpose of partition is
to put an end to co-ownership.
It seeks a severance of the individual interest of each co-owner vesting in each a sole estate in specific property and giving to each one a right to enjoy his
estate without supervision or interference from the
other. And one way of effecting a partition of the decedent's estate is by the heirs themselves extrajudicially.
FACTS:
Repondent Aurora Directo, and petitioner Rodolfo Noceda, and Maria Arbizo, the daughter, grandson, and widow, respectively, of the late
Celestino Arbizo.
On June 1, 1981, rhe parties entered into an extrajudicial settlement involving ta parcel of land located at Zambales, which was said to have an area
of 66,530 square meters.
Plaintiff Directo’s share was 11,426 square meters, defendant Noceda got 13,294 square meters, and the remaining 41,810 square meters went to
Maria Arbizo.
Petitioner donated to her nephew, defendant Noceda a portion of her share to, being the son of her deceased sister, Carolina.
However, another extrajudicial settlement-partition was executed on AUGUST 17, 1981 by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda, and Maria Arbizo.
Three fifths of the said land went to Maria Arbizo while plaintiff Directo and defendant Noceda got only one-fifth each.
In said extrajudicial settlement-partition as well as in the Tax Declaration 16-0032 over Lot 1121, the said parcel of land was said to have an area
of only 29,845 square meters
Sometime in 1981, defendant Noceda constructed his house on the land donated to him by plaintiff Directo. Plaintiff Directo fenced the portion
allotted to her in the extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion, and constructed thereon three huts.
But in 1985, defendant Noceda removed the fence earlier constructed by plaintiff Directo, occupied the three huts (3) and fenced the entire land of
plaintiff Directo without her consent.
Plaintiff Directo demanded from defendant Noceda to vacate her land, but the latter refused.
Hence, plaintiff Directo filed a petition for the recovery of possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation, against defendant
Noceda before the lower court.
RE: SURVEY & PARTITION

The Court ordered the re-survey of the lot to determine the actual area of Lot 1121, it appointed Engr. Edilberto Quejada of BL to re-survey the
land. Such survey was done with the conformity and in the presence of both parties. The actual land area based on the survey plan which was
conducted in the presence of both parties.
Noceda proposed that the latter be tasked to solely

(a) re-survey, determine and identify the metes and bounds of the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 16-0032;
(b) to identify the areas occupied by the parties therein; and
(c) to conduct the re-survey with notice and in the presence of the parties therein and their respective counsels.
Engr. Quejada conducted the survey with the conformity and in the presence of both parties, taking into consideration the extrajudicial
partition dated August 17, 1981, and deed of donation, and the actual area occupied by the parties, as well as the sketch plan and the technical
description of Lot 1121 taken from the Records Section of the Bureau of Lands, Manila.
During the trial, Engr. Edilberto Quejada reported that the area of Lot 1121 stated in the extrajudicial settlement-partition of was smaller than the
actual area of Lot 1121 which is 127,298 sq. The report and the survey plan submitted by Engr. Quejada were approved by the Trial Court
RTC: declared that the EJP was valid and it also ruled in favor of Directo ordering the revocation of the donation.
CA: AFFIRMED DECISION OF RTC
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
 Claimed that the subject property could not be partitioned based on the extrajudicial settlement-partition dated August 17, 1981,
since the distributive share and the area of Lot 1121 stated therein were different from the extrajudicial settlement executed on June 1,
1981;
 that the discrepancies between the two deeds of partition and the respective share of the parties therein indicated that they never
intended that any of the deeds to be the final determination of the portions of Lot 1121 allotted to them; that
 the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981 could not effectively subdivide the subject lot because it partitioned only
29,845 square meters, and not its actual area of 127,298 square meters.
 Since no effective and real partition of the subject lot there exists no basis for the charge of usurpation and hence there is also no
basis for finding ingratitude against him.
 granting revocation is proper, the right to enforce the same had already prescribed since as admitted by private respondent, petitioner
usurped her property in the first week of September 1985 while the complaint for revocation was filed on September 16, 1986, thus more
than one (1) year had passed
ISSUE:
1. W/N subject lot should be partitioned in accordance with the extra-judicial settlement
2. W/N petitioner Noceda’s acts of usurpation constitute an act of ingratitude sufficient to grant the revocation of the donation?
HELD:
1.YES. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him.
In this case the source of co-ownership among the heirs was intestate succession.
Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs subject to the
payment of debts of the deceased.
Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. The
purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership.
It seeks a severance of the individual interest of each co-owner vesting in each a sole estate in specific property and giving to each one a
right to enjoy his estate without supervision or interference from the other. And one way of effecting a partition of the decedent's estate is
by the heirs themselves extrajudicially.
The heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo namely Maria Arbizo, Aurora A. Directo (private respondent) and Rodolfo Noceda (petitioner) entered into
an extrajudicial settlement of the estate on August 17, 1981 and agreed to adjudicate among themselves the property left by their predecessor-
in-interest.
Thus, the areas allotted to each heir are now specifically delineated in the survey plan.
There is no co-ownership where portion owned is correctly determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said
portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable, or
distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners.
2. YES. Petitioner debunked petitioner's argument that since there was no effective and real partition of the subject lot there exists no
basis for the charge of usurpation and hence there is also no basis for finding ingratitude against him.
It was established that petitioner Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by private respondent Aurora Arbizo-Directo but he also
fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to private respondent Directo, thus petitioner’s act of occupying the portion pertaining to private
respondent Directo without the latter’s knowledge and consent is an act of usurpation which is an offense against the property of the donor
and considered as an act of ingratitude of a donee against the donor.
The law does not require conviction of the donee; it is enough that the offense be proved in the action for revocation.
3. NO. ITA HAS NOT PRESCRIBED. No competent proof was adduced by petitioner to prove his allegation
The action to revoke by reason of ingratitude prescribes within one (1) year to be counted from the time (a) the donor had knowledge of the fact;
(b) provided that it was possible for him to bring the action.
It is incumbent upon petitioner to show proof of the concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one (1) year period for bringing the action
be considered to have already prescribed.
In Civil Cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence. He who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.

NOCEDA vs. CA (September 2, 1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOCEDA vs. CA (September 2, 1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOCEDA vs. CA (September 2, 1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOCEDA vs.

RE: SURVEY & PARTITION

Noceda proposed that the latter be tasked to solely

CA: AFFIRMED DECISION OF RTC

You might also like