Chavez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

A parent may validly partition their estate by act inter vivos under Art. 1080 of the Civil Code, and such partition need not be in the form of a will; once property is assigned and shares transferred with the parent's consent, the parties are estopped from repudiating the partition.

Dispute over the paraphernal property of Manuela Buenavista involving her six children and conflicting transfers of ownership, pitting earlier sales of individual shares against a later sale of the entire property and a subsequent last will and testament.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, Branch 1, Civil Case No. 1934
• Lower Court Decision: December 21, 1971 — Dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and ordered plaintiffs to pay costs.
• Appeal: Plaintiffs appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) in AC-G.R. No. CV-64708.
• IAC Decision: March 26, 1984 — Reversed the CFI; annulled the later sales to Raquel and Pepito Ferrer; declared the earlier deeds of sale (Exhs. A, B, C, D) as evidence of a valid partition subject to Manuela's lifetime usufruct.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the IAC decision.

• The Property: Manuela Buenavista owned paraphernal land (4.1163 hectares) in Camarines Norte. She had six children: Antonio, Rosario, Concepcion, Raquel, Presentacion, and Floserpina.
• The Initial Transfers (1958-1960):
  • Presentacion sold her 1/6 share to Concepcion (July 11, 1958).
  • Floserpina sold her 1/6 share to Concepcion (May 2, 1960).
  • Raquel sold her 1/6 share to Concepcion (May 19, 1960).
  • Manuela gave her conformity and signed all three deeds of sale.
  • Concepcion thus owned 4/6 of the land; Antonio and Rosario owned the remaining 2/6.
  • All deeds contained a stipulation that the land had already been distributed equally among the 6 children, subject to Manuela's lifetime usufruct.
• The Subsequent Sales (1968-1969):
  • On August 27, 1968, despite the prior transfers, Manuela executed a "Bilihang Patuluyan ng Lupa" selling the entire property to her daughter Raquel and son-in-law Gerardo Gimenez.
  • On October 7, 1968, Antonio, Rosario, and Concepcion sued Manuela and Raquel to annul the 1968 sale.
  • On February 4, 1969, pending the suit, Manuela sold the entire property to Pepito Ferrer with right to repurchase. Ferrer was added as a defendant.
  • The Last Will and Testament: During the pendency of the IAC appeal, petitioners revealed Manuela executed a Last Will and Testament (supposedly on Dec 11, 1969), which was pending probate in the MTC of Vinzons.

• The IAC erred in declaring the deeds of sale (Exhs. A, B, C, D) as a valid partition inter vivos because examining the exhibits shows they are not a testament or will of Manuela Buenavista.
• The IAC erred in ruling against Art. 1347 of the Civil Code, which prohibits contracts upon future inheritance.
• (From Motion for Reconsideration) The execution of the Last Will and Testament invalidated the former acts of Manuela, and the pending probate should suspend the decision.

• The partition inter vivos, implemented long before the Last Will and Testament, cannot be revoked by the later instrument.
• The Last Will and Testament was executed when Manuela was already senile and not of disposing mind (evidenced by a mere thumbmark vs. her signatures on the deeds of sale).
• Manuela had no more property to dispose of by will in 1969 because the property had already been partitioned.
• Allowing Manuela to revoke the sales she authorized would unjustly enrich her and Raquel at the expense of the others.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the deeds of sale (Exhs. A, B, C, D) constitute a valid partition inter vivos under Art. 1080 despite not being in the form of a will and despite Art. 1347's prohibition on contracts upon future inheritance.
  • Whether a subsequent Last Will and Testament can revoke a valid partition inter vivos.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the deeds constitute a valid partition inter vivos. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code expressly allows a person to partition their estate either by act inter vivos or by will. If by will, formal requirements for wills apply. If by act inter vivos, the partition may be oral or written and need not be in the form of a will, provided legitimes are not prejudiced. The deeds here were perfected and consummated during Manuela's lifetime with her consent, making them valid partitions, not invalid contracts upon future inheritance under Art. 1347.
  • No, the subsequent will cannot revoke the partition. The parties who freely participated in the partition are estopped from denying or repudiating their voluntary acts. Allowing Manuela to revoke the partition to favor another child would be unjust and inequitable, running counter to the doctrine against unjust enrichment.

• Partition Inter Vivos (Art. 1080) — A person may partition their estate by act inter vivos or by will. An inter vivos partition need not comply with the formalities of a will; it can be oral or written, provided it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs. It is an expressly authorized exception to the prohibition against contracts upon future inheritance.
• Estoppel in Partition — Parties who freely participate in a partition are estopped from denying or repudiating the consequences of their voluntary acts. No one may be permitted to disavow and go back upon their own acts. A partition bars further litigation on the title, and parties cannot attack the partition collaterally.

• Art. 1080, Civil Code — Allows a person to make a partition of his estate either by an act inter vivos or by will, provided it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs. Applied to uphold the validity of the deeds of sale as a valid partition inter vivos that did not need to comply with the formalities of a will.
• Art. 1347, Civil Code — Prohibits contracts upon future inheritance. Applied negatively; the SC clarified that the partition under Art. 1080 is an expressly authorized exception to this prohibition.