Marcos vs. Heirs of Bangi and Diccion

An oral partition of an estate is valid and enforceable when it has been consummated by the heirs' taking possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership over their respective portions, even in the absence of a written instrument; long possession in severalty raises a presumption of partition that equity will recognize and enforce.

Alipio Bangi died in 1918, leaving a parcel of land in San Manuel, Pangasinan covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 22361. He was survived by his children Eusebio, Espedita, and Jose Bangi. In 1943, Eusebio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying a one-third portion of the subject property to his relatives, the spouses Isidro Bangi and Genoveva Diccion. The respondents, heirs of Isidro and Genoveva, took possession of the purchased portion. In 1995, the petitioners, who are Eusebio's children and heirs, caused the registration of two Deeds of Absolute Sale—dated August 10, 1995 and November 21, 1995—purporting to convey the entire property including the one-third portion sold in 1943, resulting in the cancellation of OCT No. 22361 and the issuance of new transfer certificates of title in the petitioners' names.

• The Subject Property and the 1943 Sale: The subject property consists of a one-third portion of a 2,138-square meter parcel of land situated in San Manuel, Pangasinan, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 22361 registered in the name of Alipio Bangi. On November 5, 1943, Eusebio Bangi (Alipio's son) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the said one-third portion to the spouses Isidro Bangi and Genoveva Diccion (respondents' predecessors-in-interest). Following the sale, Isidro and Genoveva took possession of the property, which possession was continued by their heirs after their death.

• The 1995 Transfers and Alleged Forgeries: In 1998, the respondents discovered that OCT No. 22361 had been cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-47829 issued in the names of Dominador Marcos, Primo Alap, Jose Dilla, and Emilio Sumajit, pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995 purportedly executed by Alipio Bangi with the consent of his wife Ramona Diccion. The respondents claimed this deed was a forgery because Alipio died in 1918 and Ramona died on June 13, 1957. Subsequently, TCT No. T-47829 was cancelled and TCT No. T-48446 was issued in the names of spouses Dominador and Gloria Marcos pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 21, 1995 executed by Primo Alap, Jose Dilla, and Emilio Sumajit. The respondents alleged this second deed was also forged because Primo Alap died on January 29, 1972.

• Petitioners' Defense and the 1995 Extrajudicial Partition: The petitioners claimed ownership of the entire subject property, asserting that their father Eusebio acquired it through a donation propter nuptias from Alipio in 1928. They presented a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim dated May 8, 1995, purportedly executed by Espedita and Jose Bangi (Eusebio's siblings), wherein the latter waived their rights over the subject property in favor of Eusebio's children (Ceasaria, Zenaida, Pacita, and Gloria). The petitioners admitted that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995 was falsified, but attributed the forgery to a certain Dominador Quero hired by Gloria Marcos to facilitate the title transfer.

• Compromise Agreement: During the pendency of the case, the respondents entered into a compromise agreement with Ceasaria Alap and the spouses Emilio and Zenaida Sumajit, wherein the latter acknowledged the respondents' rights over the subject property and admitted the validity of the 1943 sale. The case was dismissed as to these defendants.

• Invalidity of the 1943 Sale: Petitioner maintained that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1943 was invalid because Eusebio Bangi did not own the subject property at the time of the sale. They argued that the property remained undivided among the heirs of Alipio Bangi (Eusebio, Espedita, and Jose) until 1995, when the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was executed; thus, Eusebio could not have validly sold a specific one-third portion in 1943.

• Fictitious Donation Propter Nuptias: Petitioner claimed that Eusebio's acquisition of the property via donation propter nuptias from Alipio in 1928 was fictitious or void because Alipio died in 1918, making it impossible for him to execute such donation in 1928. Alternatively, they argued that the donation was void for lack of registration.

• Question of Law: Petitioner argued that the issue of whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the RTC decision presented a pure question of law appropriate for review under Rule 45.

• Oral Partition: Respondent countered that an oral partition of Alipio's estate had been effected among his heirs (Eusebio, Espedita, and Jose) immediately after Alipio's death in 1918, with the subject property assigned to Eusebio. They argued that Eusebio thus became the absolute owner of the property and had the right to sell it in 1943.

• Validity of Notarized Document: Respondent maintained that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1943, being a notarized document, enjoyed the presumption of regularity and validity, which the petitioners failed to overcome with strong, complete, and conclusive proof of falsity.

• Barred by Rule 45: Respondent argued that the petition raised questions of fact—specifically, whether an oral partition occurred—which are prohibited in a Rule 45 petition and which do not fall under any recognized exception.

• Oral Partition and Ownership: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the finding that an oral partition of the estate of Alipio Bangi had been effected prior to the November 5, 1943 sale, thereby validating the conveyance by Eusebio Bangi to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva Diccion.

• Question of Law vs. Fact: Whether the petition for review under Rule 45 properly raised only questions of law, or whether it improperly sought a review of factual findings regarding the partition of the estate.

• Question of Law vs. Fact: The petition was denied for raising a question of fact. The determination of whether the heirs of Alipio Bangi had orally partitioned the estate prior to the 1943 sale necessarily requires an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petition must raise only questions of law, which exist when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts, not when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

• Oral Partition and Ownership: Even assuming arguendo that the exceptions to the rule against reviewing questions of fact applied, the petition would still fail. An oral partition is valid and enforceable when it has been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties over their respective portions. Equity recognizes and enforces such parol partitions where they have been partly performed. The evidence established that after Alipio's death in 1918, his heirs orally partitioned the estate, assigning the subject property to Eusebio, who took possession and exercised acts of ownership over it while his siblings received other properties. The 1995 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was properly disregarded as a suspect afterthought executed decades after the deaths of Alipio and his wife, serving merely to confirm the earlier oral partition.

• Nullity of 1995 Deeds: The Deeds of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995 and November 21, 1995 were correctly nullified as forgeries; a forged deed conveys no right and is a nullity, and titles issued pursuant thereto are void.

• Oral Partition by Acts of Ownership — Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption. After a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition may be presumed. Courts of equity will recognize and enforce an oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed by the parties taking possession in severalty and exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions. The doctrine applies regardless of whether a parol partition is valid at law; equity will confirm such partition where the parties have acquiesced in and ratified it through possession and exercise of ownership.

• Question of Law Defined — A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.

• Effect of Forged Deeds — A forged deed of sale is without question null and void; it conveys no right, and certificates of title issued by reason thereof are likewise void.

• "Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition."

• "On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed. Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder."

• "The Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 10, 1995, being a forged document, is without question, null and void. This being the case, the land titles issued by reason thereof are also void because a forged deed conveys no right."

• Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 196 (1947) — Controlling precedent establishing that equity will recognize and enforce oral partitions that have been consummated by possession in severalty and exercise of ownership.

• Maglucot-aw v. Maglucot, 385 Phil. 720 (2000) — Cited for the principle that partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption, and that long possession in severalty raises a presumption of partition.

• Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012 — Cited for the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact under Rule 45.

• Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Limits petitions for review on certiorari to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

• Article 1079, Civil Code of the Philippines — Defines partition as the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong.

• Article 1082, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition.

Diosdado M. Peralta (Acting Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Francis H. Jardeleza.