7/28/2019 Casilang v. Casilang-Dizon.docx

1/2

235 Casilang v. Casilang-DizonG.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 uncleJose Casilang for the lot hes currently occupying, Lot No. 4618.

In his answer he stated that hes the lawful, absolute, exclusive owner and inactual 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 the

said 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 forAnnulment of Documents, Ownership and Peaceful Possession with Damagesagainst 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 ExtrajudicialPartition 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 childrenreceived 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 takingpossession 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

7/28/2019 Casilang v. Casilang-Dizon.docx

2/2

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 the

adverse claimant establishes a better right. Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of

ownership.