Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Umpa - Alejandrino vs. Ca, Gr. No. 114151

    Uploaded by

    Babylove Umpa
    1) The case involved a dispute over property that was left by deceased spouses Alejandrino to their six children. One child, Laurencia, sold portions of the property to Nique. When Nique sought to have the portions he purchased segregated, Mauricia contested the partition. 2) The Court ruled the partition was valid, citing that Laurencia was within her rights to sell her share of the inchoate property. The sale to Nique had also been upheld in a prior quieting of title case. 3) The basis for the segregation ordered by the trial court was an extrajudicial settlement between Mauricia and Laurencia, evidencing their intent to divide the property between themselves

    Copyright:

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

    Umpa - Alejandrino vs. Ca, Gr. No. 114151

    Uploaded by

    Babylove Umpa
    27 views1 page
    1) The case involved a dispute over property that was left by deceased spouses Alejandrino to their six children. One child, Laurencia, sold portions of the property to Nique. When Nique sought to have the portions he purchased segregated, Mauricia contested the partition. 2) The Court ruled the partition was valid, citing that Laurencia was within her rights to sell her share of the inchoate property. The sale to Nique had also been upheld in a prior quieting of title case. 3) The basis for the segregation ordered by the trial court was an extrajudicial settlement between Mauricia and Laurencia, evidencing their intent to divide the property between themselves

    Original Title

    UMPA_ALEJANDRINO VS. CA, GR. NO. 114151

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over property that was left by deceased spouses Alejandrino to their six children. One child, Laurencia, sold portions of the property to Nique. When Nique sought to have the portions he purchased segregated, Mauricia contested the partition. 2) The Court ruled the partition was valid, citing that Laurencia was within her rights to sell her share of the inchoate property. The sale to Nique had also been upheld in a prior quieting of title case. 3) The basis for the segregation ordered by the trial court was an extrajudicial settlement between Mauricia and Laurencia, evidencing their intent to divide the property between themselves

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Umpa - Alejandrino vs. Ca, Gr. No. 114151

    Uploaded by

    Babylove Umpa
    1) The case involved a dispute over property that was left by deceased spouses Alejandrino to their six children. One child, Laurencia, sold portions of the property to Nique. When Nique sought to have the portions he purchased segregated, Mauricia contested the partition. 2) The Court ruled the partition was valid, citing that Laurencia was within her rights to sell her share of the inchoate property. The sale to Nique had also been upheld in a prior quieting of title case. 3) The basis for the segregation ordered by the trial court was an extrajudicial settlement between Mauricia and Laurencia, evidencing their intent to divide the property between themselves

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    UMPA, Baby Love G.

    III – JD

    MAURICIA ALEJANDRINO VS. COURT OF APPEAL


    G.R. NO. 114151, September 17, 1998

    FACTS:
    The late spouses Alejandrino left their six children named Marcelino, Gregorio,
    Ciriaco, Mauricia, Laurencia and Abundio a lot in Cebu City. Upon the death of the
    spouses, the property should have been divided among their children, however, the
    estate of the Alejandrino spouses was not settled in accordance with the procedures.
    Petitioner Mauricia, one of the children allegedly purchased portion of the lots from her
    brothers, Gregorio’s, Ciriaco’s and Abundio’s share. It turned out, however, that a third
    party named Nique, the private respondent in this case, also purchased portions of the
    property from Laurencia, Abundio and Marcelino. However, Laurencia, the alleged seller to Nique later
    questioned the sale in an action for quieting of title and damages. The trial court with regards to the
    Quieting of title case ruled in favor of Nique and declared him the owner of the lots. Laurencia appealed
    the decision to the Court of Appeals but later withdrew the same. Nique filed a motion for the segregation
    of the portion of the property that had
    been declared by the trial court as his own by virtue of purchase.
    The trial court segregated the property on the basis of the Extra-Judicial Settlement
    between Mauricia and Laurencia.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not partition of the lot was validly made


    RULING:

    The Court ruled that the lot was validly made, citing the following provisions;

    1) Although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long
    as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to
    exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right. Laurencia was within her hereditary rights in
    selling her pro indiviso share. The legality of Laurencia’s alienation of portions of the estate of the
    Alejandrino spouses was upheld in the Quieting of title case which had become final and executory by
    Laurencia’s withdrawal of her appeal in the CA. When Nique filed a motion for the segregation of
    the portions of the property that were adjudged in his favor, he was in effect calling for the partition of the
    property. However, under the law, partition of the estate of a decedent may only be effected by (1) the
    heirs themselves extra-judicially, (2) by the court in an ordinary action for partition, or in the course of
    administration proceedings, (3) by the testator himself, and (4) by the third person designated by the
    testator.
    2) Extrajudicial settlement between Mauricia and Laurentia became the basis for
    the segregation of the property in favor of Nique However, evidence on the extrajudicial settlement of
    estate was offered before the trial court and it became the basis for the order for segregation of the
    property sold to Nique. Mauricia does not deny the fact of the execution of the deed of extrajudicial
    settlement of the estate. She only questions its validity on account of the absence of notarization of the
    document and the non-publication thereof.
    3) A partition is valid though not contained in a public instrument.
    Moreover, the execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate reflected
    the intention of both Laurencia and Mauricia to physically divide the property. Both of
    them had acquired the shares of their brothers and therefore it was only the two of them that needed to
    settle the estate. The fact that the document was not notarized is no hindrance to its effectivity as regards
    the two of them. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document to be
    valid between the parties.

    You might also like