Even if contracts are obligatory whether oral or written, a party trying to seek their specific performance should prove their existence and the terms thereof by preponderance of evidence. Bare assertions are not enough. This is the rule applied in this case.
The case is about a parcel of land with an area of 1,007 square meters fronting the provincial highway (Lot 9) originally belonging to Pastor who left it intestate in 1962 to his wife Vera, and children Rita, Lucy, Rod, Kiko and Mar (heirs). The heirs were already occupying definite portions of said lot when Pastor died. The front portion along the highway was occupied by the family ancestral home co-owned by the heirs. Beside it, also fronting the highway is Rod’s hut. Mar’s house on the other hand stood at the back of the ancestral home.
In 1968, the heirs leased the ground floor of the ancestral home together with a lot area of 300 square meters, to Larry who immediately took possession thereof. In 1974, Rod, Kiko, Lucy and Rita sold to Larry their shares, interest and participation on the ancestral home and the 300 square meters lot on which it stood. So by virtue of the deeds of sale, Larry’s possession as lessee turned into co-ownership with Mar and Vera who did not sell their shares in the house and lot.
Also, on various dates in 1971, Rod, Kiko and Lucy sold their remaining shares in Lot 9 to Cely. Later on in 1983, Rita likewise sold her share to Cely who thereby acquired a total 493 square meters of Lot 9.
On June 18, 1993, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) expropriated the front portion of Lot 9 for the expansion of the Cebu South Road by filing a petition in Court. As occupant of the expropriated portion, Cely thus moved to withdraw her corresponding share in the expropriation payment. This was opposed by Mar and Vera and was yet unresolved.
On July 23, 1993, the heirs executed an affidavit confirming the Oral Partition/Settlement of Pastor’s estate where they alleged: that after the death of Pastor in 1962 they orally made a partition and extra-judicially declared themselves as his heirs; that in the oral partition the portion to be allotted to Mar and Vera shall be fronting the highway while the share of the rest shall be at the rear as shown by the survey attached to said affidavit.
On the basis of this affidavit of oral partition Mar filed an action for ejectment against Larry claiming ownership of the lot occupied by Larry by virtue of the oral partition and praying that Larry pay him rentals and transfer to the rear portion. But the court dismissed this action because the deeds of sale in favor of Larry clearly show that the portion sold to him was fronting the highway.
Then on June 3, 1996 Vera and the heirs of Mar (who already died) filed an action against both Cely and Larry citing the alleged oral partition agreed by the heirs even before the sale to both Larry and Cely to which the latter were privy and therefore bound to comply. The other cause of action is directed solely at Cely who allegedly contracted with them to assume payment of real estate taxes, survey Lot 9 in accordance with the oral partition, and obtain titles for each portion.
The trial court, as subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the complaint holding that the deeds of sale in favor of Larry and Cely which are written documents, the validity of which were never questioned by Vera and Mar, stands superior over the allegations of an oral agreement, the existence of which was not proven. Were the RTC and the CA correct?
Yes. Vera and Mar’s heirs’ only piece of evidence to prove the alleged oral partition was the joint affidavit entitled “Confirmation of Oral Partition/Settlement of Estate” executed by the heirs in 1993 to the effect that such an oral partition has been agreed upon after Pastor’s death. They did not adequately explain why the affidavit was executed only in 1993, several years after Larry and Cely took possession of the front portion of Lot 9. If there had been an oral partition allotting the front portion to Vera and Mar, now represented by his heirs, they should have immediately objected to Larry and Cely’s occupation. Instead they only asserted ownership over the front portion in 1993 (with the execution of the affidavit) when expropriation became imminent and later filed in court.
Moreover Vera and Mar’s heirs failed to show that they and other heirs of Pastor took possession of their allotted shares as agreed upon in the alleged oral partition. Actual possession and exercise of dominion over definite portion of the property in accordance with the alleged oral partition would have been its strong proof. In this case Vera and Mar’s heirs failed to present any evidence that they took actual possession of their respective allotted shares. In fact the evidence of the parties indicates that the actual occupants of said front portion are Cely and Larry. In fine Vera and Mar’s heirs failed to prove their allegation of oral partition (Heirs of Pacres etc. et. al. vs. Heirs of Ygona etc et. al, G.R. 174719, May 5, 2010).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net