Cavile vs.

Heirs of Cavile
G.R. No. 148635
Puno, J.

April 1, 2003

Facts:
-

Bernardo Cavili contracted 3 marriages (indicated below are the wives, and then the children
from each marriage):
o 1st: Ines Dumat-ol Simplicia
o 2nd: Orfia Colalho Fortunato and Vevencia
o 3rd: Tranquilina Galon Castor, Susana, Benedicta
In his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired 6 parcels of land; the same land(s) under litigation.
October 1977: descendants of the first and second marriage (respondents) filed a complaint
for partition against the descendants of the third (petitioners), alleging that they were both coowners of the properties in question, and that upon the death of Bernardo, Castor took
possession of the property as administrator for and in behalf of the co-ownership. However,
when Castor died, his children took over the possession of the land as owners.
TC: Since petitioners were not able to file an answer on time, they were declared in default
and the respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte; TC held for the partition of
the land.
o Upon motion of petitioners, however, a new trial was held.
Petitioners presented as their evidence a Deed of Partition executed by the heirs of Bernardo
on April 5, 1937. Among its contents were the following (as found by TC):
o Simplicia, Fortunato and Vevencia concurred in the partition, as well as the spouse
Tranquiliana and her children with Bernardo (third marriage children).
o All the parcels of land acquired during the third marriage were partitioned into two:
First half: pertained to Bernardo Cavilidivided among all of his children
(Simplicia, heirs of Fortunato and Vevencia, Susana, Castor, Benedicta).
Second half: pertained to the Tranquilina Galon divided among the three
only (Susana, Castor, Benedicta).
o In the same Deed of Partition, it seemed that the share pertaining to Bernardo Cavil
(first half) was sold to Castor for P166.00. Likewise, the (second half) was also sold
to Castor for also P166.00.
o Castor took immediate possession and exercised acts of ownership and made
subsequent transfers.
TC: gave weight to the Deed, consequently dismissing the complaint of the respondents.
CA: reversed
o Deed of Partition was without proof of its authenticity and due execution; cannot be
considered as ancient document (whose authenticity need not be validated); doubt on
its authenticity in the form of the testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja
(part of respondents) who testified that Simplicia, from 1934-1947, was in Mindanao;
that the thumbmark of Simplicia in the document looked like an inkblot, not an actual
thumbmark.
Hence, this petition.

Issues/Held:
-

Procedural: certification of non-forum shopping has been substantially complied with by the
execution of Thomas George Cavile, Sr. (one of the pet) in behalf of all other petitioners.
After all, all the petitioners are relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, and that
there is merit in their petition.
TC was correct in dismissing the complaint and upholding the validity of the Deed of
Partition.
o Notarized documents public documents which are admissible in evidence without
the necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They
enjoy the presumption of regularity, and is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein.
o To overcome its presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence of its
invalidity.
In the present case, respondents failed to overcome such presumption.
o Even with the testimonies of Pareja and Tacang that Simplicia resided in Mindanao at
the time of the execution of the deed, this does not preclude the possibility that
Simplicia could have traveled from Mindanao to Tolong, Negros Oriental to
participate in the partition.
o Pareja also testified that Simplicia then was in perfect health and was completely
mobile.
o Also, upon closer examination, it can be seen that the inkblot is actually a
thumbmark.

Petition granted, CA judgment set aside.

Notes:
-

Hindi ko alam kung bakit from Cavili naging Cavile.

TC definition of Partition: Partition is the division of the property or properties by those entitled to

them with the desire to put an end to co-ownership.