RAMON S.

CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES,

INC., Petitioners,
VS
HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6,
JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND
LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S.
BALAJADIA, Respondents.
GR No. 192828 November 28, 2011

Facts:
In 1996, Antonio Ching was stabbed to death and the
suspect was Ramon Ching his alleged son. Criminal case was
filed against Ramon who remained at large. Antonio’s two (2)
common law wives and two (2) children of one of the common
law wife filed a case against Ramon alleging that Ramon by
fraud transferred properties of Antonio Ching to his name and
prayed for reconveyance and annulment of titles with
damages and that Ramon be disinherited and prevented from
acquiring other properties of the late Antonio. Later they
amended their complaint impleading Metrobank.
Spouses of Ramon filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the RTC handling the case no jurisdiction because
the issues raised can only be resolved in a special proceeding
and not in an ordinary civil action.

Issue:
Whether or not the disinheritance of Ramon can be
affected under special proceedings.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative because no will
or any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of
Antonio’s estate was even mentioned.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be affected
only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be
specified. This Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that
while the respondents in their Complaint and Amended
Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any
instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's
estate was ever mentioned.
Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, Civil
Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a
special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's
exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
EUGENIO FELICIANO, substituted by his wife CEFERINA DE
PALMA- FELICIANO, ANGELINA DE LEON, representing the
heirs of ESTEBAN FELICIANO, TRINIDAD VALIENTE, AND
BASILIA TRINIDAD, represented by her son DOMINADOR T.
FELICIANO, Petitioners,
VS
PEDRO CANOZA, DELIA FELICIANO, ROSAURO FELICIANO,
ELSA FELICIANO AND PONCIANO FELICIANO,Respondents.
GR No. 161746 September 1, 2010

Facts:
In May 1930, Antonio Feliciano died leaving behind a
parcel of land. In 1972, an extrajudicial settlement was
executed by Leona Feliciano, Maria Feliciano, Pedro Feliciano,
and Salina Feliciano. The four declared that they are the only
heirs of Antonio; they did not include the heirs of their dead
siblings Esteban and Doroteo Feliciano. Thereafter, Pedro sold
his share to Jacinto Feliciano; Salina sold her share to Felisa
Feliciano; and Leona and Maria sold their share to Pedro
Canoza.
Subsequently, Jacinto and Canoza applied for their
respective titles covering the lands they purchased. In
November 1977, a free patent was issued to Jacinto. In
February 1979, a free patent was likewise issued to Pedro
Canoza.
In October 1993, Eugenio Feliciano and Angelina De
Leon (surviving heirs of Esteban) as well as Trinidad Valiente
and Basilia Trinidad (Surviving heirs of Doroteo) filed a
complaint for the declaration of nullity of the deed of
extrajudicial settlement on the ground of fraud by reason of
the exclusion of the other compulsory heirs (Esteban and
Doroteo).
The trial court ruled in favor of Eugenio et al but on
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the
ground that Eugenio et al’s action has prescribed.

Issue:
Whether or not the action filed by Eugenio et al is barred
by prescription, thus such action tantamount to
disinheritance.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. It is
undeniable that the extrajudicial settlement executed by
Leona Feliciano, Maria Feliciano, Pedro Feliciano, and Salina
Feliciano in 1972 to the exclusion of Esteban and Doroteo’s
heirs is attended by fraud. As such, the deed of
extrajudicial settlement can be attacked in action for
annulment in court. However, such action should be filed
within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud.
In this case, the fraud was actually committed in 1972
but it was only deemed discovered in 1977 and 1979. In 1977,
because this was the time when a free patent was issued to
Jacinto and in 1979, when a free patent was issued to Canoza.
These years are the reckoning point because the free patents
released to Jacinto and Canoza served as constructive notices
to Eugenio et al and to the whole world. And so, when Eugenio
et al filed their complaint in 1993, the complaint was already
filed out of time (16 years late in case of Jacinto; and 14 years
in case of Canoza).
 REGINA FRANCISCO AND ZENAIDA PASCUAL, petitioners,
VS
AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO, respondent.
GR No. 138774 March 8, 2011

Facts:
Respondent Aida Francisco-Alfonso is the sole legitimate
daughter of Gregorio Francisco while Petitioners are
daughters of the latter with his common law wife
Julia Mendoza. Gregorio Francisco owned two parcels of
residential land situated in Bulacan. When Gregorio was
confined in a hospital in 1990, he confided to his daughter
Aida that the certificates of title of his property were in the
possession of the petitioners. When Gregorio died, Aida
inquired about the certificate of title from petitioners and they
informed her that Gregorio had sold the land to them in
1983as executed by a “Kasulatan”.
After verification, Aida learned that there was indeed a
deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioners. In 1991, Aida
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, a complaint
against petitioners for annulment of sale with damages. In
their joint answer, petitioners denied the alleged forgery or
simulation of the Deed of Sale. The trial court rendered a
decision dismissing the complaint while upon appeal the Court
of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. Hence,
this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Aida can be deprived of her legitime in a
way other than disinheritance as prescribed by law.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Gregorio
Francisco did not own any other property. If indeed the
parcels of land involved were the only property left by their
father, the sale in fact would deprive respondent of her share
in her father’s estate. By law, she is entitled to half of the
estate of her father as his only legitimate child.
The legal heirs of the late Gregorio Francisco must be
determined in proper testate or intestate proceedings for
settlement of the estate. His compulsory heir cannot be
deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as
prescribed by law.
PEDRO GENEROSA, DECEASED, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
HEIRS, VIDA R. GENEROSA, ROBERT R. GENEROSA,
EDMUNDO R. GENEROSA, PEDRO R. GENEROSA, JR.,
AMALIA R. GENEROSA, LIZA R. GENEROSA, MELODY R.
GENEROSA and FIDEL R. GENEROSA, Petitioners,
VS
PACITA PRANGAN-VALERA, Respondent.
GR No. 166521 August 31, 2006

Facts:
The complaint alleged that the brothers Alfonso, Pedro,
and Florencio were not never legitimate heirs of the plaintiff’s
deceased husband, Eleuterio Valera, nor are they related to
the latter. When her husband’s first wife Maria died in 1971,
Eleuterio continued in possession of the subject property even
after he married her (plaintiff) in 1984.
Eleuterio died in 1990, she continued in possession of
the same property until her possession thereof was
interrupted when the defendant brothers surreptitiously took
possession of the property in 1991, after arrogating unto
themselves the very same property on the basis of a
falsified Deed of Extrajudicial Partition With Sale wherein said
defendants made it appear that they are the sole heirs of her
husband, Eleuterio Valera; that on account of the
misrepresentation committed by the three, she filed against
them a criminal complaint for falsification of public document,
docketed as Criminal Case No. D-11039.
The brothers Alfonso and Florencio were convicted in
said case and subsequently applied for probation while their
brother Pedro was dropped from the case on account of his
death during the pendency thereof.

Issue:
Whether or not the conviction of the brothers Alfonso
and Florencio in the criminal case for the falsification of public
document will result for their disqualification to inherit.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the negative. The conviction
of the brothers Alfonso and Florencio in the criminal case for
falsification of public document filed against them and their
brother Pedro at the instance of the respondent “is a concern
of the authorities” … and “will not result in the nullification of
their rights as co-owners [of the respondent] where such act
does not fall under any of the legal grounds for disqualification
to succeed as heirs under Articles 1027 and 1032 of the Civil
Code.
HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR., namely: CONRADO
B. URETA, MACARIO B. URETA, GLORIA URETA-GONZALES,
ROMEO B. URETA, RITA URETA-SOLANO, NENA URETA-
TONGCUA, VENANCIO B. URETA, LILIA URETA-TAYCO, and
HEIRS OF POLICRONIO B. URETA, JR., namely: MIGUEL T.
URETA, RAMON POLICRONIO T. URETA, EMMANUEL T.
URETA, and BERNADETTE T. URETA, Petitioners,
VS
HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA, namely: TERESA F. URETA,
AMPARO URETA-CASTILLO, IGNACIO F. URETA, SR.,
EMIRITO F. URETA, WILKIE F. URETA, LIBERATO F. URETA,
JR., RAY F. URETA, ZALDY F. URETA, and MILA JEAN URETA
CIPRIANO; HEIRS OF PRUDENCIA URETA PARADERO,
namely: WILLIAM U. PARADERO, WARLITO U. PARADERO,
CARMENCITA P. PERLAS, CRISTINA P. CORDOVA, EDNA P.
GALLARDO, LETICIA P. REYES; NARCISO M. URETA;
VICENTE M. URETA; HEIRS OF FRANCISCO M. URETA,
namely: EDITA T. URETA-REYES and LOLLIE T. URETA-
VILLARUEL; ROQUE M. URETA; ADELA URETA-GONZALES;
HEIRS OF INOCENCIO M. URETA, namely: BENILDA V.
URETA, ALFONSO V. URETA II, DICK RICARDO V. URETA,
and ENRIQUE V. URETA; MERLINDA U. RIVERA; JORGE
URETA; ANDRES URETA, WENEFREDA U. TARAN; and
BENEDICT URETA, Respondents.
GR No. 165748 September 14, 2011

Facts:
Alfonso was financially well-off during his lifetime. He
has 14 children. He owned several fish pens, a fishpond, a
sari-sari store, a passenger jeep, and was engaged in the
buying and selling of copra. In order to reduce inheritance tax
Alfonso made it appear that he sold some of his lands to his
children. Accordingly, Alfonso executed four (4) Deeds of Sale
covering several parcels of land in favor of Policronio,
Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife, ValerianaDela
Cruz. The Deed of Sale executed on October 25, 1969, in
favor of Policronio, covered six parcels of land, which are the
properties in dispute in this case.
Since the sales were only made for taxation purposes
and no monetary consideration was given, Alfonso continued
to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their produce. On
April 19, 1989, Alfonso's heirs executed a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition, which included all the lands that were
covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were previously
executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes. Conrado,
Policronio's eldest son, representing the Heirs of Policronio,
signed the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-
heirs.
After their father's death, the Heirs of Policronio found
tax declarations in his name covering the six parcels of land.
On June 15, 1995, they obtained a copy of the Deed of Sale
executed on October 25, 1969 by Alfonso in favor of
Policronio. Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to
their late father, and as such, excluded from the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio sought to
amicably settle the matter with the Heirs of Alfonso. Earnest
efforts proving futile, the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint
for Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession,
Annulment of Documents, Partition, and Damages against the
Heirs of Alfonso before the RTC on November 17, 1995.

Issue:
Whether or not the said partition deprived the heirs of
their inheritance other than the legal causes of disinheritance
as provided by the law.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the negative. The Heirs of
Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of
Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their
representative results, at the very least, in their preterition
and not in the invalidity of the entire deed of
partition. Assuming there was actual preterition, it did not
render the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition voidable. Citing
Article 1104 of the Civil Code, they aver that a partition made
with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be
rescinded, but the heirs shall be proportionately obliged to
pay the share of the person omitted.
 J.L.T. AGRO, INC., represented by its Manager, JULIAN L.
TEVES, Petitioner,
VS
ANTONIO BALANSAG and HILARIA CADAYDAY, respondents.
GR No. 141882 March 11, 2005

Facts:
Don Julian Teves contracted two marriages, first with
Antonia Baena and had two kids namely Josefa and Emilio.
After her death, he married Milagros Teves and they had four
children namely: Maria Teves, Jose Teves, Milagros Teves and
Pedro Teves. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into
a Compromise Agreement.
When Antonia died an action for partition was instituted
where the parties entered into a Compromise
Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties
of Don Julian.
On the basis of the compromise agreement, the CFI
declared a tract of land known as Medalla Milagrosa as
property owned in common by Don Julian and his children of
the first marriage. The property was to remain undivided
during the lifetime of Don Julian. Josefa and Emilio likewise
were given other properties at Bais, including the electric
plant, the “movie property,” the commercial areas, and the
house where Don Julian was living. The remainder of the
properties was retained by Don Julian.
On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa
executed a Deed of Assignment of Assets with Assumption
of Liabilities in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. Later, Don Julian,
Josefa and Emilio also executed an instrument entitled
Supplemental to the Deed of Assignment of Assets with the
Assumption of Liabilities (Supplemental Deed) dated 31 July
1973. This instrument transferred ownership over Lot No. 63
among other properties transferred ownership over Lot No.
63, among other properties, in favor of petitioner.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a preterition which deprives
Don Julian heirs of their share in the estate other than the
express causes of disinheritance as provided by law.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the negative. In the case at
bar, Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted
to was a partition inter vivos of his properties, as evidenced
by the court approved Compromise Agreement.
Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition
prior to the death of Don Julian in the absence of a will
depriving a legal heir of his legitime. Besides, there are other
properties which the heirs from the second marriage could
inherit from Don Julian upon his death.
MILAGROS MANONGSONG, joined by her husband, CARLITO
MANONGSONG, Petitioners,
VS
FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, EMILIANA JUMAQUIO,
NARCISO ORTIZ, CELESTINO ORTIZ, RODOLFO ORTIZ,
ERLINDA O. OCAMPO, PASTOR ORTIZ, JR., ROMEO ORTIZ
BENJAMIN DELA CRUZ, SR., BENJAMIN DELA CRUZ, JR.,
AURORA NICOLAS, GLORIA RACADIO, ROBERTO DELA
CRUZ, JOSELITO DELA CRUZ and LEONCIA S.
LOPEZ, Respondents.
GR No. 136773 June 25, 2006

Facts:
Allegedly, Agatona Guevarra inherited a property from
Justina Navarro, which is now under possession of the heirs
of Guevarra. Guevarra had six children, one of them is Vicente
Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong.
The respondents, the Jumaquio sisters and Leoncia Lopez
claimed that the property was actually sold to them by Justina
Navarro prior to her death. The respondents presented deed
of sale dated October 11, 1957.
Milagros and Carlito Manongsong (“petitioners”) filed a
Complaint on June 19, 1992 praying for the partition and
award to them of an area equivalent to one-fifth (1/5), by
right of representation. The RTC ruled that the conveyance
made by Justina Navarro is subject to nullity because the
property conveyed had a conjugal character and that Agatona
Guevarra as her compulsory heir should have the legal right
to participate with the distribution of the estate under
question to the exclusion of others.
The Deed of Sale did not at all provide for the reserved
legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has no force and effect
against Agatona Guevarra and should be declared a nullity ab
initio.

Issue:
Whether or not the rights of the compulsory heirs
were impaired by the alleged sale of the property by Justina
other than the causes of disinheritance.

Held:
The Supreme Court rule in the negative. The Kasulatan,
being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is
a public document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity
and due execution. There is no basis for the trial court’s
declaration that the sale embodied in the Kasulatan deprived
the compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes.
The trial court’s conclusion that the Property was
conjugal, hence the sale is void ab initio was not based
on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension of Article 160
of the Civil Code, which provides: “All property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership;
unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife.” The presumption under Article 160
of the Civil Code applies only when there is proof that the
property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for
the operation of the presumption in favor of the
conjugal partnership.
There was no evidence presented to establish
that Navarro acquired the Property during her marriage.
 DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D. SEANGIO and VIRGINIA
D. SEANGIO, Petitioners,
VS
HON. AMOR A. REYES, in her capacity as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch
21, Manila, ALFREDO D. SEANGIO, ALBERTO D. SEANGIO,
ELISA D. SEANGIO-SANTOS, VICTOR D. SEANGIO,
ALFONSO D. SEANGIO, SHIRLEY D. SEANGIO-LIM, BETTY D.
SEANGIO-OBAS and JAMES D. SEANGIO, Respondents.
GR No. 140371 November 27, 2006

Facts:
Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of
the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio and praying
for the appointment of private respondent Elisa D. Seangio-
Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy
Yieng Seangio.
However, petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia
opposed the petition contending that: 1) DyYieng is still very
healthy; 2) Segundo executed a general power of attorney in
favor of Virginia giving her the power to manage and exercise
control and supervision over his business in the Philippines;
3) Virginia is the most competent and qualified to serve as
the administrator of the estate; and 4) Segundo left a
holographic will disinheriting one of the private respondents.
Thereafter, a petition for the probate of the holographic
will of Segundo was filed by the petitioner and reiterating that
the probate proceedings should take precedence over the
petition filed by the private respondents because testate
proceedings take precedence and enjoys priority over the
intestate proceedings.
The two petitions were then consolidated. Private
respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate
proceedings on the ground that the document purporting to
be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not
meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code,
of which petitioners filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss. Then, the RTC issued an order dismissing the petition
for probate proceedings and due to petitioner’s denial of
motion for reconsideration, this present action was sought

Issue:
Whether or not said disinheritance is acceptable as a
holographic will.
Held:
The document, although it may come across as a mere
disinheritance, conforms to the formalities of a holographic
will prescribed by law. Under Art. 810 of the Civil Code, a
holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed
by the hand of the testator himself. The document in question
is written, dated and signed by the testator.
Even if there is no stipulation regarding the disposition,
the fact of disinheritance can be considered as an act of
disposition in itself, as it results in the disposition of the
property in favor of those who will succeed in the absence of
Alfredo. A holographic will made by one who is not learned in
the law is construed more liberally should be construed more
liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into
account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the
instrument and the intention of the testator. Testacy is
favored than intestacy.
 NORA B. CALALANG-PARULAN and ELVIRA B.
CALALANG, Petitioners,
VS
ROSARIO CALALANG-GARCIA, LEONORA CALALANG-SABILE,
and CARLITO S. CALALANG, Respondents.
GR No. 184148 June 9, 2014

Facts:
Respondents Rosario Calalang-Garcia, Leonora
Calalang-Sabile, and Carlito S. Calalang asserted their
ownership over a certain parcel of land against the petitioners
Nora B. Calalang-Parulan and Elvira B. Calalang. The said lot
was allegedly acquired by the respondents from their mother
Encarnacion Silverio, through succession as the latter’s
compulsory heirs.
Pedro Calalang contracted two marriages during his
lifetime. The first marriage was with the respondents’ mother
Encarnacion Silverio. During the subsistence of this marriage,
their parents acquired the above-mentioned parcel of land
from their maternal grandmother Francisca Silverio. Despite
enjoying continuous possession of the land, however, their
parents failed to register the same.
On June 7, 1942, the first marriage was dissolved with
the death of Encarnacion Silverio. On November 6, 1967,
Pedro Calalang entered into a second marriage with Elvira B.
Calalang who then gave birth to Nora B. Calalang-Parulan and
Rolando Calalang.
On February 17, 1984, Pedro Calalang sold the said
parcel of land to Nora B. Calalang-Parulan as evidenced by a
Deed of Sale executed by both Pedro Calalang and Elvira B.
Calalang. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
cancelled OCT No. P-2871 and issued Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 283321 in the name of Nora B. Calalang-
Parulan. On December 27, 1989, Pedro Calalang died.

Issue:
Whether or not Pedro Calalang deprived his heirs of their
respective shares over the disputed property other than the
causes of disinheritance as provided by law.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. It is only
upon the death of Pedro Calalang on December 27, 1989 that
his heirs acquired their respective inheritances, entitling them
to their pro indiviso shares to his whole estate. At the time of
the sale of the disputed property, the rights to the succession
were not yet bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang. And
absent clear and convincing evidence that the sale was
fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in
effect an in officious donation inter vivas), the respondents
have no right to question the sale of the disputed property on
the ground that their father deprived them of their respective
shares.
Well to remember, fraud must be established by clear
and convincing evidence. Mere preponderance of evidence is
not even adequate to prove fraud. The Complaint for
Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance of Property must
therefore be dismissed.
 AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, petitioner,
VS
LAURENCIO AYING, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF
THE OTHER HEIRS OF EMILIANO AYING, PAULINO AYING, IN
HIS OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THE OTHER HEIRS OF
SIMEON AYING, AND WENCESLAO SUMALINOG, IN HIS
OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THE OTHER HEIRS OF
ROBERTA AYING, respondents.
GR No. 144773 May 6, 2005

Facts:
The disputed property is Lot No. 4399 with an area of
34,325 square meters located at Dapdap, Lapu-Lapu
City. Crisanta Maloloy-on petitioned for the issuance of a
cadastral decree in her favor over said parcel of land. After
her death in 1930, the Cadastral Court issued a Decision
directing the issuance of a decree in the name of Crisanta
Maloloy-on’s eight children, namely: Juan, Celedonio,
Emiliano, Francisco, Simeon, Bernabe, Roberta and Fausta,
all surnamed Aying.
The certificate of title was, however, lost during the war.
Subsequently, all the heirs of the Aying siblings executed an
Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute
Sale dated March 3, 1964, conveying the subject parcel of
land to herein petitioner Aznar Brothers Realty Company.
Said deed was registered with the Register of Deeds of
Lapu-Lapu City on March 6, 1964 under Act No. 3344 (the law
governing registration for unregistered land), and since then,
petitioner had been religiously paying real property taxes on
said property.
In 1988, herein petitioner filed a Petition for
Reconstitution of the Original Title as the original title over the
subject property had been lost during the war. On April 12,
1988, the court granted said petition, thereby directing the
Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to issue a reconstituted
title in the name of the abovementioned Aying siblings.
Thus, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-2856 was
issued. In 1991, petitioner, claiming to be the rightful owner
of the subject property, sent out notices to vacate, addressed
to persons occupying the property. Unheeded, petitioner
then filed a complaint for ejectment against the occupants
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Lapu-Lapu City.
Issue:
Whether or not the Extra Judicial Partition of Real Estate
with Deed of Absolute Sale can be rescinded by reason of
preterition which may deprived the heirs from their
inheritance other than those causes of disinheritance provided
by law.

Held:
The Supreme Court held in the negative. With regard to
petitioner’s argument that the provision of Article 1104 of the
Civil Code, stating that a partition made with preterition of
any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, should be
applied, suffice it to say that the Extra-Judicial Partition of
Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is not being
rescinded. In fact, its validity had been upheld but only as to
the parties who participated in the execution of the same.