Heirs of Ureta v Ureta, AUTHOR: Espiritu, Ralph Deric S.

[G.R. No. 165748; September 14, 2011] NOTES:

TOPIC: Object of Succession
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Extrajudicial Deed of Partition is not voidable if the party is incapable of giving consent to the
contract or if the contracting party's consent is vitiated but is unenforceable as an unauthorized
contract. However the consent may be proven to have been acquired by preponderance of
evidence such as acts showing they were aware of the contract and did nothing to oppose it.
FACTS:
 Alfonso Ureta had 14 children, including, Policronio. The children of Policronio (Heirs
of Policronio), are opposed to validity of the Extrajudicial Partition.

 On October 1969, in order to reduce the inheritance taxes, Alfonso executed four (4)
Deeds of Sale in favor of his children including Policronio.

 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 October 11, 1972, Alfonso died and his children acted as the administrator of his
father’s estate.

 on November 22, 1974, Policronio died. The subject land under the deed of sale was
never taken possession by Policronio nor his heirs.

 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.

 On July 30, 1995, the Heirs of Policronio allegedly learned about the Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition involving Alfonso’s estate when it was published in the July 19, 1995
issue of the Aklan Reporter.

 Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and excluded from
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio sought to amicably settle
but despite earnest efforts, the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Ownership, Recovery of Possession over the subject land.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was valid.

HELD: It is valid

The Deed of Sale entered between Alfonso and Policronio is void for being an absolutely
simulated sale. No actual consideration or money was given and there was no actual intent to
enter into a sale. It was merely to avoid tax purposes
The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition did not need an SPA because partition among heirs is not
legally deemed a conveyance of real property resulting in change of ownership. It is not a
transfer of property from one to the other, but rather, it is a confirmation or ratification of title
or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives
the inheritance. Partition is not an act of strict dominion which requires an SPA.

In fact, as between the parties, even an oral partition by the heirs is valid if no creditors are
affected. The requirement of a written memorandum under the statute of frauds does not apply
to partitions effected by the heirs where no creditors are involved.

In the case of Badillo v. Ferrer, the court held a deed of extrajudicial partition is not voidable
by lack of parties to give consent but unenforceable as an unauthorized contract in 1403(1).

However, the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition is not unenforceable but, in fact, valid, binding
and enforceable against all the Heirs of Policronio. because of several circumstances which
shows they gave their consent to Conrado to sign on their behalf such as that Extra-Judicial
Partition was signed on 1989 but the siblings only came to know about it 1995, 5 years after,
and Conrado didn’t inform his siblings during such span; Conrado retained possession of land
under the Extra-Judicial Partition; 1 year after the sale, the Heirs of Policronio executed an
SPA to have the land under the Extra-Judicial Partition be the subject of mortgage. Such acts
shows the Heirs of Policronio were aware of the said Partition and the vitiation of consent is a
mere afterthought

RATIO:
 The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition requires an SPA if an heir is signing in representation of
the other co-heirs otherwise it will be unenforceable. However the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition is not unenforceable in the case at bar given the circumstance of the case showed the
co-heirs were aware or consented to the signing.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):