G.R. No. L-27421 September 12, 1986
ANITA MANG-OY, et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, BANDO TUMPAO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

In 1937, Old Man Tumpao executed a document he termed his “last will and testament,” partitioning his land among his children from his first marriage (the respondents) and the children of his second wife (the petitioners). The beneficiaries, already occupying their allotted portions, subsequently executed an agreement confirming the partition and appointing respondent Bando Tumpao to implement it. Old Man Tumpao died two days later, and the parties remained in possession according to this arrangement for over two decades.
In 1960, the respondents (children from the first marriage) executed an extrajudicial partition excluding the petitioners. They cancelled the original title and secured a new one in their names alone. The petitioners then sued for reconveyance. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the 1937 document executed by Old Man Tumpao, though an inoperative will for lack of probate, can be given legal effect to sustain the partition of his property among the designated beneficiaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, ordering reconveyance to the petitioners. The Court agreed that the document was indeed an inoperative will, as it was never probated as required by law. However, the legal effect of the document was sustained under Article 1056 of the Civil Code of 1889, which was in force in 1937. This article provides that a partition made by a testator by an act inter vivos or by will shall stand, provided it does not prejudice the legitime of forced heirs.
The Court construed the 1937 document, together with the subsequent implementing agreement signed by all beneficiaries, as constituting a valid partition inter vivos by the decedent. The aggregate area given to the petitioners constituted less than one-third of the total estate, which fell within the free disposable portion under the old Civil Code, thereby not impairing the legitime of the forced heirs (the respondents). The agreement did not require approval from the Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes, as the relevant administrative code was not extended to the Mountain Province. Furthermore, the property, registered in 1917 during the second marriage, was presumed conjugal property of that union, negating the respondents’ claim that it was exclusively from the first marriage. Thus, justice and law dictated the reinstatement of the partition as originally intended by Old Man Tumpao.