G.R. No. 180269 ; February 20, 2013
JOSE Z. CASILANG, SR., substituted by his heirs, et al., Petitioners, vs. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The late spouses Liborio and Francisca Casilang died intestate, leaving three parcels of land. Their children allegedly entered into a verbal partition, whereby Lot No. 4618 was allotted to their son, petitioner Jose Casilang, Sr. Jose resided on and improved the lot, caring for his parents there until their deaths. In 1997, respondent Rosario Casilang-Dizon, a child of another sibling Ireneo, filed an unlawful detainer case against Jose, claiming ownership of Lot No. 4618 based on a 1994 Tax Declaration under Ireneo’s name and a 1997 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition executed solely among Ireneo’s children. Jose lost the ejectment case due to default. Subsequently, Jose and other heirs filed an action to annul the 1997 Deed and recover ownership, asserting the prior verbal partition.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the respondents, children of Ireneo, acquired exclusive ownership over Lot No. 4618 through their 1997 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, thereby overriding the petitioners’ claim based on an earlier verbal partition among all compulsory heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the 1997 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition void. The Court emphasized that upon the death of the spouses Liborio and Francisca, their estate passed immediately to their eight children as compulsory heirs by operation of law. A co-owner cannot adjudicate to himself a specific portion of the co-owned property without the consent of all other co-owners. The 1997 Deed, executed only by Ireneo’s children, constituted an invalid act of exclusion, as it unilaterally appropriated Lot No. 4618 without the participation and conformity of the other heirs who remained co-owners. The tax declaration in Ireneo’s name did not conclusively prove ownership, especially against the overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence presented by petitioners. Multiple witnesses corroborated the verbal partition and Jose’s long, exclusive, and notorious possession of the lot in the concept of an owner, which was open and known to the family. The Court found the respondents’ claim, arising only after Ireneo’s death, to be a belated and self-serving attempt to claim a larger share. Consequently, the property remained part of the undivided estate, and the proper remedy was an action for partition, not an exclusionary extrajudicial settlement by a subset of heirs.