G.R. No. L-10850, December 20, 1957.
DOROTEO ROMERO, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO VILLAMOR, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Mariano Villamor and Eustaquia Leopoldo, a married couple, died intestate in 1941 and 1952, respectively, leaving conjugal properties. They had five children, including Calixta Villamor (predeceased, mother of Doroteo Romero and others) and Pedro, Hilaria, Aniceta, and Eusebia Villamor. On January 23, 1949, Mariano Villamor executed an extrajudicial partition inter vivos of the couple’s estate among the four surviving children and the grandchildren (children of Calixta), represented by their father Luciano Romero as natural guardian. The grandchildren later questioned the validity of this partition and Luciano Romero’s authority to represent them. After their uncles and aunts refused to institute intestate proceedings, Doroteo Romero filed a petition for letters of administration over the estates of Mariano Villamor and Eustaquia Leopoldo. The Villamor siblings (Pedro, Aniceta, Eusebia) opposed, moving to dismiss on the ground that the properties had already been partitioned in 1949. The trial court issued orders delegating the Clerk of Court to receive evidence and designating Doroteo Romero to check on the produce of the partitioned property. The oppositors moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting their appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the validity of the extrajudicial partition inter vivos executed on January 23, 1949, by Mariano Villamor, which the oppositors rely upon to oppose the judicial estate proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders. The extrajudicial partition inter vivos was declared void and without effect. Regarding the estate of Eustaquia Leopoldo (predeceased wife), Mariano Villamor had no legal authority to liquidate and distribute it after Act No. 3176 (now Rule 75, Section 2 of the Rules of Court) abolished such power under the Civil Code of 1889. Thus, the respondents had the right to commence intestate proceedings for her estate. Regarding the estate of Mariano Villamor himself, the partition inter vivos was invalid because, under Article 1053 of the Civil Code of 1889 (the law in force in 1949), such a partition required a prior valid will with all legal formalities, which did not exist as Mariano died intestate. The new Civil Code’s Article 1080, which permits such partitions, does not have retroactive effect and thus does not validate the 1949 partition. Consequently, the intestate proceedings were proper, and it became unnecessary to determine the father’s authority to represent the minor grandchildren in the partition. Costs were imposed on the appellants.