G.R. No. 136773 ; June 25, 2003
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.

FACTS

The petitioners, Milagros Manongsong and her husband, filed a complaint for partition of a 152-square-meter unregistered parcel of land in Las Piñas. They claimed that the property was originally owned by Agatona Guevarra and, upon her death, was inherited pro indiviso by her five surviving children. Milagros, as the sole heir of one child, Vicente Lopez, claimed a 1/5 share. Most respondents entered into a compromise agreement recognizing this share. However, respondents Felomena and Emiliana Jumaquio (Jumaquio sisters) opposed, asserting exclusive ownership.
The Jumaquio sisters presented a 1949 Tax Declaration in the name of Justina Navarro and a 1957 Kasulatan (Deed of Sale) purportedly showing Navarro sold the property to their mother, Enriqueta Lopez. They argued this transaction severed the property from Guevarra’s estate, making Enriqueta the sole owner and them as her heirs. The trial court ordered partition in favor of petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the Kasulatan proved exclusive ownership by the Jumaquio sisters.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Kasulatan presented by the Jumaquio sisters conclusively proved their exclusive ownership of the property, thereby precluding the action for partition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision ordering partition. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership and the insufficiency of the evidence presented to overcome the presumption of a continuing co-ownership among Guevarra’s heirs. The Kasulatan, while a notarized document, was not offered as evidence for its contents to prove the truth of the sale during the trial; it was merely offered as a documentary exhibit to prove its existence and due execution. Consequently, the recitals therein regarding the sale from Navarro to Enriqueta Lopez cannot be considered as proof of the fact of sale. Furthermore, the Kasulatan’s authenticity and due execution were successfully impeached by petitioners, who presented a witness who testified that the purported vendor, Justina Navarro, was unknown to the family and that the signature was not hers.
Critically, the property description in the Kasulatan (172.51 sqm, bounded by I. Guevarra St.) differed from the subject property in the partition case (152 sqm, bounded by Calle Velay). This discrepancy created doubt that the sold property was the same one claimed. With the Kasulatan effectively discredited and no other clear evidence presented to show an adjudication or partition of Guevarra’s estate, the presumption stands that the property remained in a state of co-ownership among her heirs. An action for partition is precisely the proper remedy to settle such undivided inheritance. The petitioners, as co-owners, have a right to demand partition of their lawful share.