G.R. No. 80821; February 21, 1991
GREGORIO FAVOR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRUDENCIO FAVOR HEIRS: EUFEMIO FAVOR and AGUSTIN FAVOR, respondents.

FACTS

Gregorio Favor filed a complaint for partition against his brother Prudencio (later substituted by his heirs) concerning five parcels of land inherited from their father, Regino Favor. Prudencio moved to dismiss, asserting that the properties had already been partitioned under a Compromise Agreement executed in 1948. Gregorio amended his complaint, seeking to annul this agreement on grounds of fraud and mistake, alleging he signed it believing it was merely a mortgage receipt for P150.00, and that he could not read English.
The trial court nullified the Compromise Agreement, ordered partition, and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, upholding the agreement as valid and binding and dismissing the complaint. Gregorio appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his right as a co-owner to demand partition under the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether the Compromise Agreement of 1948 constitutes a valid partition barring Gregorio’s action for partition of all the inherited properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The 1948 document, though labeled a Compromise Agreement, is legally a deed of partition under Article 1082 of the Civil Code. The Court found it valid and binding for the properties it specifically adjudicated. It allocated: 1) the lot in Barrio Cantil-i (covered by OCT in Hilario’s name) to Gregorio; and 2) two lots (one under a Free Patent and one in Barrio Bongbong) to Prudencio.
However, the agreement did not effect a complete partition of the entire estate. Two parcels remained unpartitioned: Lot 4114, which the agreement stated “shall remain our property” (implying continued co-ownership), and the lot in Barrio Bongao, which was not mentioned at all. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner can be compelled to remain in co-ownership indefinitely. The agreement for continued co-ownership of Lot 4114, made in 1948, was deemed to have expired after the maximum ten-year period in 1958, with no extension proven. Therefore, partition of these two remaining lots is mandatory.
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the validity of the 1948 partition for the three specified lots but modified it by ordering the remand of the case to the trial court for partition proceedings, under Rule 69, solely for the two unpartitioned lots (Lot 4114 and the Barrio Bongao lot). Costs were to be shared by the parties.