G.R. No. L-68282 November 8, 1990
RAQUEL CHAVEZ, GERARDO GIMENEZ and MANUELA BUENAVISTA VDA. DE CHAVEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4th Civil Cases Division), ANTONIO CHAVEZ, ROSARIO CHAVEZ and CONCEPCION CHAVEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Manuela Buenavista was the owner of a paraphernal property. She had six children: Antonio, Rosario, Concepcion, Raquel, Presentacion, and Floserpina. Between 1958 and 1960, three children—Presentacion, Floserpina, and Raquel—each executed deeds of sale for their respective 1/6 undivided shares in favor of their sister Concepcion, with the conformity and signature of their mother, Manuela. These deeds contained a stipulation stating that the land had been inherited by the six siblings from their mother, was to be divided among them, and that Manuela retained the usufruct (possession and enjoyment of fruits) during her lifetime. Consequently, Concepcion acquired a 4/6 share, with Antonio and Rosario holding the remaining 2/6.
Subsequently, on August 27, 1968, Manuela executed a “Bilihang Patuluyan ng Lupa” (Deed of Absolute Sale) over the entire property in favor of her daughter Raquel and Raquel’s husband, Gerardo Jimenez. This prompted Antonio, Rosario, and Concepcion to file a complaint for annulment. During the pendency of the case, Manuela sold the property to Pepito Ferrer under a pacto de retro sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint, upholding the later sales. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the series of deeds of sale (Exhibits A, B, and C) executed by three siblings in favor of Concepcion, with Manuela’s consent, constituted a valid inter vivos partition of the property, thereby precluding Manuela from later validly selling the entire estate to other parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The legal logic rests on the nature and finality of the inter vivos partition. The deeds of sale, explicitly stating the property was inherited and to be divided among the six siblings, with Manuela reserving a usufruct, were not mere contracts over future inheritance. They were consummated contracts of partition executed during Manuela’s lifetime and with her direct participation and consent. This constituted a valid inter vivos act, effectively distributing her paraphernal property among her children, subject only to her lifetime usufruct.
Consequently, upon the execution of these deeds, ownership of the specific undivided shares was transferred to the designated children. Manuela, having divested herself of ownership (retaining only usufruct), no longer had the title to the property that she could validly convey in 1968 to Raquel and Gerardo Jimenez. That subsequent sale, and the later sale to Pepito Ferrer which derived from it, were therefore void. The Court emphasized the principles of estoppel and equity; Manuela and those who participated in the partition could not later repudiate their own voluntary acts. The alleged Last Will and Testament executed later could not revoke the already perfected inter vivos partition. The partition was binding and left Manuela with no disposable property to will or sell in its entirety.