G.R. No. L-7050, November 5, 1912
MACARIA CASTILLO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. URBANO CASTILLO and MARIA QUIZON, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Simona Madlangbayan died, leaving a parcel of agricultural land in Batangas. The land was in the exclusive possession of one of her children, Urbano Castillo. The plaintiffs, who are descendants of Simona’s other deceased children (Pio Castillo, Alfonsa Castillo, and Estefano Libingting), demanded the partition of the land, claiming it was the only property left by Simona. Urbano Castillo resisted, alleging that his mother had other properties which she disposed of during her lifetime in favor of some plaintiffs, and presented a document purporting to be a deed of gift of the land in his favor. The trial court found Urbano’s allegations unproven, declared the deed of gift false and void, and ordered the partition of the land into four equal shares among the heirs. It also ordered Urbano to reimburse the co-owners for the fruits he received from the land. Urbano appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiffs, as heirs of legal age, have the personality to demand partition without first instituting special intestate proceedings.
2. Whether the deed of gift in favor of Urbano Castillo is valid.
3. Whether the award of reimbursement for fruits to the co-owners is proper.

RULING

1. Yes. Heirs of legal age are expressly authorized to demand partition of property left by their predecessor without first instituting special intestate proceedings, unless there are unpaid debts necessitating judicial administration, which was not alleged in this case.
2. No. The deed of gift was properly declared null and void. The trial court found it to be false based on the evidence. Even assuming its authenticity, it was void because: (a) the acceptance by the donee was not expressed in the instrument as required by Article 629 of the Civil Code; (b) the gift was not consummated pursuant to Article 623; and (c) it was a remuneratory gift (imposing a burden inferior to the value of the gift) governed by the rules on gifts, and the donee failed to fulfill the conditions (defraying subsistence and burial expenses).
3. Yes. The award of reimbursement for fruits is proper. The procedure followed after establishing co-ownership complied with Section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Urbano had the opportunity to present evidence on the matter during the proceedings for partition and liquidation.

The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED.