G.R. No. 114151. September 17, 1998.

MAURICIA ALEJANDRINO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA, RTC-9, CEBU CITY, and LICERIO
P. NIQUE, respondents.
The facts show that the late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos
left their six children named Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia, Laurencia
and Abundio a 219-square-meter lot. Upon the demise of the Alejandrino
spouses, the property should have been divided among their children with each
child having a share of 36.50 square meters. Petitioner Mauricia (one of the
children) allegedly purchased 12.17 square meters of Gregorio’s share, 36.50
square meters of Ciriaco’s share and 12.17 square meters of Abundio’s share
thereby giving her a total area of 97.43 square meters, including her own share
of 36.50 square me-ters. It turned out, however, that a third party named Licerio
Nique, the private respondent in this case, also purchased portions of the
property, to wit: 36.50 square meters from Laurencia, 36.50 square meters from
Gregorio “through Laurencia,” 12.17 square meters from Abundio also “through
Laurencia” and 36.50 square meters from Marcelino or a total area of 121.67
square meters of the Alejandrino property. 2

In the decision of the trial court, it upheld that Mauricia Alejandrino and Laurencia
Alejandrino had entered into an ‘Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate’ whereby they
agreed to divide the land subject of this case with Laurencia Alejandrino owning 146
square meters in the frontage and Mauricia Alejandrino owning 75 square meters in the
back portion.

Petitioner argues that partition of the property cannot be effected becausethe

validity of the deed of extrajudicial settlement is in question because it was not
notarized or published.

Issue: WON the partition is valid even if not notarized.

Held: Yes. The execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate
reflected the intention of both Laurencia and petitioner Mauricia to physically
divide the property. Both of them had acquired the shares of their brothers and
therefore it was only the two of them that needed to settle the estate. The fact
that the document was not notarized is no hindrance to its effectivity as regards
the two of them. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a
public document.
That document was formally offered in evidence and the court is deemed to have
duly considered it in deciding the case. The court has in its favor the
16

presumption of regularity of the performance of its task that has not been
rebutted by petitioner Mauricia. Neither may the fact that the other heirs of the
Alejandrino spouses, named Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco and Abundio did not
participate in the extrajudicial settlement of estate affect its validity. In her
amended complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-11673, petitioner Mauricia herself
admitted having acquired by purchase the rights over the shares of her brothers.