An-

Question Ratio
swer
Pada-Kilario vs. CA (2000): Statute of
Frauds under Article 1403 of the New Civil
1. Partition of real property is covered by the Statute of
False Code does not apply in partition because parti-
Frauds.
tion among heirs is not legally deemed a mode
conveyance of real property.
2. All things, even future ones, which are not outside the
commerce of men, may be the object of a contract. The
exception is that no contract may be entered into with re-
True J.L.T Agro, Inc vs. Balansag (2005)
spect to future inheritance, and the exception to the ex-
ception is the partition inter vivos referred to in Article
1080 of the New Civil Code.
3. A person may make a partition inter vivos of his estate
Mayuga vs. Atienza (2018): In partition inter
even without a will subject only to the limitation that he
False vivos in intestacy, the designation shall be in
should not prejudice the legitimes of his compulsory
accordance with the laws of intestacy.
heirs.
Mayuga vs. Atienza (2018): The intention
behind the change of the word “testator” in the
4. Partition inter vivos is possible both in intestate as well as Old Civil Code into the term "person" in the
True
testamentary succession. New Civil Code is to do away with the inter-
pretation requiring a valid will in order that
there be a valid partition inter vivos.
Mayuga vs. Atienza (2018): Should the testa-
tor institute a stranger as heir, he cannot make
5. In legal succession, the decedent may, by an act inter
False a partition inter vivos without making a desig-
vivos, partition his estate among his relatives and friends.
nation by a valid will because the stranger
cannot inherit by the laws of intestacy.
Mayuga vs. Atienza (2018): Distinction must
be made between a disposition of property and
its partition.
6. The decedent by an act inter vivos, can dispose and parti-
False (1) The disposition of property must be made
tion his estate even without executing a will.
in the manner allowed by law, namely, by
will.
(2) After the designation in the will, then
comes the second part, the partition.
Crucillo vs. IAC: The oral agreement for the
True 7. Partition inter vivos by the decedent can be made orally. partition of the property owned in common is
valid, binding, and enforceable on the parties.
Under Section 1, Rule 74, among the requi-
sites of a valid extrajudicial partition are (1)
the decedent left no will and (2) the decedent
left no debts, or all are paid.
8. The heirs themselves can execute an extrajudicial parti-
False
tion during the lifetime or after the death of the decedent.
Decedent" is the general term applied to the
person whose property is transmitted through
succession (Section 775). Succession takes
place only from the moment of death.
Rule 74, Sec. 1. Extrajudicial settlement by
agreement between heirs. – If the decedent
9. If there is only one heir, he can merely execute an affi-
left no will x x x If there is only one heir, he
False davit of self-adjudication even if there is a last will left by
may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by
the decedent.
means of an affidavit (of self-adjudication)
filed in the office of the register of deeds
The object of registration is to serve as con-
10. An extrajudicial partition which is not filed with the Reg-
True structive notice to the others.
ister of Deeds will not affect third persons.
Proof of payment or exemption from estate is
11. The heirs cannot execute an extrajudicial partition if the only a requirement for registration and not for
False
estate taxes have not yet been paid. execution.

False 12. An extrajudicial partition which is published binds the Reillo vs Santo (2009): Under the rules, no

1

other co-heirs who did not participate in the partition.
13. The heirs cannot execute an extrajudicial partition if some
False
of the heirs are minors.
True 14. Anyone of the co-heirs may ask for partition at any time.
False 15. Partition is possible if majority of the heirs agree.
16. The testator may prohibit the partition of his estate but not
False
of the legitime.
17. Preterition of compulsory heirs in the partition will annul
False
the partition if there is vitiated consent.
18. Preterition of objects in the partition will annul the parti-
False
tion if there is lesion.
19. If a non-heir is included in the partition, the partition is
True
void but only with respect to such person.
20. The right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the
True
New Civil Code applies only before partition.
21. Sale of a specific portion of the inherited property prior to
True
partition is null and void.
22. The right of legal redemption may be exercised by all the
False
heirs, including the one who sold his hereditary right.
False 23. The written notice could come from the seller or the
2
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not participated therein or
had no notice thereof.
The publication of the deed of extrajudicial
partition does not constitute constructive no-
tice to the whole world since S1 R74 provides
that "no
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not participated therein or
had no notice thereof."
Rule 74, Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement
by agreement between heirs. — x x x the
heirs are all of age, or the minors are repre-
sented by their judicial or legal representatives
duly authorized for the purpose x x x may exe-
cute an extrajudicial partition.
Santos vs. Santos (2020): Each co-owner
may demand at any time the partition of the
common property.
Art. 1083. Every co-heir has a right to de-
mand the division of the estate unless the tes-
tator should have expressly forbidden its parti-
tion, in which case the period of indivision
shall not exceed twenty years as provided in
Article 494. This power of the testator to pro-
hibit division applies to the legitime.
Article 1104. A partition made with preteri-
tion of any of the compulsory heirs shall not
be rescinded, unless it be proved that there
was bad faith or fraud on the part of the
other persons interested; but the latter shall be
proportionately obliged to pay to the person
omitted the share which belongs to him.
Article 1098. A partition, judicial or extra-ju-
dicial, may also be rescinded on account of le-
sion, when any one of the co-heirs received
things whose value is less, by at least one-
fourth, than the share to which he is entitled,
considering the value of the things at the time
they were adjudicated.
- The minimum extent of lesion must
be ¼ of the value of the share which
the co-heir is entitled.
Article 1105. A partition which includes a
person believed to be an heir, but who is not,
shall be void only with respect to such person.
Caro vs. CA (1982): The right of redemption
may be exercised only before partition and not
after.
Cabrera vs. Ysaac (2014): Unless all the co-
owners have agreed to partition their property,
none of them may sell a definite portion of the
land. The co-owner may only sell his or her
proportionate interest in the co-ownership. A
contract of sale which purports to sell a spe-
cific or definite portion of unpartitioned land
is null and void ab initio.
Cuizon vs. Remoto: The written notification
should come from the vendor or prospective
vendor, and not from any other person. This is
 buyer, as long as it is definite as to the existence of the
sale.
24. In the case of ALONZO VS. IAC (159 SCRA 259), con-
structive notice by registration of the Deed of Sale in the
Register of Deeds was considered as equivalent to a writ-
False
ten notice of sale because the right of legal redemption
was invoked more than thirteen years after the sale was
concluded.
25. In some instances, actual knowledge was considered to be
False equivalent to written notice insofar as the right of legal re-
demption is concerned.
so because the vendor is in the best position to
know who are his co-owners that under the
Alonzo vs. IAC (159 SCRA 259) is the ex-
ception to the rule that written notice is indis-
pensable in the exercise of right of redemption
by the heirs under Article 1088.
In the case of ALONZO VS. IAC (159 SCRA
259), the SC ruled that actual, not construc-
tive, knowledge was considered an equivalent
to a written notice of sale because the right of
legal redemption was invoked more than thir-
teen years after the sales were concluded.
Primary Structures Corp. vs. Spouses Va-
lencia: The SC made it clear that the Alonzo
vs. IAC case was not reversing the prevailing
jurisprudence. The court simply adopted an
exception to the general rule, in view of the
peculiar circumstances of this case.