PETITIONERS: Leonardo, Guillermo, Regalado, and Heirs of FELIPE

RESPONDENT: Godofredo

The properties subject to the controversy is situated in Pangasinan Title (OCT) No. 48098.
Around 26 hectares.
The original registered owners with 1/7 share each are:
Vicenta Notarte, the wife of Hilario Hortaleza – share went to Juan, Felipe and Virgilio Tugas.
Paulino Notarte, married to Maria
Juan Notarte, married to Gregoria – has 2 sons FELIPE AND ALEJANDRO
Bernardo Notarte, married to Dorotea – Sold his 1/7 share to Emiliano Gamboa

Cirila Notarte, the wife of Luis Castelo - Present owners of the portion petitioner Guillermo and
Lopercio Orilla.

Fausto Notarte, married to Martina

Spouses Ricardo Namoca and Eusebia
Vicenta, Paulino, Juan, Bernardo, Cirila and Fausto, all surnamed Notarte, are brothers and
sisters, while Ricardo Namoca is their cousin.
FELIPE is the uncle of respondent Godofredo.
Godofredo whose father is Alejandro, whose brother is the petitioner FELIPE.
FELIPE AND ALEJANDRO are the sons of JUAN NOTARTE
Guillermo is the brother of Respondent Godofredo.
Leonardo son of FELIPE is the cousin of Godofredo and Guillermo.
Regalado son of Leonardo
October 15, 1984, Godofredo bought from Patrocenia a parcel of land located in Pangasinan.
Bounded on the N. by Leonardo; on the NE. by Nenita; on the SE. by Jose Nano; on the S. by
Guillermo; on the W. by Leonardo. Which limits are indicated by fences on all sides.
Under Tax Declaration still in the name of Emiliano Gamboa who donated it to Procopio and
Desiderio Gamboa and in turn Desiderio and Procopio sold it to Antonio Gamboa and
Patrocenia Nebril who has adjudicated the entire parcel of land unto herself, the herein vendor
of Godofredo. This is part of the land covered by OCT No. 48098.
On the same date, Godofredo filed his Affidavit of Adverse Claim in the Registry of Deeds to
protect his rights on the land he acquired from Patrocenia. pending the completion of all proper
documents Godofredo declared the land in his name under Tax Declaration No. 982 for the year
1985, indicating its area as 29,482 sq.m.

Godofredo claimed that his land was acquired by Patrocenia from Procopio Gamboa and
Desiderio Gamboa who acquired the same from Emiliano Gamboa who in turn acquired it from
Bernardo Notarte in separate transactions and conveyances in writing. He likewise averred that
the heirs of Bernardo have executed pertinent documents renouncing their interest, action and
participation over the subject land in favor of Godofredo and/or his predecessors-in-interest.

Godofredo alleged that the above-described land used to be intact but the petitioners, taking
advantage of his absence, took possession of portions of his land.
Leonardo, Guillermo, Regalado, and Heirs of FELIPE denied having encroached on respondent’s
land, contending that respondent instituted this complaint to increase the actual size of his land
at the expense of the adjoining owners and asserted that they have been in actual, notorious,
public and exclusive possession of their respective parcels for a very long time even before
respondent bought his property from Patrocenia. They claimed that their common ascendant,
Felipe, owned 10 hectares of the property covered by OCT No. 48098 which he acquired by
purchase as early as 1951 and the latest in 1967. portion of Felipe’s land being occupied by
petitioners, which area adjoins respondent’s property on the west, was acquired by Felipe from
James Turner by virtue of a Quitclaim.
Godofredo pointed out that he had purchased a portion with a definite area which is within the
1/7 share of Bernardo Notarte. Petitioners knew about this because one of them (Leonardo)
bought only one hectare of the said share.
Godofredo also claimed that what Felipe acquired from Turner was the 1/7 share of Juan
Notarte, which is situated north of Bernardo’s 1/7 share, one hectare of which was bought by
Leonardo.

Godofredo further averred that the land covered by OCT No. 48098 is no longer undivided as it
had been physically segregated into the designated shares of the registered owners, and
various transfer certificates of title have been issued. Since Bernardo’s 1/7 share was
segregated in metes and bounds, the controversy lies in the boundaries of said share minus the
one hectare of Leonardo. Since petitioners are illegally possessing portions of that share which
respondent as present owner wants to recover, there are no indispensable parties other than
those who have taken possession of the encroached portion. Respondent added that a survey
to determine the extent of his land based on the documents he would present will certainly
solve the case with finality.
Godofedo testified that he had known the land covered by OCT No. 48098 since 1951. The
shares of Juan and Paulino Notarte were foreclosed by Turner, and were later redeemed by
Felipe and Manuel Urbano, the latter also bought the share of Fausto.

Vicenta Notarte’s share went to Juan, Felipe and Virgilio Tugas.

Present owners of the portion representing Cirila Notarte’s share are petitioner Guillermo and
Lopercio Orilla.

As to Bernardo Notarte’s share, respondent testified that one hectare was sold to petitioner
Leonardo while the remaining 27,604 sq.m. was bought by him. Respondent likewise presented
a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim and Confirmation of Sale dated April 28, 1995
executed in his favor by the heirs of Bernardo.

On cross-examination, Godofredo admitted that the signatories to the Deed of Extrajudicial

Partition With Quitclaim and Confirmation of Sale were some of the alleged heirs of Bernardo.
The whole land had been partitioned among the original owners even prior to 1951;their
respective shares have been pointed to them by their father. Godofredo admitted that when he
bought the land from Patrocenia, she did not point to him the boundaries of his land and just
handed him the document; he was the one who tried to locate the boundaries of the land. 15 He
knew that the whole property covered by OCT No. 48098 had already been partitioned because
his grandparents have been in possession of their share and they sold it, and because there
were dispositions already made. The land under his possession pertains to the share of
Bernardo.

Godofredo presented as witness Leila P. Pamo, an employee of the Municipal Assessor’s Office.
She testified on the status of the property and that the said property had already been
subdivided as per the Certification issued by the Municipal Assessor listing several tax
declarations obtained by the present owners.

Patrocenia confirmed that in 1984 she sold a parcel of land to Godofredo which is the same
land she bought from Procopio and Desiderio Gamboa. She like wise confirmed her signature in
the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Godofredo but not as to the area stated. She remembered
having sold her land separately to Godofredo and Guillermo. She also stated that the land she
sold to Godofredo came from Bernardo.

Petitioner Leonardo Notarte testified that he knows the boundaries of the land bought by
Godofredo from Patrocenia which adjoins his own property. Leonardo maintained that the
original land covered by OCT No. 48098 was never partitioned; their respective areas of
possession were just pointed to them. There was no extrajudicial or judicial partition executed.

Petitioner Guillermo Notarte testified and insisted that the whole 263,000 was never
partitioned.
The MTC denied admission of the following documentary evidence and dismissed the
complaint.

The RTC reversed the MTC’s decision. The RTC found that from the evidence it is convincingly
clear that respondent owns the said land.

Leonardo, Guillermo, Regalado, and Heirs of FELIPE elevated the case to the CA which dismissed
their appeal. The CA found that as early as 1951 and even before the issuance of OCT No.
48098, the registered owners have effected an oral or informal partition of the big parcel of
land, complete with the demarcation of its boundaries.
ISSUE: Whether the 263,000 sq. m. land covered by OCT No. 48098 had been partitioned by the
registered owners.
HELD: Yes. The property covered by OCT No. 48098 had already been partitioned long before
Godofredo purchased his lot.
Under Article 1082 of the Civil Code, every act which is intended to put an end to
indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should purport to be a
sale, an exchange, or any other transaction.
Partition may thus be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the
presumption.
In the present case, the original registered owners had either mortgaged or sold their
respective 1/7 shares, in whole or in part. Although the deeds of conveyances and those early
entries in OCT No. 48098 indicated the portions being mortgaged or sold as pertaining to
proindiviso shares, the said owners’ successors-in-interest eventually took possession of the
respective portions acquired by them beginning 1951.

These transferees who are mostly relatives likewise introduced improvements on their
respective lots, and have also exercised acts of ownership. That these respective shares of the
original registered owners were merely designated orally – their individual portions having
been simply pointed to them, as testified to by respondent and Patrocenia – is immaterial.

three transfer certificates of title were issued separately to Manuel Urbano II and Cornelio
Gamboa covering physically segregated areas with their respective technical
descriptions.37 Patrocenia herself testified that she took possession of her lots acquired from
the shares of Bernardo and Cirila, and that she had instituted Guillermo as tenant on her land.
Leonardo, on his part, testified that he has been residing on the land since he was a child, and
that he bought a hectare of land from Bernardo in 1964. He likewise named the present owners
of adjoining lots pertaining to the shares of the other original registered owners. Leonardo and
Guillermo further testified on the visible boundaries of their respective lands which they have
fenced, as well as that acquired by the respondent.
The validity of an oral partition is already well-settled. 38 It is not required, contrary to the MTC’s
stated reason for denying some documentary exhibits to prove partition.
After exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of the contested estate,
petitioners are estopped from denying the existence of an oral partition.
none of the original co-owners has disputed the fact of partition, as it is only petitioners, as
present owners and successors-in-interest of Juan Notarte, who are insisting that no partition
had yet taken place merely because OCT No. 48098 was only partially cancelled and many of
the present owners have not yet secured their own separate transfer certificates of title.
Petitioners’ stance is unreasonable and seems to be more of an afterthought aimed solely at
defeating respondent’s claim.
Leonardo categorically testified that his father Felipe Notarte acquired the 1/7 share of Juan
Notarte which was redeemed from James Turner, and that he was occupying the said parcel,
with his father even donatingto him a portion as a wedding gift and another one hectare was
bought by him from Bernardo; It is indeed unbelievable for the registered owners’ successors-
in-interest, which include petitioners, to have taken possession of their respective portions for
which they paid valuable consideration, introduced improvements and paid the realty taxes due
thereon, if those lots have not been physically segregated.

courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed.

Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at

law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by
the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the
respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of
the parties.

Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases involving an oral partition under which the
parties went into possession, exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly performed the
partition agreement, that equity will confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in
accordance with the possession in severalty.

parol partition may be sustained on the ground of estoppel of the parties to assert the rights of
a tenant in common as to parts of land divided by parol partition as to which possession in
severalty was taken and acts of individual ownership were exercised.

A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties thereto have acquiesced
in and ratified the partition by taking possession in severalty, exercising acts of ownership. or
otherwise recognizing the existence of the partition.