3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 109963. October 13, 1999.

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES: RICARDO

TEVES, ARCADIA TEVES,TOMAS ZAMORA,
FELICIA TEVES, HELEN TEVES, ALFREDO
OSMEÑA, ROBERTO TEVES, JOAQUIN
TEVES, III, PETER TEVES, MILDRED
TEVES, WILSON MABILOG, LEONILO
PATIGAYON, EDUARDO PATIGAYON,
ALEXANDER PATIGAYON, ALDRIN
PATIGAYON, NOEL PATIGAYON, VICTOR
PATIGAYON, MA. TEVES PATERNO
OCHOTORENA, EXEQUILA TEVES, EMILIO
JO, EMILIANA TEVES, MILAGROS TEVES,
EDSEL PINILI, VICENTE TEVES,
EMILIANA ISO, ALBERTO TEVES,
ERLINDA TEVES, DIOSDADO TEVES,
VICTORIA TEVES AND VIVENCIO
NARCISO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, HEIRS OF ASUNCION IT-IT
NAMELY:

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

633

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 633

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

ELISA IT-IT, SUSANA IT-IT, NORBERTO IT-

IT, ISA-AC ITIT, JR., JAIME IT-IT,
FELICITAS IT-IT, TERESITA IT-IT,
ANTONIO NODADO, CORAZON IT-IT,
JIMMY LERO, DANILO IT-IT, EDITA
GAMORA, PACITA VAILOCES, CRIS
VAILOCES, CECILIA CIMAFRANCA and
CECILIA FLOR CIMAFRANCA, respondents.

Succession; Partitions; Extrajudicial

Settlements; Requisites.— For a partition pursuant
to section 1 of Rule 74 to be valid, the following
conditions must concur: (1) the decedent left no will;
(2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts
left, all had been paid; (3) the heirs are all of age, or
if they are minors, the latter are represented by
their judicial guardian or legal representatives; (4)
the partition was made by means of a public
instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register
of Deeds.
Same; Same; Same; Notarial Law; A deed of
extrajudicial settlement is a public document, and a
public document executed with all the legal
formalities is entitled to a presumption of truth as to
the recitals contained therein; in order to overthrow a
certificate of a notary public to the effect that the
grantor executed a certain document and
acknowledged the fact of its execution before him,
mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice.—We
uphold, finding no cogent reason to reverse, the trial
and appellate courts’ factual finding that the
evidence presented by plaintiffs-appellants is
insufficient to overcome the evidentiary value of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

extrajudicial settlements. The deeds are public

documents and it has been held by this Court that a
public document executed with all the legal
formalities is entitled to a presumption of truth as to
the recitals contained therein. In order to overthrow
a certificate of a notary public to the effect that the
grantor executed a certain document and
acknowledged the fact of its execution before him,
mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice.
Rather, the evidence must be so clear, strong and
convincing as to exclude all reasonable dispute as to
the falsity of the certificate. When the evidence is
conflicting, the certificate will be upheld. The
appellate court’s ruling that the evidence presented
by plaintiffs-appellants does not constitute the clear,
strong, and convincing evidence necessary to
overcome the positive value of the extrajudicial
settlements executed by the parties, all of which are
public documents, being essentially a finding of fact,
is entitled to great respect by the appellate court and
should not be disturbed on appeal.

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Representation; The fact that a person

predeceased the decedent does not mean that his
heirs lose the right to share in the partition of the
property for this is a proper case for representation,
wherein the representative is raised to the place and
degree of the person represented and acquires the
rights which the latter would have if he were living.
—It is noted that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement & Sale covering Lot 6409 purports to
divide Joaquin Teves’ estate among only six of his

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

heirs, namely Asuncion, Teotimo, Felisia, Gorgonio,

Arcadia and Maria Teves. It does not mention nor
bear the signatures of either Pedro or Cresenciano
Teves although they are both intestate heirs of
Joaquin Teves and as such, are entitled to a
proportionate share of the decedent’s estate.
Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, the fact
that Cresenciano predeceased Joaquin Teves does
not mean that he or, more accurately, his heirs, lose
the right to share in the partition of the property for
this is a proper case for representation, wherein the
representative is raised to the place and degree of
the person represented and acquires the rights
which the latter would have if he were living.
Same; Actions; Reconveyance; Trusts;
Prescription; An action for reconveyance based upon
an implied trust pursuant to Article 1456 of the Civil
Code prescribes in ten years from the registration of
the deed or from the issuance of the title.—
Notwithstanding their non-inclusion in the
settlement, the action which Pedro and Cresenciano
might have brought for the reconveyance of their
shares in the property has already prescribed. An
action for reconveyance based upon an implied trust
pursuant to article 1456 of the Civil Code prescribes
in ten years from the registration of the deed or from
the issuance of the title. Asuncion Teves acquired
title over Lot 6409 in 1972, but the present case was
only filed by plaintiffs-appellants in 1984, which is
more than 10 years from the issuance of title.
Same; Partitions; Every act which is intended to
put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees
or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it
should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction.—Neither does
Ricardo Teves have a right to demand partition of
Lot 769-A because the two extrajudicial settlements
have already effectively partitioned such property.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

Every act which is intended to put an end to

indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition, although it should purport
to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any
other transaction. The extrajudicial settlements
executed in 1956 and 1959 adjudicated Lot 769-A in
equal shares unto the eight

635

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 635

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

heirs of Marcelina Cimafranca. Such a partition,

which was legally made, confers upon each heir the
exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to
him. Although Cresenciano, Ricardo’s predecessor-
in-interest, was not a signatory to the extrajudicial
settlements, the partition of Lot 769-A among the
heirs was made in accordance with their intestate
shares under the law.
Same; Same; An oral partition is valid, and the
non-registration of an extrajudicial settlement does
not affect its validity—the intrinsic validity of
partition not executed with the prescribed formalities
does not come into play when there are no creditors
or the rights of creditors are not affected.—With
regards to the requisite of registration of
extrajudicial settlements, it is noted that the
extrajudicial settlements covering Lot 769-A were
never registered. However, in the case of Vda. de
Reyes vs. CA, the Court, interpreting section 1 of
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, upheld the validity of
an oral partition of the decedent’s estate and
declared that the non-registration of an extrajudicial
settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity. It
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

was held in this case that—[t]he requirement that a

partition be put in a public document and registered
has for its purpose the protection of creditors and at
the same time the protection of the heirs themselves
against tardy claims. The object of registration is to
serve as constructive notice to others. It follows then
that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed
with the prescribed formalities does not come into
play when there are no creditors or the rights of
creditors are not affected. Where no such rights are
involved, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to
enter into an agreement for distribution in a manner
and upon a plan different from those provided by
law. Thus, despite its non-registration, the
extrajudicial settlements involving Lot 769-A are
legally effective and binding among the heirs of
Marcelina Cimafranca since their mother had no
creditors at the time of her death.
Same; Same; Laches; Words and Phrases; An
action questioning the extrajudicial settlement
instituted after more than 25 years from the assailed
conveyance constitutes laches, which is the negligence
or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warrant-ing a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.—Except for the portion of Lot
769-A occupied by Ricardo Teves, both parcels of
land have been and continue to be in the possession
of Asuncion Teves and her successors-in-interest.
Despite this, no explanation was offered by
plaintiffs-appellants as to why they instituted the
present action questioning

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

the extrajudicial settlements only in 1984, which is

more than 25 years after the assailed conveyance of
Lot 769-A and more than 10 years after the issuance
of a transfer certificate of title over Lot 6409, both in
favor of Asuncion Teves. Such tardiness indubitably
constitutes laches, which is the negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it. Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs-
appellants had a defensible cause of action, they are
barred from pursuing the same by reason of their
long and inexcusable inaction.
Same; Extrajudicial Settlements; Contracts; An
extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is well-
entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a
party from the effects of a contract, entered into with
all the required formalities and with full awareness
of what he was doing, simply because the contract
turned out to be a foolish or unwise investment.—An
extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is a well-
entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a
party from the effects of a contract, entered into with
all the required formalities and with full awareness
of what he was doing, simply because the contract
turned out to be a foolish or unwise investment.
Therefore, although plaintiffs-appellants may regret
having alienated their hereditary shares in favor of
their sister Asuncion, they must now be considered
bound by their own contractual acts.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision

of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Leo B. Diocos for petitioners.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

     Jose A. Arbas for private respondents.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

Before us is a petition
1
for review on certiorari
assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals
which was promulgated on

_______________

1 The decision in the case docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.

3373 was promulgated by the fourteenth division composed
of Justices

637

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 637

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

August 218, 1992 affirming the July 11, 1991

decision of Branch 38 of the Regional Trial
Court of Negros Oriental in favor of
defendants-appellees.
The facts, as culled from the pleadings of the
parties herein and the decision of the lower
courts, are as follows:
Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves
had nine children, namely Teotimo, Felicia,
Pedro, Andres, Asuncion, Gorgonio,
Cresenciano, Arcadia and Maria. Andres,
however, predeceased both his parents and
died without issue. After Marcelina Cimafranca
and Joaquin Teves died, intestate and without
debts, in 1943 and 1953, respectively, their
children executed extrajudicial settlements
purporting to adjudicate unto themselves the
ownership over two parcels of land belonging to
their deceased parents and to alienate their
shares thereto in favor of their sister Asuncion
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

Teves. The validity of these settlements

executed pursuant to section 1 of Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court is the primary issue in the
present case.
On May 9, 1984, plaintiffs-appellants
Ricardo and Arcadia Teves filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Negros
Oriental for the partition and reconveyance of
two parcels of land located in Dumaguete,
designated as Lots 769-A and 6409, against the
heirs of Asuncion Teves. The complaint was
subsequently amended to include Maria Teves
and the heirs of Teotimo, Felicia, Pedro, and
Gorgonio Teves as plaintiffs and the spouses
Lucresio Baylosis and Pacita Nocete, and
Cecilia Cimafranca-Gamos and3 Cecilia Flor
Cimafranca as defendants. Plaintiffs-
appellants alleged that defendants-appellees,
without any justifiable reason, refused to
partition the said parcels of land4 and to convey
to plaintiffs their rightful shares.

_______________

Luis L. Victor (ponente), Ricardo L. Pronove and

Eduardo G. Montenegro.
2 The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 8400 and was
decided by Judge Enrique B. Inting.
3 RTC Records, 332-339.
4 Ibid., 337.

638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

Lot 769, covered by5 Original Certificate of Title

(OCT) No. 4682-A, is registered in the names
of Urbana Cimafranca, one-fourth (1/4) share,
Marcelina Cimafranca, the wife of Joaquin
Teves, one-fourth (1/4) share, Domingo
Villahermosa, one-eighth (1/8) share, Antero
Villahermosa, one-eighth (1/8) share, Cecilia
Cimafranca, one-eighth (1/8) share and Julio
Cimafranca, one-eighth (1/8) share. The
present controversy involves only Marcelina
Cimafranca’s one-fourth (1/4) share in the land,
designated as Lot 769-A.
On June 13, 1956, Teotimo, Felicia, Pedro,
Asuncion, Gorgonio and Arcadia Teves
executed a document 6 entitled “Settlement of
Estate and Sale,” adjudicating unto
themselves, in equal shares, Lot 769-A and
conveying their shares, interests and
participations over the same in favor of
Asuncion Teves for the consideration of
P425.00. A similar deed denominated 7
“Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale” was
signed by Maria Teves on April 21, 1959.
Under such deed, Maria conveys her own share
over Lot 769-A in favor of Asuncion Teves for
the consideration of P80.00. The two
settlements were denounced by the plaintiffs as
spurious. The trial court summarized the
claims of the plaintiffs, viz.—

. . . Maria Teves Ochotorena herself, denied having

executed this Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale over
her share or interest in Lot 769 claiming that her
signature in said document is a forgery. She disowns
her signature declaring that as a married woman
she always signs a document in her husband’s family
name. Further, she declared that on the date she
purportedly signed said document in Dumaguete

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

City before the notary public, she was in her home in

Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte.
On Exhibit “G” which is likewise offered as
Exhibit “3” for the defendants, plaintiffs hold that
said document is spurious claiming that the
signatures of Pedro Teves, Felicia Teves and
Gorgonio Teves are all forgeries. To support this
allegation, Helen T. Osmena, daughter of Felicia
Teves and Erlinda Teves, daughter of Gorgonio

_______________

5 Exhibit C.
6 Exhibit G.
7 Exhibit F.

639

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 639

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

Teves were presented as witnesses. Being allegedly

familiar with the style and character of the
handwriting of their parents these witnesses
declared unequivocally that the signatures of their
parents appearing on the document are forgeries.
In sum, plaintiffs argue that these fraudulent
documents which defendants rely in claiming
ownership to the disputed properties are all nullities
and have no force in law and could not be used as
basis for any legal title. Consequently, in their view,
they are entitled to the reliefs demanded
particularly, to their respective shares of the
8
disputed properties.

The other property in dispute is Lot 6409 which

9
was originally covered by OCT No. 9091 and
was registered in the name of Joaquin Teves
and his two sisters, Matea and Candida Teves.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

However, Matea and Candida died without

issue, causing the entire property to pass to
Joaquin Teves. On December 14, 1971, Lot
6409 was adjudicated and divided in equal
shares
10
in a “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement &
Sale” executed by Joaquin Teves’ children—
Asuncion, Teotimo, Felisia, Gorgonio, Arcadia
and Maria Teves. In the same deed, the shares
of these same heirs in Lot 6409 were sold to
Asuncion Teves for P100.00. Asuncion Teves 11
took possession of the land and acquired title
over the same on March 22, 1972. After her
death in 1981, her children, defendants-
appellees Itit herein, extrajudicially settled
Asuncion Teves’ property,
12
adjudicating unto
themselves Lot 6409. On 13July 20, 1983 a new
transfer certificate of title was issued in the
names of Asuncion Teves’ children, namely
Elisa, Susana, Norberto, Isaac, Jaime,
Felicitas, Teresita, Corazon, and Danilo, all
surnamed It-it. On July 2, 1984, the It-its sold
Lot 6409 to defendants-appellees Lucrecio
Baylosis, Sr. and Pacita No-

_______________

8 RTC Records, 1-2.

9 Exhibit 1 for defendants Baylosis.
10 Exhibit D.
11 TCT No. 5761, Exhibit 2 for defendants Baylosis.
12 Exhibit 6 for defendants Baylosis.
13 TCT No. 14548, Exhibit 3 for defendants It-it.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals
14
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316
14
cete-Baylosis for 15P20,000.00 and a transfer
certificate of title was issued in the name of
the Baylosis couple.
Plaintiffs-appellants claim that the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement & Sale covering Lot
6409 is also spurious. Their arguments were
discussed in the trial court’s decision as follows
—

Presented as Exhibit “D” and “1” for both the

plaintiffs and defendants respectively, is a document
denominated as “Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale”
executed on December 4, 1971 by and among the
heirs of Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca.
This document which gave birth to TCT No. 5761
over Lot 6409 registered in the name of Asuncion
Teves It-it is questioned by the plaintiffs as spurious
for the following reasons:

1. Erasure of the word “quitclaim” is

superimposed with the word “sale” in
handwriting.
2. The consideration of “One peso” stated in the
document is intercalated with the word
“hundred” in handwriting.
3. The signature of Maria Teves Ochotorena,
Pedro Teves and Felicia Teves are forgeries.
4. The thumbmark imposed on the name of
Gorgonio Teves does not actually belong to
Gorgonio Teves who was an educated man
and skilled in writing according to his
daughter.

Aside from these defects which would make said

document null and void, Arcadia Teves who is one of
the living sisters of the mother of the principal
defendants although confirming the authenticity of
her signature averred that in reality no
consideration was ever given to her and that her
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

impression of the said document was that she was

only giving her consent to sell her share of the land.
Plaintiffs likewise contend that as regards the
share of Ricardo Teves, son of Crescenciano Teves
who predeceased Joaquin and Marcelina, it was not
at all affected in that extrajudicial settlement and
sale since neither Crescenciano Teves nor his son
Ricardo Teves participated in its execution.
x x x      x x x      x x x

_______________

14 Exhibit 7 for defendants Baylosis.

15 TCT No. 15430, Exhibit 8 for defendants Baylosis.

641

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 641

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

Likewise, plaintiffs offered TCT No. 5761 for Lot

6409 registered in the name of Asuncion Teves It-it
as Exhibit “B” as proof that said property was later
titled in trust for all the heirs of Joaquin Teves and
which was used later as basis in effecting a deed of
sale in favor of co-defendant Lucresio Baylosis. In
this light, the plaintiffs argue that the sale of said
property is a nullity for it was not only attended
with bad faith on the part of both the vendor and the
vendee but primarily the vendor had no right at all
to part with said property which is legally owned by
16
others.

In answer to plaintiffs-appellants’ charges of

fraud, defendants-appellees maintained that
the assailed documents were executed with all
the formalities required by law and are
therefore binding and legally effective as bases

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

for acquiring ownership or legal title over the

lots in question. Furthermore, it is contended
that plaintiffs-appellants have slept on their
rights and should now 17
be deemed to have
abandoned such rights.
The trial court ruled in favor of defendants-
appellees and rendered judgment dismissing
the complaint with costs against plaintiffs-
appellants. As regards Lot 6409, the court
declared that the Extrajudicial Settlement and
Sale executed by the heirs of Joaquin Teves
and Marcelina Cimafranca was duly executed
with all the formalities required by law, thus,
validly conveying Lot 6409 in favor of Asuncion
Teves. Moreover, it stated that, even granting
the truth of the imputed infirmities in the deed,
the right of plaintiffs-appellants to bring an
action for partition and reconveyance was
already barred by prescription. An action for
the annulment of a partition must be brought
within four years from the discovery of the
fraud, while an action for the reconveyance of
land based upon an implied or constructive
trust prescribes after ten years from the
registration of the deed or from the issuance of
the title. The complaint in this case was filed
on May 9, 1984, exactly 12 years, 1 month and
17 days after the issuance of the transfer
certificate of title in the name of Asuncion
Teves

_______________

16 RTC Decision, 1-2.

17 Ibid., 3.

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

on March 22, 1972. Thus, ownership over Lot

6409 rightfully belonged to defendants-
appellees It-it.
Moreover, the trial court held that the
extrajudicial settlements over both Lots 6409
and 769, having been prepared and
acknowledged before a notary public, are public
documents, vested with public interest, the
sanctity of which deserves to be upheld unless
overwhelmed by clear and convincing evidence.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs to
support their charges of forgery was considered
by the court insufficient to rebut the legal
presumption 18
of validity accorded to such
documents.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s
decision affirming the validity of the
extrajudicial statements, with a slight
modification. It disposed of the case, thus—

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision

appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification
in that herein defendantappellees are hereby
ORDERED to partition Lot 769-A and deliver to
plaintiff-appellant Ricardo Teves one-eight (sic) (1/8)
portion thereof corresponding to the share of his
deceased father Cresenciano Teves. No costs.

The appellate court said that plaintiffs-

appellants’ biased and interested testimonial
evidence consisting of mere denials of their
signatures in the disputed instruments is
insufficient to prove the alleged forgery and to
overcome the evidentiary force of the notarial
documents. It also ruled that the plaintiffs-
appellants’ claim over Lot 6409 was barred by
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

prescription after the lapse of ten years from

the issuance of title in favor of Asuncion Teves,
while their claim over Lot 769-A is barred by
laches since more than 25 years has intervened
between the sale to Asuncion Teves and the
filing of the present case in 1984.
The appellate court noted that the
conveyance of Lot 769-A in favor of Asuncion
Teves did not affect the share of Cresenciano
Teves as he was not a signatory to the
settlements. It

_______________

18 Ibid., 8-10.

643

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 643

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

also found that Ricardo Teves, Cresenciano’s

heir, is in possession of a portion of Lot 769-A
and that defendantsappellees do not claim
ownership over such portion. Thus, the
defendants-appellees It-it were ordered to
partition and convey to Ricardo Teves his one-
eighth share over Lot 769-A.
As regards the extrajudicial settlement
involving Lot 6409, although it was found by
the appellate court that Cresenciano Teves was
also not a signatory thereto, it held that it
could not order the reconveyance of the latter’s
share in such land in favor of his heir Ricardo
Teves because Cresenciano had predeceased
Joaquin Teves. Moreover, Ricardo Teves, by a
deed simply denominated as “Agreement”
executed on September 13, 1955 wherein he
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

was represented by his mother, authorized the

heirs 19of Joaquin Teves to sell his share in Lot
6409.
Plaintiffs-appellants assailed the appellate
court’s decision upon the following grounds—

I. IN CONSIDERING RICARDO TEVES

AS BOUND BY THE SIGNATURE OF
HIS MOTHER, INSPITE OF DEATH
OF CRESENCIANO TEVES IN 1944;
AND UNDER THE OLD CIVIL CODE
THE SPOUSE CANNOT INHERIT
EXCEPT THE USUFRUCT;
II. IN UPHOLDING SWEEPINGLY THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF
NOTARIZED DEED, DESPITE
CLEAR, CONVINCING,
SUBSTANTIAL AND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE THAT MARIA
OCHOTORENA WAS IN MINDANAO;
THE NOTARY PUBLIC DID NOT
KNOW MARIA OCHOTORENA AND
THE SIGNATURES OF THE OTHER
HEIRS IN THE QUESTIONED
DOCUMENT ARE BELIED BY
COMPARISON WITH THE GENUINE
SIGNATURE IN EXH. “E”;
III. IN VALIDATING THE ONE PESO
CONSIDERATION, INSPITE OF NO
OTHER VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, THE
SUPERIMPOSED P100 WAS
UNILATERALLY INSERTED,
SHOWING FICTITIOUS AND
SIMULATED CONSIDERATION; AND

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

19 CA Decision, 6-10.

644

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

IV. PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT20

START
FROM A VOID CONTRACT.

We affirm that the extrajudicial settlements

executed by the heirs of Joaquin Teves and
Marcelina Cimafranca are legally valid and
binding.
The extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s
estate is authorized by section 1 of Rule 74 of
the Rules of Court, which provides in pertinent
part that—

If the decedent left no will and no debts and the

heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by
their judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without
securing letters of administration, divide the estate
among themselves as they see fit by means of a
public instrument filed in the office of the register of
deeds, . . .
x x x      x x x      x x x

Thus, for a partition pursuant to section 1 of

Rule 74 to be valid, the following conditions
must concur: (1) the decedent left no will; (2)
the decedent left no debts, or if there were
debts left, all had been paid; (3) the heirs are
all of age, or if they are minors, the latter are
represented by their judicial guardian or legal
representatives; (4) the partition was made by

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

means of a public instrument or 21

affidavit duly
filed with the Register of Deeds.
We uphold, finding no cogent reason to
reverse, the trial and appellate courts’ factual
finding that the evidence presented by
plaintiffs-appellants is insufficient to overcome
the evidentiary value of the extrajudicial
settlements. The deeds are public documents
and it has been held by this Court that a public
document executed with all the legal
formalities is entitled to a presumption 22
of truth
as to the recitals contained therein. In order
to overthrow a certificate of a notary public

_______________

20 Rollo, 4.
21 Sanchez vs. CA, 279 SCRA 647 (1997).
22 People vs. Fabro, 277 SCRA 19 (1997).

645

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 645

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

to the effect that the grantor executed a certain

document and acknowledged the fact of its
execution before him, mere preponderance of
evidence will not suffice. Rather, the evidence
must be so clear, strong and convincing as to
exclude all reasonable dispute as to the falsity
of the certificate. When the evidence 23
is
conflicting, the certificate will be upheld. The
appellate court’s ruling that the evidence
presented by plaintiffs-appellants does not
constitute the clear, strong, and convincing
evidence necessary to overcome the positive
value of the extrajudicial settlements executed
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

by the parties, all of which are public

documents, being essentially a finding of fact,
is entitled to great respect by the appellate 24
court and should not be disturbed on appeal.
It is noted that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement & Sale covering Lot 6409 purports
to divide Joaquin Teves’ estate among only six
of his heirs, namely Asuncion, Teotimo,25
Felisia,
Gorgonio, Arcadia and Maria Teves. It does
not mention nor bear the signatures of either
Pedro or Cresenciano Teves although they are
both intestate heirs of Joaquin Teves and as
such, are entitled to a proportionate share of
the decedent’s estate. Contrary to the ruling of
the appellate court, the fact that Cresenciano
predeceased Joaquin Teves does not mean that
he or, more accurately, his heirs, lose the right
to share in the partition of the property for this
is a proper case for representation, wherein the
representative is raised to the place and degree
of the person represented and acquires the
rights 26which the latter would have if he were
living.
However, notwithstanding their non-
inclusion in the settlement, the action which
Pedro and Cresenciano might have brought for
the reconveyance of their shares in the
property has already prescribed. An action for
reconveyance based upon an implied trust
pursuant to article 1456 of the Civil Code
prescribes in ten years from the registration of
the deed

_______________

23 Bunyi vs. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504 (1971).

24 People vs. Cahindo, 266 SCRA 554 (1997).
25 Exhibit D.
26 Civil Code, arts. 970, 972.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

646

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals
27
or from the issuance of the title. Asuncion
Teves acquired title over Lot 6409 in 1972, but
the present case was only filed by plaintiffs-
appellants in 1984, which is 28 more than 10
years from the issuance of title.
The division of Lot 769-A, on the other hand,
was embodied in two deeds. The first
extrajudicial settlement was entered into by
Teotimo, Felicia, Pedro, Gorgonio,
29
Arcadia and
Asuncion Teves in 1956, while the second 30
deed was executed in 1959 by Maria Teves.
Cresenciano was not a signatory to either
settlement. However, in contrast to the
extrajudicial settlement covering Lot 6409, the
two extrajudicial settlements involving Lot
769-A do not purport to exclude Cresenciano
from his participation in Lot 769-A or to cede
his share therein in favor of Asuncion. The
settlement clearly adjudicated the property in
equal shares in favor of the eight heirs of
Marcelina Cimafranca. Moreover, the deeds
were intended to convey to Asuncion Teves only
the shares of those heirs who affixed their
signatures in the two documents. The pertinent
portions of the extrajudicial settlement
executed in 1956, of which substantively
identical provisions are included in the 1959
deed, provide—

x x x      x x x      x x x
5. That by virtue of the right of succession the
eight heirs above mentioned inherit and adjudicate
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

unto themselves in equal shares Lot No. 769-A and

our title thereto is evidenced by the O.C. of Title No.
4682-A of the Land Records of Negros Oriental.
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the
sum of FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (P425.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency which we have received
from ASUNCION TEVES; WE, Teotimo, Felicia,
Pedro, Gorgonio and Arcadia, all surnamed Teves,
do hereby sell, transfer and convey unto Asuncion
Teves, married to Isaac Itit, Filipino, of legal age and
resident of and with postal address in the City of
Dumaguete, all our shares, interests and
participations over

_______________

27 Vda. de Cabrera vs. CA, 267 SCRA 339 (1997).

28 CA Decision, 8.
29 Exhibit G.
30 Exhibit F.

647

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 647

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

Lot 769-A of the subdivision plan, Psd, being a

portion of Lot No. 769 of the Cadastral Survey of
Dumaguete, her heirs, successors and assigns,
together with all the improvements thereon.
x x x      x x x      x x x

It has even been admitted by both parties that

Ricardo Teves is in possession of an
undetermined portion of Lot 769-A and
defendants-appellees It-it do not 31 claim
ownership over his share in the land. Thus,
contrary to the appellate court’s ruling, there is
no basis for an action for reconveyance of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

Ricardo Teves’ share since, in the first place,

there has been no conveyance. Ricardo Teves is
entitled to the ownership and possession of one-
eighth of Lot 769-A.
Neither does Ricardo Teves have a right to
demand partition of Lot 769-A because the two
extrajudicial settlements have already
effectively partitioned such property. Every act
which is intended to put an end to indivision
among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition, although it should
purport to be a sale, an exchange, 32
a
compromise, or any other transaction. The
extrajudicial settlements executed in 1956 and
1959 adjudicated Lot 769-A in equal shares
unto the eight heirs of Marcelina Cimafranca.
Such a partition, which was legally made,
confers upon each heir the exclusive33ownership
of the property adjudicated to him. Although
Cresenciano, Ricardo’s predecessor-in-interest,
was not a signatory to the extrajudicial
settlements, the partition of Lot 769-A among
the heirs was made in accordance 34
with their
intestate shares under the law.
With regards to the requisite of registration
of extrajudicial settlements, it is noted that the
extrajudicial settlements covering Lot 769-A
were never registered. However, in the

_______________

31 RTC Records, 360.

32 Civil Code, art. 1082.
33 Id., art. 1091.
34 Id., ART. 980. The children of the deceased shall
always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares.

648

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals
35
case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the Court,
interpreting section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of
Court, upheld the validity of an oral partition
of the decedent’s estate and declared that the
non-registration of an extrajudicial settlement
does not affect its intrinsic validity. It was held
in this case that—

[t]he requirement that a partition be put in a public

document and registered has for its purpose the
protection of creditors and at the same time the
protection of the heirs themselves against tardy
claims. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to others. It follows then that the
intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the
prescribed formalities does not come into play when
there are no creditors or the rights of creditors are
not affected. Where no such rights are involved, it is
competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an
agreement for distribution in a manner and upon a
plan different from those provided by law.

Thus, despite its non-registration, the

extrajudicial settlements involving Lot 769-A
are legally effective and binding among the
heirs of Marcelina Cimafranca since their
mother had no creditors at the time of her
death.
Except for the portion of Lot 769-A occupied
by Ricardo Teves, both parcels of land have
been and continue to be in the possession of
Asuncion36 Teves and her successors-in-
interest. Despite this, no explanation was
offered by plaintiffsappellants as to why they
instituted the present action questioning the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

extrajudicial settlements only in 1984, which is

more than 25 years after the assailed
conveyance of Lot 769-A and more than 10
years after the issuance of a transfer certificate
of title over Lot 6409, both in favor of Asuncion
Teves. Such tardiness indubitably constitutes
laches, which is the negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either
37
has abandoned it or
declined to assert it. Thus, even assuming
that plaintiffs-appellants had a defensi-

_______________

35 199 SCRA 646 (1991).

36 CA Records, 25, 101.
37 Vda. de Cabrera vs. CA, 267 SCRA 339 (1997).

649

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 13, 1999 649

Heirs of Joaquin Teves vs. Court of Appeals

ble cause of action, they are barred from

pursuing the same by reason of their long and
inexcusable inaction.
An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and
it is a wellentrenched doctrine that the law
does not relieve a party from the effects of a
contract, entered into with all the required
formalities and with full awareness of what he
was doing, simply because the contract turned 38
out to be a foolish or unwise investment.
Therefore, although plaintiffs-appellants may
regret having alienated their hereditary shares
in favor of their sister Asuncion, they must now

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/27
3/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 316

be considered bound by their own contractual

acts.
WHEREFORE, the August 18, 1992 decision
of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Melo (Actg. C.J.), Vitug, Panganiban

and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Reviewed decision affirmed.

Note.—The partition of inherited property

need not be embodied in a public document.
(Alejandrino vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA
536 [1998])

——o0o——

_______________

38 Divina vs. CA, 220 SCRA 597 (1993); Sanchez vs. CA,
279 SCRA 647 (1997).

650

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001787cb70c2d889f2d2b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/27