Oral partition of inherited property is valid

By Persida Acosta, Manila Times, 17 Dec 2019

Dear PAO,

My problem is my sister who wants to get all the properties left by our parents. She sued me and my brother in court, claiming that we should give her share on the estate left by our parents. The case was referred to mediation and, during the first meeting, she said she was no longer interested to claim her share and that she was waiving the same in our favor; hence, my brother and I agreed to divide equally the property. On the scheduled final meeting where we should sign the written partition with waiver, she sent her lawyer informing us that she cannot attend the proceeding so it was only my brother and I who signed the agreement. Now, she is claiming that the written agreement is not valid because she did not sign it. Is she correct?
Feline

Dear Feline,

Partition of estate is governed by Section 1, Rule 74 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, which provides 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, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. xxx”.

The above-mentioned rule does not contain specific provisio, which requires that the partition among the heirs of the decedent must be in writing to be valid. In fact even oral partition among heirs may be valid. This finds support in the decision of the court in the case of Fajardo vs Cua-Malate (GR 213666, March 27, 2019), where the Supreme Court through Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa stated that:

“The fact that petitioner Victoria failed to sign the written document bearing the terms of the parties’ agreement is of no moment. As explicitly held in Vda. de Reyes v. Court of Appeals, an oral partition may be valid and binding upon the heirs; there is no law that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

“Citing Hernandez v. Andal, the Court in the above-mentioned case explained that under Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, ‘there is nothing in said section from which it can be inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential requisite to the validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral partition is valid.’ The Court further added that the partition among heirs or renunciation of an inheritance by some of them is not exactly a conveyance of real property because it does not involve transfer of property from one to the other, but rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property by the heir renouncing in favor of another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance. Hence, an oral partition is not covered by the Statute of Frauds.”

Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the statement of your sister that the agreement of partition, which you and your brother signed is not valid because she did not affix her signature on it has no legal basis. It is important to emphasize that there is already an agreement, although orally made, which was entered during the first meeting that she will renounce her share and the estate will be divided equally between you and your brother. Even oral partition may be valid and binding upon the heirs and there is no law requiring that the partition be in writing to be valid.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.