Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 180269 2013-02-20	JOSE Z. CASILANG v. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON REYES, J.
The validity of an oral partition is well-settled in our jurisdiction. In Vda. de Espina v. Abaya,[53] this Court declared that an oral partition is valid: Anent the issue of oral partition, We sustain the validity of said partition. "An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral agreement for the partition of the property owned in common is valid and enforceable upon the parties. The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind of agreements, for partition is not a conveyance of property but simply a segregation and designation of the part of the property which belong to the co-owners."[54]
	GR No. 143557 2004-06-25	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Vda de Espina vs. Abaya,[15] we held that a second motion for reconsideration, being pro-forma, does not suspend the period to file a petition for certiorari, thus: "The grounds stated in said motion being in reiteration of the same grounds alleged in his first motion, the same is pro-forma.