This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-11-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, if petitioners intended to annul the extrajudicial partition for being "lopsided and iniquitous," then they should have argued this in a proper action and forum. They should have filed an action to annul the extrajudicial partition and claimed their rightful share in the estate, impleading therein the other signatories to the Deed and not just herein respondents. In any event, a perusal of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Exchange of Shares reveals that the partition of Lot nos. 2991 and 2924 was done equally and fairly. Indeed, 1,641.80 square meters of Lot No. 2991[30] and 10,971.80 square meters of Lot | |||||
|
2002-11-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| No. 2924-B[31] were originally given to all the co-owners -- except Antonio, Demetria and Santiago Fernandez, who had already sold parts of their share to third persons. However, Angel Fernandez agreed and stipulated in the same Deed that he had traded his share in Lot No. 2924-B for the entire Lot No. 2991, except the portion already sold to respondents.[32] Taking these stipulations into consideration, we are inclined to believe that the swapping of shares by the heirs was more favorable to the late Angel Fernandez, because his ownership became contiguous and compact in only one fishpond, instead of being merely shared with the | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Arbasa filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ormoc City an action for quieting of title with damages.[8] | |||||