CARMEN M. PASCUAL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. RAMON MENESES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, FRANCISCO DE LOS REYES, ET AL., INTERVENORS.

This is an action to establish
title to and recover certain real properties, as well as for the partition and an accounting of the fruits and/or income
thereof.

The parties are the
descendants of Celedonio Meneses
and his wife, Ana Asuncion.  The couple
had four (4) children, namely, Alejandro, Anacleto,
Fernando and Cirila, all of whom, with the exception
of Alejandro, who pre-deceased his mother, survived
their parents.  All of them are now
deceased.  To avoid unnecessary
repetition, the parties herein will hereafter be referred to by their Christian
names only, except when the surname of the person concerned is not Meneses.

The plaintiffs are the
surviving grandchildren^[1] and great grandchildren of Alejandro,^[2] the surviving grandchildren of Fernando^[3] and the surviving children^[4] and grandchildren^[5] of Cirila.  The principal defendants are the surviving
children of Anacleto^[6] his daughter-in-law, Leoncia
Geronimo, widow of his deceased son, Benito, and their children,^[7] as well
as Carlos – sometimes referred to as Carlos
Jacinto – an illegitimate child of Venancio, another
deceased son of Anacleto – all of whom shall
hereinafter be referred to as the main defendants.  There are other descendants of Celedonio Meneses and Ana
Asuncion,^[8] who, having, allegedly, the same interest as
plaintiffs herein, did not join them as actors in this case, and, hence, were
included as party
defendants.  They are hereinafter
referred to as the reluctant defendants.

It appears that, upon Celedonio’s
death, his widow, Ana Asuncion, married Domingo de los
Reyes, by whom she had two (2) children, namely, Valentin
and Maria, both surnamed de los Reyes.  Maria de los Reyes
died without issue.  The surviving
descendants of Valentin de los
Reyes^[9]
are intervenors in this case.

Plaintiffs^‘ theory is this:  Celedonio Meneses and Ana Asuncion had, during their lifetime, five (5) immovable properties, located in
the barrio of Bambang, municipality of Bulacan, province of Bulacan, and
more particularly described in Paragraph 10 of the Fourth Amended Complaint,
hereinafter referred to merely as amended complaint.  They allegedly had, also, several pieces of
jewelry and other personal properties described in said Paragraph 10, although
no evidence thereon has been introduced
and plaintiffs do not press their claim thereto.  Upon the death of Celedonio
Meneses and Ana Asuncion, before the turn of the
century, said immovable properties passed, pro indiviso, to their children by operation of
law.  Instead of dividing the estate
among themselves, said children entrusted the administration thereof to Anacleto,^[10]
who invested the income of said properties in the purchase of ten (10) parcels
of land described in Paragraph 12(a) of the amended complaint.  Upon Anacleto’s
death, the management of all of the aforementioned properties passed to his
children, more specifically his eldest son, Ramon.  The latter, in turn, used the income derived
from said two (2) sets of properties in the purchase of fifty (50) parcels of
land and a “camarin” described in Paragraph
13(a) of said amended complaint.

The foregoing three (3) sets of properties constituted an
undivided “Komunidad ng
mga Meneses”
(Community of the Meneses), which existed
uninterruptedly up to 1949, when the main defendants claimed exclusive title to
all of said properties.  Despite repeated
demands of the plaintiffs, the main defendants failed and refused, since 1949,
to account for the income thereof and to deliver plaintiffs’ share
therein.  Hence, the latter commenced the present action and pray
that they, and the reluctant defendants, be declared co-owners pro indiviso of three-fourths
(3/4) of the properties in dispute; that the same be partitioned and the
corresponding shares turned over to the plaintiffs; and that the main
defendants be sentenced, also, to deliver to the plaintiffs their share in the
income of said properties, since 1949, as
well as to pay attorney’s fees and
the costs.

The principal defendants are: (1) Ramon, Enrica,
Candelaria and Carlos, all surnamed Meneses; (2) Asuncion Meneses
(sister of the first three and aunt of Carlos); and (3) Leoncia
Geronimo – widow of Benito Meneses – and their
children,^[11]
as heirs of said Benito Meneses.^[12]

The first set of defendants denied most of the material
allegations of the complaint and the amended complaints, including the
existence of the Meneses community.  They, moreover, averred, inter alia, that the fifty (50) parcels of land and one
“camarin” mentioned in Paragraph 13(a) of
the amended complaint were acquired by Trinidad Ramos after the death of
her husband (Anacleto) and later adjudicated in
Special Proceedings No. 270 of the Court of First Instance of Manila;^[13]
that the plaintiffs and the reluctant defendants have never owned or had any
interest in said properties; that those described in Paragraph 12(a) of the amended
complaint were, likewise, adjudicated in said Special Proceedings No. 270, as
well as in Special Proceedings No. 1358 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan;^[14]
and that, as regards the properties described in Paragraph 10 of said amended
complaint: (a) they know nothing about parcel I(a) of said paragraph; (b)
parcel I(b) belongs pro indiviso to
Ramon and Candelaria, in the proportion of 1/3 and
2/3, respectively; (c) parcel I(c) belongs in its entirely to the heirs of
Benito; and (d) parcels I(d) and I(e) are the exclusive property of Candelaria.

Upon the other hand,
Asuncion Meneses admitted
that the properties referred to in
said Paragraph 10 originally
belonged to Celedonio Meneses
and Ana Asuncion, and later passed, by succession, to their children.  She denied, however, that said properties had
been held pro indiviso, in trust and for the benefit of all of the
parties herein.  She, likewise admitted
that the management of said properties by Anacleto
had been so profitable that, with the income derived therefrom,
the ten (10) parcels of land described in Paragraph 12(a) of the amended
complaint were purchased; but, again, she denied that any person other than Anacleto’s heirs has any right or interest therein. 
She, further, admitted that, upon Anacleto’s
death, his eldest surviving son, Ramon, took over the administration of the
aforementioned properties and that of the fifty (50) parcels of land and one
“camarin” described in Paragraph 13(a) of
the amended complaint.

Asuncion, moreover,
set up a cross-claim against her bro­ther and sisters, as well as
co-defendants, Ramon, Enrica, and Candelaria,
alleging that these three (3) had deprived and were still depriving her of her
share in the properties in dispute.  She
prayed, therefore, that said cores-defendants be ordered to convey and deliver
to her the possession of her aforementioned share, as well as to account for
the income thereof, and to pay damages.

By way of cross-claim
against Leoncia Geronimo and her children, Asuncion
alleged that they are indebted to her in the sum of P52,928,
to guarantee the payment of which these cross-defendants had constituted in her
favor a first mortgage and a second mortgage on the fishpond “Kay Gogue“^[15] which might be adversely affected if
plaintiffs’ complaint should prosper, for which reason she set up a
counter-claim for damages against said plaintiffs.

In answer to Asuncion’s cross-claim, cross-defendants Ramon, Enrica and Candelaria alleged
that Asuncion had already received her share in the estate of her father Anacleto, except a lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 4415,
which she voluntarily left under the administration of their mother, Trinidad
Ramos; that, in the above mentioned Special Proceedings No. 270, the estate of
Trinidad Ramos, including the lot aforementioned, which was considered a part
thereof, was adjudicated to the proper parties, among whom was Asuncion; and
that said parties received the shares respectively adjudicated to them.

The third set of defendants, namely, Leoncia
Geronimo and her children denied the main averments of the amended complaint
and alleged that they had sold their interest in lot I(c) of Paragraph 10 of
the amended complaint to Ramon, for which reason they refused to join the
plaintiffs in the present case.

After the presentation of the evidence for both the plaintiffs
and the defendants, Francisco de los Reyes – a
descendant of Valentin de los
Reyes, and son of Ana Asuncion by her second marriage to Domingo de los Reyes – intervened in this case, alleging that he is one of the co-owners of the
properties in litigation and joined in the prayer made in plaintiffs’
complaint.  Soon later, the com­plaint in
intervention was amended to include as intervenors
other descendants of Ana Asuncion and Domingo de los
Reyes.

The issues in this
case are; (1) whether or not the three (3) sets of properties referred to in
Paragraphs 10, 12(a) and 13(a) of the amended complaint, form part of a
community of property, held by Anacleto, and, later
by his son Ramon, in trust and for the benefit of all of the descendants of Celedonio Meneses and Ana Asuncion; and (2) whether Asuncion has
already received her share in the estate of Anacleto Meneses and Trinidad Ramos.

In connection with the first issue, plaintiffs-appellees maintain the affirmative view, which the lower
court sustained.  As regards the second
issue, Asuncion took the negative
side, and the trial court, likewise, adopted it.  The dispositive
part of its decision, therefore, provided:

“WHEREFORE, the defendant Ramon Meneses
is hereby ordered to submit a project of partition in accordance with the
foregoing plan within thirty (30) days from the date this decision shall have
become final.

“In the meantime, the defendants Ramon Meneses,
Asuncion Meneses, Enrica Meneses, Candelaria Meneses, Leoncia G. Vda. de Meneses, Ramon, Emiliano, Felix, Teodora, Cirila, Benedicta, Rita, Teresita and Carlos, all surnamed Meneses,
are hereby ordered jointly to submit to this court an accounting of the fruits
and/or income of the properties described in paragraphs 10, 12(a) and 13(a) of
the fourth Amended Complaint, except the parcel of land covered by land Tax
Declaration No. 5701, since 1949 until the delivery of the shares of heirs, the
same to be included in the new project of partition, with costs against the
defendants.”

Hence, this appeal by defendants Ramon, Enrica, Candelaria and Carlos Meneses.  The
case is before us, upon the ground that the property involved therein is worth
over P1,000,000.00.

Regarding the alleged existence of a Meneses community, the evidence for plaintiffs herein
consisted of oral testimony and several communications of Ramon Meneses.

It appears that, early in 1955, Maria was borrowing P875 from Tinong Meneses and Delfin Carreon, who were
seemingly reluctant to deliver any sum of money to her, until a deed of
mortgage, as security thereof, on a property^[16]
of the “Komunidad ng mga Meneses” (Community of
the Meneses), shall have been executed.  On January
27, 1955, Ramon wrote to Tinong Meneses and Delfin Carreon the letter Exhibit D^[17]
urging them to meanwhile entrust P300.00 to Maria, assuring the addressees that
he (Ramon would answer, if necessary, for the payment of said debt.  On the back of the corresponding deed of
mortgage, Ramon, likewise, signed a memorandum in Tagalog,^[18]
dated September 13, 1955,
stating that he authorized the mortgage of so much of the aforementioned
property as represented Hermenegildo’s^[19]
share therein by inheritance.

On February 22, 1956, Ramon wrote to Enrica
the letter Exhibit F,^[20]
stating that the same was due to the residential lot in which Maria had her
house; that Alfredo wanted to buy their interest in said lot, representing
one-fourth (1/4) thereof, the proceeds of which should be divided among Enrica, Ramon, Asuncion, Benito and Candelaria;
that he (Ramon) was agreeable to the sale, under the terms indicated in the
letter, and to signing the corresponding deed; and that the same could already
be prepared.

Plaintiffs lay special emphasis upon the phrase “Komunidad ng mg Meneses,” in Exhibit D, as establishing that the
sixty-five (65) parcels of land described in the amended complaint constituted
an undivided community of property, belonging to the descendants of Celedonio Meneses and Ana
Asuncion.  It should be noted, however,
that said communica­tion refers only
to the residential lot in which Maria Meneses had her
house.  Maria is a daughter of Fernando, one
of the four (4) children of said spouses. 
It is obvious, how­ever, that the co-ownership over this single lot does not establish condominion
over the sixty-five (65) other properties in litigation.

As
regards plaintiffs’ testimonial evidence in support of the theory that
the properties enumerated in Paragraph 10 of
the amended complaint were held by Anacleto
for his benefit and that of the other children of Celedonio
Meneses and Ana Asuncion, by virtue of an express
trust established by said children, as alleged co-owners thereof pro indiviso; that the lands described in
Paragraph 12(a) of the amended complaint and acquired with the income derived
from the former estate of Celedonio Meneses and Ana Asuncion,
were, likewise, covered by said express trust and formed part of the Meneses community; that said express trust and community
were maintained when, upon Anacleto’s death, the
administration of the properties covered by said Paragraphs 10 and 12(a) passed
to his son, Ramon; that the fifty (50) lots and one (1) “camarin” described in Paragraph 13(a) of the amended
complaint were thereafter purchased by Ramon with funds derived from the income
of said two (2) sets of properties; and that, accordingly, said fifty (50) lots
and one (1) “camarin” are, similarly, encompassed by
the aforementioned express trust and form part of the Meneses
community, suffice it to note that, “no express trust concerning an
immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol
evidence” (Article 1443 of the Civil Code of the Philippines).

Upon the other hand, there is sufficient evidence that the estate
of Celedonio Meneses and
Ana Asuncion had already been partitioned among and delivered to their heirs.

Indeed, there is documentary evidence to the effect that Anacleto
had inherited a parcel of land, with an area of 5.0904 hectares, from his
father Celedonio. 
Anacleto’s possessory
title thereon, Exhibit 3, reads:

“HISTORIA DE LA FINCA – Don Anacleto
Meneses y Asuncion, Casado
mayor de edad, natural y vecino
de esta Cabesera, acudio al Juzgado de primera instancia de esta provincia el dia primero de Septiembre de mil ocho cientos noventa
y cuatro, solicitando acreditar la posesion en que se halla de esta finca desde
hace diez años por haberla
adquirido por herencia de su finado causante Don Celedonio Meneses, sin que mediara en la referida adquisicion titulo escrito.  Admitida la informacion ofrecida fueron citados los dueños de los
predios colindantes que nada expusieron en contra del
derecho de Don Anacleto Meneses, y declaron como testigos Don Julian Rosales
y Don Valentin Gonzales vecinos
y proprietarios de esta Cabesera, quienes manifestaron les constaba de ciencia propia que el mencionado Don Anacleto Meneses posee esta finca
por el concepto que queda expresado.”

Certainly, Anacleto could not have
held, during the lifetime of his mother, Trinidad Ramos,
the land covered by this docu­ment, exclusively and for ten (10) years,
prior to September 1, 1894,
when he applied for said title, had there been no previous partition of Celedonio’s estate. 
Subsequently, or on September
25, 1905, Anacleto purchased from Juliano, Saturnino and Antera, all surnamed Lazaro y Meneses, by virtue of Exhibit 1, an adjoining fishpond of
over 7 hectares, which, together with the lot of over 5 hectares, inherited
from Celedonio, constituted what is now known as the
fishpond “Kay Galas.” In fact, in the agreement, Exhibit 2, entered
into in 1915, for the parti­tion of the estate of Anacleto
Meneses, the first parcel of land was adjudicated to
his daughter Asuncion.  What is more, in 1943, in the agreement for
the partition of the estate of her mother (Trinidad Ramos), said two (2) lots —
now forming the fishpond “Kay Galas”^[21]
– readjudicated to Ramon, Enrica
and Candelaria, who caused the property, in May,
1952, to be placed under the Torrens Act, pursuant to which OCT No. 411 was
issued, in their names, in undivided equal shares.^[22]

But, it is urged, why is
it that there is no evidence that the other children of Celedonio and Ana have received their shares? It should be noted, however, that the
burden of proof is upon the plaintiffs to establish their claim that said
other children had not received their
respective shares.  Then, too, proof of
the partition and delivery of
the share of one (1) child of said
spouses, raises the presumption that the other children must have,
similarly, received their own
shares.  Indeed, otherwise, why is it that, for over fifty (50) years,
said other children have not complained?
In fact, even after the commencement of this suit, on March 8, 1956,
some heirs of Fernando and Cirila,^[23] the supposedly preterited
children, did not join herein plaintiffs-appellees, in
their bid to recover their alleged shares in the litigated properties, the
income of which is said to
amount to P500,000 yearly.

Again, Ana Asuncion left
a nuncupative will, executed on February 21, 1895, before
a notary public and four (4) attesting witnesses.  In said document, Ana described herself, not
as co-owner or co-possessor, but as the
owner and possessor of the immovable properties
therein described, and instituted as her universal heirs, to succeed, in
equal shares, to said properties, her children by two marriage (Anacleto, Cirila & Fernando Meneses
and Valentin de los Reyes),
as well as the children of her
son, Alejandro Meneses, who had predeceased her.

In this connection, we
note that the fishpond referred to in Ana’s will is the same property now known as “Kay Gogue,”
and described in subdivision I(c) of Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint, and
that the “solar” mentioned in said will corresponds to the property
described in subdivisions (d) and (e) of Paragraph 10 of said complaint.  In any event, Ana’s will establishes the fact
that her estate had been partitioned among her heirs.

Although the adjudications made in said will were pro indiviso, other evidence on record show that the heirs have already
received their respective shares.  Thus,
for instance, on November 22, 1900, the widow and children of Alejandro sold,
by virtue of Exhibit 7, their one-fifth (1/5) share in the fishpond “Kay Gogue” to Anacleto Meneses and Trinidad Ramos, who, by virtue of Exhibits 8 and 9, both dated March 9, 1901,
likewise, purchased the one-fifth (1/5) shares of Cirila
Menses (with the concurrence of her husband Faustino Pascual)
and Valentin de los Reyes
(with the concurrence of his wife, Sabina Martinez) in the same fishpond.  Still later, the fourth-fifth of the same property, was acquired by Anacleto’s
widow, Trinidad Ramos and their children, by virtue of the public document
Exhibit 6, executed by Fernando Meneses on March 7, 1912.  Thus, the shares of Alejandro, Fernando and Cirila Meneses, and that of the
descendants of Ana Asuncion and Domingo de los Reyes,
have passed to Anacleto Meneses
and his descendants, who thereby became the exclusive owners of the fishpond
“Kay Gogue.”

We hold therefore that, except insofar as the property described in subdivision I(d) of Paragraph 10 of
the amended complaint, the theory to the effect that the immovable properties in litigations
are community property or had been held in a status of condominion
pro indiviso,
is untenable.

The second issue, arising from the cross-claim of Asuncion
against her brother and sisters (Ramon, Enrica and Candelaria), is whether or not the estate of Anacleto Meneses and Trinidad
Ramos had been partitioned and distributed among their heirs.  Asuncion
maintains that, although a partition had been made on paper, there had been no
delivery of the shares belonging to her.

This pretense cannot be sustained, for, upon the death of Anacleto’s widow (Trinidad Ramos), their children (Ramon, Enrica, Asuncion, Candelaria,
Benito and Venancio), executed a project of
partition, dated March 15, 1915 (Exhibit 2) which was submitted to and approved
by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in Special
Proceedings No. 1358 thereof, in which several properties were adjudicated to
Asuncion.^[24]

It is true that – except as
regards Benito Meneses, who was paid all his
shares, and the personal properties, which were evidently delivered to the
respective heirs – the foregoing partition was not actually carried out, as regards the immovable
properties involved therein, because the same remained in the possession of
Trinidad Ramos.  However, the latter died sometime in 1943 and her will was
filed for probate with the Court of First Instance of Manila (Special
Proceedings No. 270).  Although Asuncion
objected thereto, she subsequently withdrew her opposition, in view
of the agreement of partition (Exhibit 4), subsequently entered into, which
was submitted to and approved by the court in said Special Proceedings, on
December 29, 1943.  On May 5,
1947, a motion (Appendix 10, pp. 809-818, Record on Appeal) to amend said
agreement was filed, and, after due notice and hearing, the motion was granted
on May 20, 1947 (see p.
212, Record of Exhibits).  The agreement of partition, as amended,
adjudicated to Asuncion Meneses the following:

“(a) Three (3) parcels of land with
improvements comprising the so-called ‘Tanguib
fishpond’ with a total assessed value of P13,810.  (Items [a], [b], and [c], p. 16, Exhibit ‘4’)

“(b) Thirteen (13) parcels of land with a
total assessed value of P2,600.  (Items [d], [e], [f], [g], [h], [i], [j],
[k], [l], [n], [o], [p], and [q], pp. 16-17, Exh.
‘4’)

“(c) One-Tenth (1/10) undivided interest in a house, (Item [m], p.
16), for which, under par. VIII, p. 19, of Exh ‘4’,
she would be reimbursed by Candelaria the amount of
P500.

“(d) P15,000 to be paid to her by Ramon, Enrica and Candelaria within 8 months from the approval of said
partition agreement.  (Par. IX, p. 19, Exh. ‘4’).”

As a consequence, so much
of the estate of Anacleto Mene­ses
as his children had left under the
administration of his widow and their mother, Trinidad Ramos, was partitioned
anew.  Thus, whereas, the first partition agreement, Exhibit 2, ad­judicated
the fishpond “Kay Gogue” to Trinidad Ramos
and Venancio and Candelaria
Meneses in specified proportions, the subsequent
agreement (Appendix (10) adjudicated the property, in its entirety, to the heirs of Benito Meneses.^[25] Then too, Exhibit 2 adjudicated the fishpond
“Kay Galas” as follows: 7.1038 hectares to Trinidad Ramos, and 5.0904
hectares to Asuncion Meneses.  However, Appendix 10 adjudicated the fishpond
to Ramon, Enrica, and Candelaria
Meneses, at one-third (113) pro indiviso each.^[26] Upon the other hand, Asuncion was given the fishpond “Tanguib” in lieu of her share of 5.0904 hectares
in “Kay Galas.” In other words, the agreement Exhibit 4 and Appendix
10 novated the provisions of the previous agreement
of partition, Exhibit 2.

That this agreement Exhibit 4, as amended, was, not merely
perfected, but, also, consummated, is attested to by the fact that, on August
30, 1947, the parties thereto, including Asuncion, filed in Special Proceedings
No. 270 a “statement of receipt” (Exhibit 18, p. 211, Record of
Exhibits) acknowledging that “they have already received and are
in actual possession of their respective shares in the above entitled
estate in accordance with the project of partition approved by this Honorable
Court,” and praying, accordingly, “that the above entitled
proceedings be closed.” From 1947 to 1956, or for over nine (9) years,
Asuncion had not contested the aforementioned “statement of receipt”
and it is difficult to believe that she would have waited that long had she
really been deprived of her rightful share in the estate of her parents, as she
would have us believe.  What is more, the
record shows that she had secured torrens
titles to the properties thus adjudicated to her, pursuant to Exhibit 4, as
amended,^[27]
and even mortgaged said properties to the RFC.  Similarly, the other cross-defendants were,
on the strength of Exhibit 4, as amended, able to secure certificates of title
to the properties thereby adjudicated to them. 
In fact, Asuncion
accepted a mortgage in her favor on the fishpond “Ka Gogue,”
to secure a loan of P52,928 she had granted to the
heirs of Benito Meneses, and thereafter purchased
said fishpond for P121,625.00.  It is
thus obvious that her cross-claim has no merit whatsoever.

WHEREFORE, the aforementioned cross-claim of Asuncion Meneses is hereby dismissed and defendants-appellants are
absolved from the Fourth Amended Complaint, except with respect to the property
described in subdivision I(d) of Paragraph 10 of the
Fourth Amended Complaint, as regards which the decision appealed from is
affirmed, without special pronouncement as
to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Mercedes, Amada, Encarnacion and Tomas, all surnamed Pascual; Marcial, Proceso, Santos, Pablo and Rosa, all surnamed Aldana; Juanito, Matea, Amada, Ricardo, Pedro, Leonardo, Fortunata,
Asuncion, Carmen and Feliciano, all surnamed Meneses.

^[2] Carmencita or Carmelita, Felisa,
Maria Concepcion, Lourdes, Lydia and Benito, all
surnamed Sanchez; Ramon, Norberto, Purita, Esther, Nelda, Regina, Rufino Jr., Charito, Vengi and Teresita, all sur­named Nolasco.

^[3]
Alfredo Ramos and Edita, Teresita,
Senando (or Fernando) and Pilar,
all surnamed Meneses.

^[4]
Carmen, Esperanza, Tomas, Amada, Encarnacion, Venan­cio and Maria, all surnamed Pascual.

^[5] Pedro P. Cruz, and Artemio, Rosario, Meliton, Teodo­rica (Cleotilde), Paciencia and Melencio, all surnamed Pascual.

^[6]
Ramon Sr., Enrica, Asuncion,
Candelaria, all surnamed Meneses.

^[7]
Ramon, Emiliano, Felix, Teodora,
Cirila, Benedicta, Teresita and Rita, all surnamed Meneses.

^[8]
Maria, Artemio, Rosario, Meliton,
Teodorica, Paciencia, Melencio, all surnamed Pascual.

^[9]
Francisco, Maria Concepcion, Aurora, Armando, Aleli, Rolando, Eliseo, Tranquilino, Maria and Graciano,
all surnamed de los Reyes; Maria Patrocinio,
Romeo, Fernando and Mariano, all surnamed Balaon;
Maria Liwayway and Federico, all surnamed Capule; and Soledad, Telesforo,
Arturo and Amanda, all surnamed Victorino.

^[10] Their eldest surviving brother, Alejandro having died meanwhile.

^[11] supra.

^[12]
Ramon, Emiliano, Felix, Teodora,
Cirila, Benedicta, Teresita and Rita, all surnamed Meneses.

^[13] Entitled, “In re Testate Estate of Trinidad Ramos, Deceased.”

^[14] Entitled, “In re Intestate Estate of Anacleto
Meneses, Deceased.”

^[15]
The property described in subdivision I(c) of
Paragraph of the amended complaint.

^[16]
Seemingly the land covered by tax declaration No. 5701, is the land described
in subdivision I(d) of paragraph 10 of the amended
complaint.

^[17] “Ako’y sumulat sa inyo sa
dahilang sapag sasanla ng lupa
na inyong tinitirikan na pagaari na komunidad
ng mga Meneses
na isinasanla muna sa iyo
at kay Delfin na inyong paghahatian.  Yamang ang aming gagawing
kasunduan ay hindi
pa naidadaos mangyaring pagkalooban ninyong ng Tatlong (P300.00) piso at kung maiayos na ay ako ang
mangangatawan sa iyong pag-bibigyan ng pera.  Huag kang mag-alala na mawala
ang iyong kuwarta.  Tangi sa
hawak mo ang lupa, ako ay nanagot
na magbayad sa inyo kung ano
man ang darating na sagabal sa
pagkatira ninyo.  Ito na lamang at umaasa ako na pagkatanggap
mo ng sulat ko ay inyong bibigyan
ng pera at lilibrohan kayo ng recibo sa pagkatanggap
sa inyo at itong sulat na
ito ay ilakip mo sa pagareng ibibigay
sa inyo”

^[18]
“Pinahihintulutan ang pagsasanla ng parte
ng isang catauan sa
Bacuran ng lupang manamanahan na nasa Bambang,
Bulacan ng eredero ng Hermenegildo
Meneses ngayon 13 de Sbre 1955.  Lumagda ako sa ibaba
nito.”

^[19] One of the deceased children of Alejandro Meneses.

^[20] “Ako’y sumulat
sa iyo at dahilan sa bakuran
na kinatitirikan ng bahay nila
Maria.  Yamang
tayo ay may kinalaman sa lupang
iyan ay gusto nila Alfredo
ay bilhin na nila ang ganang
atin; na tayo namang nagmamayari
diyan sa lupang iyan sa
ikapat na bahagi ang natotoka
para sa atin
ay sa ikapat.  Tayo namang magpaparte,
Enrica, Ramon, Asuncion, Benito
at Candelaria. 
Yamang si Carling ay
hindi nababanggit
na siya ay kaari alinsunod sa ginawang testamento
ni Antonio Masaquel.  Sa ganang akin, kumporme akong mabili sa
halagang kung gano ang kabayaran ng
kila Tomas na isang tiyan at gayundin naman isang tiyan kala
Cardo.  Hindi ko na binanggit ang ganang
kala Alfredo.  Alinsunod ako na pumirma sa alin mang
kasunduan kung kumporme ang ating mga
kapatid.  Gawin na
ang eskritura at ako ay pipirma.  Kumusta at alam mo na.”

^[21]
Parcel I(b) of Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint.

^[22] Appendix 16, pp. 852-856, Record on Appeal.

^[23] Artemio, Rosario, Meliton, Teodorica, Paciencia and Melencio, all surnamed Pascual,
and Pedro P. Cruz, grandchildren of Cirila Meneses, as well as Maria Meneses,
daughter of Fernando Meneses.

^[24] 1.
– Un  par pendientes de oro con tres
brillantitos y un rubi cada medio par, forma lagrimas, señalado en el
inventario con el No.1 y valorado en setenta pesos . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 70.00

2. – Un anillo
de oro con cinco brillantitos, señalado en el inventario con el No. 6 y valorado
en setenta pesos . . . . . . . . . . .  . 70.00

3. – Una gargantilla de oro de las tres que
aparace señalada en el inventario con el No. 7 y valorada
en treintay tres pesos y treinta y tres centimos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.33

4. – Una caraballa de siete años de edad, sin marca, señalada en el inventario con el No. 12 y valorado
en sesenta pesos . . . . . . 60.00

5. – Un aparador de narra con espejo, señalada en el inventario con el No.14 y valorado
en sesenta pesos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 60.00

6. – Una maquina de cocer Singer, usada, señalada en el inventario con el No.22 y valorada
en diez pesos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.00

7. – Una finca
rustica, consistente en una parcela de terreno destinado a pesquerra o vivero de peces, ubicado en el sitio de Pulla, barrio de Bambang, Municipio de Bulacan, provincia de Bulacan, mide una
extension superficial de cinco hectareas,
nueve areas y cuatro centiareas y linda al Norte con terreno de Higino Meneses; al Este con Juan Lazaro; al Sur con Gil Pascual y Domingo Rodriguez y al Oeste
con dicho Rodriguez Petra Naguit,
señalada en el inventario
con el No. 38 y valorada en dos mil pesos . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 2,000.00

^[25]
Whose interest was later acquired by Ramon.

^[26] Enrica’s share was later purchased by Candelaria.

^[27]
Except those she had admittedly exchanged with other property of Enrica.