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

Pascual versus Meneses

The Case

This is an action to establish title to and recover certain real properties, and for their partition and an accounting of their fruits and income. The plaintiffs are the surviving grandchildren and great grandchildren of Alejandro Meneses, the surviving grandchildren of Fernando Meneses, and the surviving children and grandchildren of Cirila Meneses, all descendants of the spouses Celedonio Meneses and Ana Asuncion. They sue the surviving children of Anacleto Meneses, principally Ramon, together with the widow and children of his deceased son Benito, and Carlos, an illegitimate child of another deceased son, Venancio. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's classic statement that an express trust over immovable property cannot be proved by oral testimony, and that a co-ownership over one lot does not establish a community over sixty-five others.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs commenced the action in the Court of First Instance, praying that they and the reluctant defendants be declared co-owners pro indiviso of three fourths of the properties in dispute, that the properties be partitioned, and that the main defendants account for the income since 1949. Francisco de los Reyes and other descendants of Ana Asuncion by her second marriage intervened, claiming to be co-owners and joining the plaintiffs' prayer. After trial, the lower court sustained the plaintiffs' theory that a Meneses community existed, and ordered Ramon Meneses to submit a project of partition, and all the defendants jointly to render an accounting of the fruits and income since 1949. The defendants Ramon, Enrica, Candelaria and Carlos Meneses appealed. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, upon the ground that the property involved is worth more than one million pesos.

Facts

Celedonio Meneses and his wife Ana Asuncion had four children: Alejandro, Anacleto, Fernando and Cirila. Alejandro predeceased his mother; all four children are now deceased. After Celedonio's death, Ana married Domingo de los Reyes, by whom she had two children, Valentin and Maria. Maria died without issue; the surviving descendants of Valentin are the intervenors.

The plaintiffs' theory was that the five immovable properties of the spouses, located in Bambang, Bulacan, passed to their children pro indiviso by operation of law; that instead of dividing the estate, the children entrusted its administration to Anacleto, who invested the income in ten parcels of land; and that upon Anacleto's death, his eldest son Ramon took over and used the income to buy fifty parcels of land and a camarin. These three sets of properties, the plaintiffs claimed, formed an undivided Komunidad ng mga Meneses, which existed until 1949, when the main defendants claimed exclusive title and refused to account.

The defendants denied the existence of the community. They averred that the properties had been adjudicated in the estate proceedings of Anacleto and of his widow Trinidad Ramos. The evidence showed that Anacleto had inherited a parcel of over five hectares from Celedonio, as shown by his possessory title of 1894; that in 1915 the estate of Anacleto was partitioned by agreement; that in 1943 the estate of Trinidad Ramos was partitioned under an agreement approved by the court, later amended, which adjudicated to Asuncion the Tanguib fishpond, thirteen parcels, an undivided interest in a house, and fifteen thousand pesos; and that in 1947 the parties, including Asuncion, filed a statement of receipt acknowledging that they had received their respective shares. Ana Asuncion's nuncupative will of 1895 likewise instituted her children and the children of Alejandro as her universal heirs. The shares of Alejandro, Fernando and Cirila in the fishpond Kay Gogue were sold to Anacleto and Trinidad Ramos by deeds executed in 1900, 1901 and 1912.

Issues

• Whether or not the three sets of properties form part of a community of property held by Anacleto, and later by Ramon, in trust and for the benefit of all the descendants of Celedonio Meneses and Ana Asuncion.
• Whether or not Asuncion Meneses has already received her share in the estate of Anacleto Meneses and Trinidad Ramos.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1443 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence.

This is the provision on which the Court's rejection of the plaintiffs' express trust theory turns, because the plaintiffs sought to prove the trust by oral testimony.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative. The plaintiffs relied on oral testimony and on several communications of Ramon Meneses, including a letter of January 1955 referring to the Komunidad ng mga Meneses. The Court noted that this communication referred only to the residential lot in which Maria Meneses had her house, and held that a co-ownership over this single lot does not establish a condominium over the sixty-five other properties in litigation. As to the testimonial evidence of an express trust, the Court applied the statutory bar:

No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parol evidence.

The Court also found sufficient evidence that the estate of Celedonio and Ana had already been partitioned among and delivered to their heirs. Anacleto could not have possessed the land exclusively for ten years before September 1894 had there been no previous partition. The burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to show that the other children had not received their shares, and proof of partition and delivery to one child raises the presumption that the others received theirs; for over fifty years the other children had not complained. Ana's will established that her estate had been partitioned, and the shares in Kay Gogue passed to Anacleto and his descendants by the sales of 1900, 1901 and 1912. The Court therefore held the community theory untenable, except as to the property described in subdivision I(d) of Paragraph 10.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled in the negative. The partition of Anacleto's estate in 1915 was approved by the court, and although the immovables remained with Trinidad Ramos, her own estate was partitioned in 1943 under an agreement which Asuncion accepted after withdrawing her opposition, and which was amended in 1947. That agreement novated the earlier partition, giving Asuncion the Tanguib fishpond in lieu of her share in Kay Galas. The statement of receipt filed in 1947, Asuncion's torrens titles, her mortgage to the RFC, and her acceptance of a mortgage on Kay Gogue and later purchase of it for one hundred twenty-one thousand six hundred twenty-five pesos all showed that the partition was consummated. Her cross-claim had no merit.

Doctrine

An express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein cannot be proved by parol evidence; oral testimony is incompetent to establish it. Co-ownership over a single lot does not prove a community of property over other and distinct parcels. One who claims that co-heirs were preterited bears the burden of proving non-delivery of their shares, and proof of partition and delivery to one child raises the presumption that the other children received theirs. A subsequent agreement of partition, approved by the court, novates a prior partition agreement, and a statement of receipt, followed by the securing of torrens titles and the exercise of acts of ownership, establishes that the partition was consummated.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the cross-claim of Asuncion Meneses and absolved the defendants-appellants from the Fourth Amended Complaint, except as to the property described in subdivision I(d) of Paragraph 10, as to which the decision appealed from was affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the rule of Article 1443: no express trust concerning an immovable may be proved by parol evidence. Examiners use this case on trusts over real property, on the burden of proving preterition and non-delivery of shares among heirs, and on the novating effect of a later court-approved partition.