Mang-Oy Vs CA

G.R. No.
L-27421 September 12, 1986
ANITA MANG-OY, assisted by her husband, William Mang-oy;

LEONORA MIGUEL, assisted by her husband, Miguel Olila; HELENA
TAYNAN, and JOSE TUMPAO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, BANDO TUMPAO, LAMBIA TUMPAO, married
to Salming Pirazo, and ABITO TUMPAO, respondents
FACTS:
On September 4, 1937, Old Man Tumpao executed what he called a “last

will and testament”, in favor of his son Bando Tumpao, who shall be the one
to carry out his testament. The contents of the testament were read to the
beneficiaries named therein who were already occupying the portions allotted
to them.
Two days later, Old Man Tumpao died. The parties remained in
possession of the lots assigned to them, in obedience to the wish of the Old
Man Tumpao as expressed in his last will. Twenty-three (23) years later, the
matter was brought to the courts.
On November 4, 1960, Respondents executed an extrajudicial partition

in which they divided the property of Old man Tumpao among the three of
them only, excluding the other persons mentioned in the documents. By virtue
of the partition, Old Man Tumpao’s title was cancelled and another one was
issued in favor of the three respondents.
Petitioners then question respondents’ title and are suing for

reconveyance. They had been sustained by the trial court.
The CA reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the “will” of Old
man Tumpao was null and void because it had not been probated. The
agreement of partition among the beneficiaries of the will was nullified
because it was a partition inter vivos and had not been approved the Director
of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes. It also held that the land in dispute was
acquired during Old Man Tumpao’s marriage although it was registered during
his second marriage and so petitioners were liable in rentals for the lots
occupied by them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the “will” of Old Man Tumpao was operative.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that Old Man Tumpao’s “will”, not having been
probated as required by law, was inoperative as such. It is a well settled-
principle, in accordance with the Rules of Court, that no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved or allowed in court.
The SC, however, finds that the document may be sustained on the
basis of Article 1056 of the 1899 Civil Code, which was in force at the time the
said document was executed by Old Man Tumpao in 1937.
"Art. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his properties by

an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it
does not, prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs."
Similar to the case of Albela vs Albela, the SC stated that there was no
difference in legal effect between Agustin Albela’s deed of partition and Old
Man Tumpao’s “last will and testament.” Both are sustainable under Article
1056 of the Civil Code, which was in force at the time they were executed.
Even as Agustin Albela’s partition was signed by the two daughters
themselves, so was Old Man Tumpao’s “will” affirmed by the beneficiaries in
their agreement of September 7, 1937, which reiterated and recognized the
terms of such “will.” While not valid as a partition inter vivos under Articles
816 and 1271 of the old Civil Code, it was nevertheless binding on the parties
as proof of their conformity to the dispositions made by Old man Tumpao in
his “last will and testament.”
As the trial court put it, the will alone would be inoperative for the simple
reason that it was not probated. However, when the persons who were named
therein as heirs and beneficiaries voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by its
terms probably to save the expenses of probate, and furthermore, carried out
its terms after the death of the testator until now, then it must be held to be
binding between them. Said agreement was not a disposal of inheritance
by a prospective heir before the death of the testator, but an
agreement to carry out the will. It was not contested by the defendants
and after the lapse of 25 years, their right, if any, to assail it has prescribed
under Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
Art. 1144 - The following actions must be brought ten years from the
time the right of action accrues:
1) Upon a written contract;
2) Upon an obligation created by law;
3) Upon a judgment.
Any formal defect of the deed, was cured by the lapse of time. The trial court
ordered defendants to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs
of the areas respectively owned and occupied by them and to pay the costs.
The SC also adds that the agreement entered into by the parties in
implementation of Old man Tumpao’s “will” did not have to be approved by
the Director of Non-Chritiaan Tribes because the Administrative Code of
Mindanao and Sulu was not extended to the Mountain Province.
Moreover, the document was not a conveyance of properties or property

right.
It remains to state that the property in dispute having been registered
in 1917, the presumption is that it was acquired during the second marriage
and so cannot be claimed by the respondents as the conjugal property of their
mother and Old Man Tumpao. Hence, they are not entitled to retain the entire
land as their exclusive inheritance or to collect rentals for the lots occupied by
the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA is reversed and that of the trial

court reinstated. Costs against the respondents.

Mang-Oy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mang-Oy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mang-Oy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-27421 September 12, 1986

ANITA MANG-OY, assisted by her husband, William Mang-oy;

On September 4, 1937, Old Man Tumpao executed what he called a “last

On November 4, 1960, Respondents executed an extrajudicial partition

Petitioners then question respondents’ title and are suing for

Whether or not the “will” of Old Man Tumpao was operative.

"Art. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his properties by

Moreover, the document was not a conveyance of properties or property

WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA is reversed and that of the trial

You might also like