Mangahas vs Brobio, CASE DIGEST - RULE 69 PARTITION

 

Mangahas vs Brobio, CASE DIGEST - RULE 69 PARTITION

Carmela Brobio Mangahas Vs. Eufrocina Brobio, G.R. No. 183852, October 20, 2010

Nachura, J.

Mangahas (illegitimate child) and Eufrocina Brobio (wife) are legal heirs of the deceased, Pacifico Brobio, who died intestate and leaving without a will but leaving several real and personal properties (bank deposits), and some of which were the subject of the extra-judicial settlement with waiver (Mangahas and the other heirs waived and ceded their respective shares in favor of Brobio). In consideration of the said waiver of Mangahas over the listed properties in the extra-judicial settlement, Mangahas received the sum of ₱150k, and Brobio executed a "Promissory Note" further committing herself to give Carmela a financial assistance in the amount of ₱600k. Brobio failed to make good of her promise despite repeated demands.

RTC: the promissory note was an additional consideration for the waiver of Mangahas’ share in the 3 properties in favor of Brobio. CA reversed RTC: the waiver of Mangahas’ share in the 3 properties, as expressed in the deed of extrajudicial settlement, may not be considered as the consideration of the promissory note, considering that Mangahas had signed the Deed and had already received the consideration of ₱150k for signing the same. That if Mangahas disagreed with the amount she received, then she should have filed an action for partition.

Issue: Whether or not Mangahas should have filed an action for partition instead of a case for specific performance.

Conflicting position:

Mangahas: Brobio should pay her 600k (based on the Promissory note) in consideration of the waiver of her share in the property that were subjected to extrajudicial settlement of estate.

Brobio: admitted that she signed the promissory note but claimed that she was forced to do so and claimed that the undertaking was not supported by any consideration.

Held: No. The remedy suggested by the CA is not the proper one under the circumstances. An action for partition implies that the property is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived their shares in favor of respondent, the properties are no longer under a state of co-ownership; there is nothing more to be partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one person.

The execution of the promissory note was the product of a negotiation between the parties. The situation did not amount to intimidation that vitiated the consent.

Brobio failed to prove that the promissory note was not supported by any consideration. It is clear that the promissory note was issued for a cause or consideration, which was Mangahas’ signature on the document.