Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	GR No. 180614 2012-08-29	LEONARDO NOTARTE v. GODOFREDO NOTARTE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The validity of an oral partition is already well-settled.[38] It is not required, contrary to the MTC's stated reason for denying some documentary exhibits to prove partition, such as the individual TCTs obtained by Manuel Urbano II and Cornelio Gamboa over portions they have acquired, that the partition agreement be registered or annotated in OCT No. 48098 to be valid.[39] In another case, we have held that after exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of the contested estate, petitioners are estopped from denying the existence of an oral partition.[40]