CASE 1.

(2) That a person who alleges a hereditary right will be relieved from
proving his predecessor-in-interest's ownership only when the defendant in
G.R. No. L-8092            March 14, 1916 possession admits having received the ownership or possession he enjoys
from that predecessor; but in that case plaintiff must prove how he came
into the possession and ownership of the thing he claims.
RUFINA BONDAD, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, 
vs. VENANCIO BONDAD, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
(3) That, in the case at bar, defendants admit that the real property,
specified in the complaint under the letters (a), (d), (e), (h), (i), and (j), was
Modesto Reyes for appellants. derived from that source, but allege that it was equitably and proportionally
Pedro Guevara for appellees. partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants in 1903.

ARELLANO, C. J.:
(4) That they deny that the parcels of land B, C, F, and G belonged to the
intestate estate of the predecessor-in-interest, Crisanto Bondad, and were
Rufina Bondad had two brothers and two sisters, respectively named derived from this latter, wherefore it is incumbent upon the plaintiff, and not
Venancio, Placido, Maria, and Paula. The last named died leaving four upon the defendants, to prove such ownership; and that without this proof
children: Eleno, Estanislao, Raymundo, and Pedro, all surnamed Emlano. the defendants cannot be disturbed in their possession.

On May 6, 1911, Rufina Bondad brought suit against her said brothers (5) That Lorenzo Suarez, one of the two witnesses presented by plaintiff,
sisters, and nephews to secure the partition of the property left to these testified that the said parcels of land, as the others, were inherited some by
defendants by their father or grandfather, respectively, Crisanto Bondad Crisanto Bondad, others by his wife Gliceria Alcantara, while still others were
upon his death on March 17, 1902. She designates the lands to be divided, purchased by both of them, but witness did not specify the origin or the title
which are those specified in the complaint under the letters (a), (b), (c), (d), of ownership of each individual parcel, and it is no proof of the ownership of
(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j). real property to state the title of origin of the whole, without specifying the
title of ownership of each of its parcels, especially in the case of a double
Documentary and parol evidence was introduced, and the Court of First marriage as it appears that Crisanto Bondad was married at least twice,
Instance of Laguna decided the case by dismissing the complaint and once to Gliceria Alcantara and the second time to Emilia del Rosario. The
absolving defendants therefrom, with the costs against the plaintiff. other witness, Aniceto Devanadera, specifies only one piece of realty as
having been purchased by Crisanto Bondad, and the rest as having been
inherited by the same.
The latter appealed, and upon a hearing of her appeal we find:

(6) That, on the other hand, while there was no need of exhibiting titles to
(1) That a person who alleges a hereditary right in any specified real
possession, they were nevertheless exhibited by: Venancio Bondad who
property, must, like any other person who seeks to recover possession,
holds by purchase from Juan Martinez, by virtue of a notarial instrument of
prove the ownership of his predecessor-in-interest; otherwise "the possessor
September 12, 1908, the lands specified in the complaint under letter (c),
by virtue of ownership has in his favor the legal presumption that he holds
with the identical area, the identical number of planted coconut trees and
possession by reason of a sufficient title and he cannot be forced to show
the identical boundaries; the same Venancio Bondad who holds by purchase
it." (Art. 448, Civ. Code.) The plaintiff did not try to prove her father's
from the surviving widow Emilia del Rosario, by virtue of a notarial
ownership in the property she describes as left by him at his death. She did
instrument of September 30, 1907, the land specified in the complaint under
no more than present two witnesses whose testimony will be duly
letter (b), with identical area, the identical number of coconut trees and the
considered hereinafter.
identical boundaries; Placido Bondad who holds by purchase from Ceferino
Alcantara, by virtue of a notarial instrument of May 28, 1911, the land
specified in the complaint under letter (f), with nearly the identical number The plaintiff makes the following citation from the end of the decision above
of coconut trees, boundaries and area; and the same Placido Bondad, who referred to: "If there are any heirs of the estate who have not received their
holds by purchase from Margarita Bondad, by virtue of a notarial instrument participation, they have their remedy by petition for partition of the estate."
of May 27, 1911, the land specified in the complaint under letter (g), with But the plaintiff has received her share in the land, which, together with 200
almost the identical number of coconut trees and boundaries. coconut trees, she testifies she has held for the past ten years.

(7) That the plaintiff, in describing under letter (h) in her complaint the If, at the present time or in the future, some creditor should come forward
coconut land planted with 200 fruit-bearing coconut trees, says in regard to with a claim, or if debts of either or both of the two intestate estates should
its boundaries: "On the south, by the land of the late Crisanto Bondad, now appear, prescription after two years could not be set up against such
in the possession of Rufina Bondad . . . " She says that she has been in creditors or against such debts, because the date from which the beginning
possession was only acquired by adjudication; and that the adjudication was of the two years should be counted, could not be determined. This is the
the result of a partition. risk that is incurred in a partition of these intestate estates and hence the
need of making the partition in writing, that is, so that it would not prejudice
It can be shown, as the lower court found, that the partition has already any third person; but among themselves the heirs must abide by the terms
been made. In the decision rendered in the case of Ilustre vs. Alaras upon which they have agreed.
Frondosa (17 Phil. Rep., 321), this court said:
There is however one fact in the record which has not been wholly explained
Under the provisions of the Civil Code (arts. 657 to 661), the rights and which forms the fifth error assigned by appellant, to wit, that relative to
to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of the land designated under letter (b) in the complaint. The lower court
his death; in other words, the heirs succeed immediately to all of decided that this land, planted with 300 coconut trees, belonged to Venancio
the property of the deceased ancestor. The property belongs to the Bondad inasmuch as he proved its purchase by the document Exhibit 2.
heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as Venancio Bondad maintains that he purchased it of Emilia del Rosario on
if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the September 30, 1907. But it is shown that on August 26, 1911, Emilia del
same before his death. In the absence of debts existing against the Rosario, the surviving widow, executed the document Exhibit D, in which
estate, the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said she sets forth that she delivered the possession and right of enjoyment of
property immediately. If they desire to administer it jointly, they apparently the same land to Venancio Bondad, Placido Bondad, Maria
may do so. If they desire to partition it among themselves and can Bondad, and Rufina Bondad, and that in exchange for it they paid her the
do this by mutual agreement, they also have that privilege. The sum of P110.
Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides how an estate may be
divided by a petition for partition in case they cannot mutually This document, if authentic, as it appears to be, having been confirmed by
agree in the division. Where there are no debts existing against the the property assessment declaration thereof filed by Venancio Bondad
estate, there is certainly no occasion for the intervention of an (Exhibit A), reveals that there exists a co-ownership in said land between the
administrator . . . . The property belonging absolutely to the heirs, four above mentioned heirs, including the plaintiff Rufina Bondad. This,
in the absence of existing debts against the estate, the however, does not militate against the partition in question, but rather
administrator has no right whatever to intervene in any way in the confirms it. An action for the division of co-ownership, which is different
division of the estate among the heirs . . . . from that for partition of a hereditary succession, always lies in behalf of the
interested parties.
It has been repeatedly shown in the record that there are no debts
outstanding against either succession, and the complaint itself so states. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant. So ordered.