Property Case Digest | Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo
Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo
465 SCRA 224
Facts:
Sps. Mauricio and Simona Bravo owned two parcels of land (“Properties”) and had three childrem –Roland, Cesar and Lily, all surnamed Bravo. Cesar died without issue. Lily had a son named David Diaz, Jr while Roland had six children, namely, Elizabeth, Edward, Roland, Jr., Senia, Benjamin and Ofelia. Simona executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) appointing Mauricio as her attorney-in-fact and latter mortgaged the Properties to PNB and DBP and subsequently executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage in favor of Roland, Ofelia and Elizabeth. Edward then filed an action for the judicial partition of the properties and included a prayer to annul the Deed of Sale claiming that he and the other grandchildren of Mauricio and Simona are co-iwners of the Properties by succession. The trial court upheld Mauricio’s sale of the properties but on appeal, CA ordered the partition.
Issue:
Whether or not the partition was proper in this case
Held:
Yes, the partition was proper. As Roland Bravo, Sr. is also the father of respondent Edward, latter is thus a compulsory heir of Roland Bravo and entitled to a share. Edward and the petitioners are co-owners of the properties. As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition. Any co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co0ownership and this action does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.
More From oflodor
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Reyes de Leon v. Del Rosario
- Property Case Digest | Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court
- Property Case Digest | Ramirez v. Ramirez
- Property Case Digest | Acebedo v. Abesamis
- Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Juana Pichay v. Eulalo Querol
- Property Case Digest | Anulina Bogacki v. Hon. Sancho Inserto
- Property Case Digest | Case v. Heirs of Tuason
- Property Case Digest | Vda. De Castro v. Atienza
- Case Digest | Republic v. Guerrero

