Text of the provision
Art. 1104. A partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be proved that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the other persons interested; but the latter shall be proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the share which belongs to him.
(1080)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
A partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs is not rescinded, unless bad faith or fraud on the part of the other persons interested is proved — but the latter must pay the omitted heir the share to which he is entitled.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1103 — Omitted Objects Do Not Undo the Partition.
Cases citing this article
- Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Laurencio Aying, et al, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hiers of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al./Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al, G.R. No. 165748 / G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dionosia Monis Lagunilla, et al., vs. Andrea Monis Velasco, et al, G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rebecca Viado Non, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 137287, February 15, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.