Article 1080 of the New Civil Code allows a person to make a partition of his estate either by an act inter vivos or by will and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs. While the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, the partition by the parent, as provided in Art. 1080, is a case expressly authorized by law. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code clearly gives a person two options in making a partition of his estate; either by an act inter vivos or by will. When a person makes a partition by will, it is imperative that such partition must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the law on wills; however, when a person makes the partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a will, provided that the partition does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs.

When the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused and homicide was committed as a consequence thereof, all those who participated are liable as principals in the robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they attempted to prevent the killing. The question as to who actually robbed or who actually killed is of no moment since all of them would be held accountable for the crime of robbery with homicide.

Intervention is defined as a "proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.

Private respondents' memorandum of appeal explicitly prayed for "such other remedies and benefits as may be proper under the premises." Such general prayer included the relief granted in the disputed order. Moreover, the award of Service Incentive Leave pay is a statutory benefit which cannot be denied to private respondents (See Article 95, Labor Code), the same is true with respect to the 13th month pay since P.D. 851 states that "all employers are required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th month pay not later than December 24 of every year and so all the complainants who were not paid their 13th month pay must be paid accordingly.

Certificates of stocks are considered as "quasi-negotiable" instruments. When the owner or shareholder of these certificates signs the printed form of sale or assignment at the back of every stock certificate without filing in the blanks provided for the name of the transferee as well as for the name of the attorney-in-fact, the said owner or shareholder, in effect, confers on another all the indicia of ownership of the said stock certificates.