CASE Ignacio vs. Reyes G.R.

213192
TITLE NO.

Peralta, J.: DAT 12 July 2017

DOCTRINE Partition

An action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is typically brought by a person
claiming to be the owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom
the plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners, and is premised on the existence or non-
existence of co-ownership between the parties
FACTS On July 11, 1967, Angel Reyes (Angel) and Oliva R. Arevalo (Oliva) filed before the then Court of
First Instance of Rizal (now RTC of Pasig City, Branch 151) (intestate court) a Petition for Letters of
Administration of the Estate of their father Florencio Reyes, Sr. (Florencio Sr.) who died on June
23, 1967, and enumerated therein the surviving heirs, namely: Oliva, Francisca Vda. de
Justiniani (Francisca), Angel, Amparo R. Avecilla (Amparo), Ramon Reyes (Ramon), Teresa,
Rosario R. Du (Rosario), Jose Reyes (Reyes), Soledad Reyes (Soledad), Carmelita R. Pastor
(Carmelita), and Florencio Reyes, Jr. (Florencio Jr.). On July 15, 1967, the intestate court
appointed Oliva as the special administratrix of the estate of Florencio Sr. (Florencio Sr. estate),
and then as the regular administratrix in an Order dated November 23, 1967. Florencio, Jr.
replaced Oliva in 1982. Thereafter, Teresa became the administratrix of the Florencio Sr. estate
on August 8, 1994.7

On December 5, 1994, Teresa executed a lease contract over a 398 square meters (sq. m.)
parcel of land located at Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-59201 (Magsaysay property) in favor of Gonzalo Ong, Virginia Lim, Nino Yu,
Francisco Lim and Simona Go. In an Order dated July 15, 1996, the intestate court approved the
lease contract upon Teresa's motion dated June 4, 1996.

Likewise, on September 26, 1996, the intestate court allowed Teresa to enter into a lease
contract over the parcel of land located at Session Road, Baguio City with a total area of 646 sq.
m. covered by TCT No. T-26769 (Session Road property) to Famous Realty Corporation
(FRC). Thus, on October 29, 1996, Teresa leased the Session Road property to FRC for the
period of July 1, 1996 to June 30, 2003, with a monthly rental of P135,000.00.

Sometime in January 1997, Teresa also leased the properties located at Loakan Road, Baguio
City covered by TCT Nos. T-26770 and T-26772 (Loakan and Military Cut-off properties), in
favor of ATC Wonderland, Inc. and, subsequently, to Gloria de Guzman and Sonshine Pre-
School for a period often years, effective September 1, 1996 to August 31, 2006.12

On September 25, 2001, herein respondents Ramon, Florencio Jr., Rosario and Carmelita,
and the Heirs of Amparo, Intestate Estate of Soledad, Jose and Intestate Estate of Angel
(plaintiffs) filed before the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 3 (Baguio RTC), three complaints for
partition, annulment of lease contract, accounting and damages with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction against Teresa and the lessees of the subject Baguio
 properties.

The plaintiffs alleged in their Complaints that, with the exception of the lessees, the parties
and the Florencio Sr. estate own one-tenth (1/10) of each of the Session Road, Loakan and
Military Cut-off, and Magsaysay properties. They claimed that Teresa misrepresented that
the Florencio Sr. estate is the sole owner of the properties and leased the same to the other
parties without their conformity. They also asserted in one of their complaints that the
Florencio Sr. estate is different from the Heirs of Florencio Sr. and Heirs of Salud.

They averred that, as co-owners, they have not received their share in the monthly rentals of
the properties aforementioned due to Teresa's failure to duly account for the same. Thus,
they are asking for the partition of the properties, for the accounting of all the rentals,
income or profits derived, and deliver the same to the plaintiffs, for the annulment of the
lease contracts and order the lessees to vacate the premises, and for the payment of
damages.

In an Order dated August 27, 2003, the Baguio RTC manifested that it shall await a Request
Order from the intestate court regarding the possible distribution of the subject properties.

Subsequently, on January 19, 2004, respondents and the others filed a motion before the
intestate court praying for the issuance of an order allowing the distribution of the heirs'
aliquot shares in the co-owned properties' net income, and the partition of the said
properties by the Baguio RTC. However, the intestate court denied the motion in an
Order dated April 13, 2004, a portion of which reads:

x x x This Court cannot allow the Baguio Court to partition the property of the estate
because this Court already has jurisdiction over the matter. In fact, this Court is wondering
why actions for partition are being entertained in other jurisdictions when such can be
readily addressed by this Court as an estate court.

Thereafter, the respondents filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the Orders
dated April 13, 2004 and June 14, 2012 of the intestate court disallowing the partition of the
Baguio properties.

In a Decision dated March 27, 2014, the CA granted the petition and annulled and set aside
the assailed Orders of the intestate court.
ISSUE/S Whether or not the RTC (Baguio City) has jurisdiction over the partition case.

RULING/S No. The RTC has no jurisdiction.

An action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is typically brought by a person
claiming to be the owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom
the plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners,  and is premised on the existence or non-
existence of co-ownership between the parties. As discussed in Lim De Mesa v. Court of
Appeals, the determination of the existence of co-ownership is the first stage to accord with
the remedy of judicial partition, thus:

The first stage of an action for judicial partition and/or accounting is concerned with the
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, that
is, it is not otherwise legally proscribed and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the
parties interested in the property. This phase may end in a declaration that plaintiff is not
entitled to the desired partition either because a co-ownership does not exist or a partition
is legally prohibited. It may also end, on the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-
ownership does in truth exist, that partition is proper in the premises, and that an
accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is
in order. In the latter case, "the parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among
themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition
so agreed upon by all the parties." In either case, whether the action is dismissed or
partition and/or accounting is decreed, the order is a final one and may be appealed by any
party aggrieved thereby.

In this regard, the Baguio RTC shirked from its duty when it deferred the trial to await a
request order from the intestate court regarding the possible distribution. In fact, it has not
yet made a definite ruling on the existence of co-ownership. There was no declaration of
entitlement to the desired partition either because a co-ownership exists or a partition is not
legally prohibited. As this Court is not a trier of facts, it is for the trial court to proceed and
determine once and for all if there is co-ownership and to partition the subject properties if
there is no legal prohibition. It is also best for the Baguio RTC to settle whether the
respondents are claiming ownership over the properties by virtue of their title adverse to
that of their late father and his estate and not by any right of inheritance.