REILLO v. SAN JOSE
REILLO v. SAN JOSE
REILLO v. SAN JOSE
ph
/sfsreader/session/00000181a4d77f5f04887fa1000d00d40059004a/p/AUP792/
Property; Partition; A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the
heirs, who has no knowledge and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.—A deed
of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious. The deed of settlement
made by petitioners was invalid because it excluded respondents who were entitled to
equal shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial settlement shall be
binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. Thus,
the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs
with Waiver of Rights dated January 23, 1998 and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma.
Teresa S.J. Fernando issued pursuant to such deed.
459
Civil Procedure; Counterclaims; A counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out of
or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence
of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.—A counterclaim is any claim
which a defending party may have against an opposing party. It may either be permissive
or compulsory. It is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected
with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. A permissive counterclaim is
essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case. A
counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out of or is necessarily connected with
the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction. Unlike permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims
should be set up in the same action; otherwise, they would be barred forever.
Same; Partition; Payment of docket fees is necessary before the RTC could acquire
jurisdiction over petitioners’ petition for partition.—Respondents’ action was for the
annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, title and partition of the property
subject of the Deed. On the other hand, in the Counter-Petition filed by petitioners in their
Answer to respondents’ complaint, they were asking for the partition and accounting of the
other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina, which are
entirely different from the subject matter of the respondents’ action. Petitioners’ claim does
not arise out of or is necessarily connected with the action for the Annulment of the Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement of the property covered by TCT No. 458396. Thus, payment of
docket fees is necessary before the RTC could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners’
petition for partition.
Same; Same; The RTC cannot order the collation and partition of the other properties
which were not included in the partition that was the subject matter of the respondent’s
action for annulment.—In petitioners’ Answer with Counter-Petition for Partition, they
enumerated 12 other parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and
Antonina. They alleged that some of these properties had already been disposed of by
respondents and some are still
460
generating income under the control and administration of respondents, and these
properties should be collated back by respondents to be partitioned by all the heirs of the
deceased spouses. It bears stressing that the action filed by respondents in the RTC was
an ordinary civil action for annulment of title, annulment of the deed of extrajudicial
settlement and partition of a parcel of land now covered by TCT No. M-94400; hence, the
authority of the court is limited to the property described in the pleading. The RTC cannot
order the collation and partition of the other properties which were not included in the
partition that was the subject matter of the respondents’ action for annulment. Thus, a
separate proceeding is indeed proper for the partition of the estate of the deceased
spouses Quiterio and Antonina.
Partition; It is a basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to indivision among
co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition.—Considering that the subject
document and the corresponding title were canceled, the logical consequence is that the
property in dispute, which was the subject of the extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to
the estate of its original owners, the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose.
Since, it was admitted that all the parties to the instant suit are legal heirs of the deceased
spouses, they owned the subject property in common. It is a basic rule that any act which
is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a
partition. Therefore, there was no reversible error committed by the trial court in ordering
the partition of the subject property. We find nothing wrong with such ruling considering
that the trial court ordered the partition of the subject property in accordance with the rules
on intestate succession. The trial court found the property to be originally owned by the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose and, in the absence of a will left by the
deceased spouses, it must be partitioned in accordance with the rules on intestate
succession.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
461
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated August 31, 2004 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69261 which affirmed the Order dated May
9, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, Branch 78, granting the
motion for judgment on the pleadings and the motion to dismiss counter petition for
partition filed by respondents in Civil Case No. 99-1148-M. Also questioned is the CA
Resolution2 dated December 14, 2004 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Spouses Quiterio San Jose (Quiterio) and Antonina Espiritu Santo (Antonina) were the
original registered owners of a parcel of land located in E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Teresa,
Rizal covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 458396 of the Register of Deeds of
Rizal. The said parcel of land is now registered in the name of Ma. Teresa F. Piñon
(Teresa) under TCT No. M-94400.
Quiterio and Antonina had five children, namely, Virginia, Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria and
Catalina. Antonina died on July 1, 1970, while Quiterio died on October 19, 1976. Virginia
and Virgilio are also now deceased. Virginia was survived by her husband Zosimo
Fernando, Sr. (Zosimo Sr.) and their seven children, while Virgilio was survived by his wife
Julita Gonzales and children, among whom is Maribeth S.J. Cortez (Maribeth).
against Zosimo Sr. and his children Cristina F. Reillo, Leonor F. Puso, Adelia F. Rocamora,
Sofronio S.J. Fernando, Efren S.J. Fernando, Zosimo S.J. Fernando, Jr. and Ma. Teresa
(petitioners) and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal. The complaint alleged among
other things:
It was also alleged that respondents filed a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa
of their Barangay
which issued the required certification to file action for failure of the parties to settle the
matter amicably.
Petitioners filed their Answer with Counter-Petition and with Compulsory Counterclaim5
denying that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of
Rights which was the basis of the issuance of TCT No. M-94400, was falsified and that the
settlement was made and implemented in accordance with law. They admitted that the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina had five children; that the subject property was
not the only property of spouses Quiterio and Antonina and submitted in their counter-
petition for partition the list of the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses
Quiterio and Antonina that petitioners alleged are in respondents’ possession and control.
On January 18, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings6 alleging
that: (1) the denials made by petitioners in their answer were in the form of negative
pregnant; (2) petitioners failed to state the basis that the questioned document was not
falsified; (3) they failed to specifically deny the allegations in the complaint that petitioners
committed misrepresentations by stating that they are the sole heirs and legitimate
descendants of Quiterio and Antonina; and (4) by making reference to their allegations in
their
464
counter-petition for partition to support their denials, petitioners impliedly admitted that
they are not the sole heirs of Quiterio and Antonina.
On May 9, 2000, the RTC rendered its Order,10 the dispositive portion of which reads:
465
The RTC found that, based on the allegations contained in the pleadings filed by the
parties, petitioners misrepresented themselves when they alleged in the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that they are the sole
heirs of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina; that petitioners prayed for a
counter-petition for partition involving several parcels of land left by the deceased spouses
Quiterio and Antonina which bolstered respondents’ claim that petitioners falsified the
Extrajudicial Settlement which became the basis for the issuance of TCT No. M-94400 in
Ma. Teresa’s name; thus, a ground to annul the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and the
title. The RTC did not consider as filed petitioners’ Counter-Petition for Partition since they
did not pay the corresponding docket fees.
Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order12
dated August 29, 2000.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. After the parties filed their respective
briefs, the case was submitted for decision.
On August 31, 2004, the CA rendered its assailed Decision affirming the May 9, 2000
Order of the RTC.
The CA found that, while the subject matter of respondents’ complaint was the nullity of
the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that
resulted in the issuance of TCT No. M-94400 in Ma. Teresa’s name, petitioners included in
their Answer a Counter-Petition for Partition involving 12 other parcels of land of spouses
Quiterio and Antonina which was in the nature of a permissive counterclaim; that
petitioners, being the plaintiffs in the counter-petition for partition, must pay the docket
fees otherwise the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the case. The CA ruled that
petitioners cannot pass the blame to the RTC for their omission to pay the docket fees.
466
The CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment on the pleadings since petitioners admitted that the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina had five children which included herein plaintiffs;
thus, petitioners misrepresented themselves when they stated in the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement that they are the legitimate descendants and sole heirs of the deceased
spouses Quiterio and Antonina; that the deed is null and void on such ground since
respondents were deprived of their rightful share in the subject property and petitioners
cannot transfer the property in favor of Ma. Teresa without respondents’ consent; that TCT
No. M-94400 must be cancelled for lack of basis. The CA affirmed the RTC’s Order of
partition of the subject property in accordance with the rules on intestate succession in the
absence of a will.
Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari raising the following assignment
of errors, to wit:
Petitioners contend that in their Comment to respondents’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings, they stated that they will not oppose the same provided that their Answer with
Counter-Petition for Partition and Rejoinder will be taken into consideration in deciding the
case; however, the RTC decided the case on the basis alone of respondents’ complaint;
467
that the Answer stated that the deed was not a falsified document and was made and
implemented in accordance with law, thus, it was sufficient enough to tender an issue and
was very far from admitting the material allegations of respondents’ complaint.
Petitioners also fault the RTC for disregarding their claim for partition of the other parcels
of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina for their failure to pay the
court docket fees when the RTC could have simply directed petitioners to pay the same;
and that this error if not corrected will result to multiplicity of suits.
Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in ordering the partition of the subject property as it
violates the basic law on intestate succession that the heirs should be named and
qualified through a formal petition for intestate succession whereby blood relationship
should be established first by the claiming heirs before they shall be entitled to receive
from the estate of the deceased; that the order of partition was rendered without
jurisdiction for lack of publication as required under Rules 74 and 76 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure for testate or intestate succession.
The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the judgment on the pleadings rendered
by the RTC.
Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether
there are issues generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the
pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the
468
defending party’s answer to raise an issue.14 The answer would fail to tender an issue, of
course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
omitting to deal with them at all.15
In this case, respondents’ principal action was for the annulment of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by
petitioners and annulment of title on the ground that petitioners stated in the said Deed
that they are the legitimate descendants and sole heirs of the spouses Quiterio and
Antonina. Although petitioners denied in their Answer that the Deed was falsified, they,
however, admitted respondents’ allegation that spouses Quiterio and Antonina had 5
children, thus, supporting respondents’ claim that petitioners are not the sole heirs of the
deceased spouses. Petitioners’ denial/admission in his Answer to the complaint should be
considered in its entirety and not truncated parts. Considering that petitioners already
admitted that respondents Galicano, Victoria, Catalina and Maribeth are the children and
grandchild, respectively, of the spouses Quiterio and Antonina, who were the original
registered owners of the subject property, and thus excluding respondents from the deed
of settlement of the subject property, there is no more genuine issue between the parties
generated by the pleadings, thus, the RTC committed no reversible error in rendering the
judgment on the pleadings.
A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.16 The deed of
settlement made by petitioners was invalid because it excluded respon-
469
dents who were entitled to equal shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein
or had no notice thereof.17 Thus, the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated January 23, 1998 and TCT
No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando issued pursuant to such deed.
Petitioners’ claim that had there been a trial, they could have presented testamentary and
documentary evidence that the subject land is the inheritance of their deceased mother
from her deceased parents, deserves scant consideration. A perusal of petitioners’
Answer, as well as their Rejoinder, never raised such a defense. In fact, nowhere in the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by
petitioners was there a statement that the subject property was inherited by petitioners’
mother Virginia from her deceased parents Quiterio and Antonina. Notably, petitioners
never opposed respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
We also find no merit in petitioners’ contention that the Counter-Petition for Partition in
their Answer was in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim which does not require the
payment of docket fees.
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing
party.18 It may either be permissive or compulsory. It is permissive if it does not arise out
of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.19
A permissive counterclaim is essen-
470
Respondents’ action was for the annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, title
and partition of the property subject of the Deed. On the other hand, in the Counter-
Petition filed by petitioners in their Answer to respondents’ complaint, they were asking for
the partition and accounting of the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses
Quiterio and Antonina, which are entirely different from the subject matter of the
respondents’ action. Petitioners’ claim does not arise out of or is necessarily connected
with the action for the Annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the property
covered by TCT No. 458396. Thus, payment of docket fees is necessary before the RTC
could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners’ petition for partition.
Petitioners, however, argue that the RTC could have simply issued a directive ordering
them to pay the docket fees, for its non-payment should not result in the automatic
dismissal of the case.
Petitioners argue that with the dismissal of their Counter-Petition for Partition, the partition
of the other parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina will
result to multiplicity of suits.
472
Finally, petitioners contend that the RTC erred when it ordered the heirs of Quiterio and
Antonina to partition the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. 458396 in accordance
with the laws of intestate succession; that the RTC violated the requirement of publication
under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 74 and Section 3 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.
We do not agree.
We find the ruling of the CA on the matter of the RTC’s order of partition of land subject of
the annulled deed of extrajudicial settlement worth quoting, thus:
As the RTC nullified the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with
Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners and the title issued in accordance therewith, the
order of partition of the land subject of the settlement in accordance with the laws on
intestate succession is proper as respondents’ action filed in the RTC and respondents’
prayer in their complaint asked for the partition of the subject property in accordance with
intestate succession. The applicable law is Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which
deals with action for partition, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 31, 2004 and
the Resolution dated December 14, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
69261, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.