099 - Divinagracia Vs Parilla - Cadiz
099 - Divinagracia Vs Parilla - Cadiz
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
88
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
89
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated March 26, 2009 and the Resolution3 dated
April 6, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 80167, which set aside the Decision4 dated November
29, 2002 and the Order5 dated April 4, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31 (RTC) in Civil Case
No. 19003 and, consequently, dismissed Santiago C.
Divinagracia’s (Santiago) complaint for judicial partition.
The Facts
Conrado Nobleza, Sr. (Conrado, Sr.) owned a 313-
square-meter parcel of land located at Cor. Fuentes-
Delgado Streets, Iloilo City denominated as Lot 133-B-1-A
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
12255 (subject land).6 During his lifetime, he contracted
two marriages: (a) the first was with Lolita Palermo with
whom he had two (2) children, namely, Cresencio and
Conrado, Jr.; and (b) the second was with Eusela Niangar
with whom he had seven (7) children, namely, Mateo, Sr.,
Coronacion, Cecilia, Celestial, Celedonio,
_______________
90
_______________
91
Maude’s refusal to surrender the said title. This fact,
coupled with Ceruleo, Celedonio, and Maude’s failure to
partition the subject land, prompted Santiago to file a
Complaint15 dated January 3, 1990 for judicial partition
and for receivership.16
For their part, Ceruleo, Celedonio, and Maude
maintained that Santiago had no legal right to file an
action for judicial partition nor compel them to surrender
TCT No. T-12255 because, inter alia: (a) Santiago did not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
pay the full purchase price of the shares sold to him; and
(b) the subject land is a conjugal asset of Conrado, Sr. and
Eusela Niangar and, thus, only their legitimate issues may
validly inherit the same.17
The RTC’s Ruling
In a Decision18 dated November 29, 2002, the RTC
ordered, among others, the partition of the subject land
between Santiago on the one hand, and Ceruleo, Celedonio,
Maude, and the heirs of Mateo, Sr. (i.e., Felcon, et al.) on
the other hand and, consequently, the cancellation of TCT
No. T-12255 and the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
certificate in favor of Santiago and the group of Ceruleo,
Celedonio, Maude, and the heirs of Mateo, Sr.19 The RTC
found that through the subject document, Santiago became
a co-owner of the subject land and, as such, has the right to
demand the partition of the same. However, the RTC held
that Santiago did not validly acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share
over the subject land, considering that Felcon admitted the
lack of authority to bind his siblings with regard to Mateo,
Sr.’s share thereon.20
_______________
92
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
93
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
94
court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only
as to the absent parties but even as to those present.31
With regard to actions for partition, Section 1, Rule 69 of
the Rules of Court requires that all persons interested in
the property shall be joined as defendants, viz.:
Thus, all the coheirs and persons having an interest in
the property are indispensable parties; as such, an action
for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said
parties.32
In the instant case, records reveal that Conrado, Sr. has
the following heirs, legitimate and illegitimate, who are
entitled to a pro indiviso share in the subject land, namely:
Conrado, Jr., Cresencio, Mateo, Sr., Coronacion, Cecilia,
Celestial, Celedonio, Ceruleo, Cebeleo, Sr., Eduardo,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
31 Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265; 421 SCRA 468, 483 (2004).
32 Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, 490 Phil. 710, 721; 450 SCRA 302, 312
(2005)
33 See Civil Code, Articles 970 to 977.
34 See Rollo, pp. 10-11 and 31-33.
95
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
96
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
97
_______________
41 In Quilatan v. Heirs of Quilatan (supra note 38), the Court similarly
ordered the remand of the partition case therein to the RTC for the failure
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
8/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165516fd3a9efe0e696003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11