Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Titles and Deeds - Lakbayan Vs Samoy
Land Titles and Deeds - Lakbayan Vs Samoy
"married to
Betty L. Samoy."8
BETTY B. LACBAYAN, Petitioner,
vs. 5. A 400-square meter real estate property located at Don
BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR., Respondent. Enrique Heights, Quezon City covered by TCT No. 90232 and
registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to
DECISION Betty L. Samoy."9
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Initially, petitioner lived with her parents in Mapagbigay St., V.
This settles the petition for review on certiorari filed by Luna, Quezon City. In 1983, petitioner left her parents and
petitioner Betty B. Lacbayan against respondent Bayani S. decided to reside in the property located in Malvar St. in
Samoy, Jr. assailing the September 14, 2004 Decision1 of the Project 4, Quezon City. Later, she and their son transferred to
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67596. The CA had Zobel St., also in Project 4, and finally to the 400-square
affirmed the February 10, 2000 Decision2 of the Regional meter property in Don Enrique Heights.10
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 224, of Quezon City declaring Eventually, however, their relationship turned sour and they
respondent as the sole owner of the properties involved in decided to part ways sometime in 1991. In 1998, both parties
this suit and awarding to himP100,000.00 as attorney’s fees. agreed to divide the said properties and terminate their
This suit stemmed from the following facts. business partnership by executing a Partition
Agreement.11 Initially, respondent agreed to petitioner’s
Petitioner and respondent met each other through a common proposal that the properties in Malvar St. and Don Enrique
friend sometime in 1978. Despite respondent being already Heights be assigned to the latter, while the ownership over
married, their relationship developed until petitioner gave birth the three other properties will go to respondent.12 However,
to respondent’s son on October 12, 1979.3 when petitioner wanted additional demands to be included in
the partition agreement, respondent refused.13 Feeling
During their illicit relationship, petitioner and respondent,
aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for judicial partition14 of
together with three more incorporators, were able to establish
the said properties before the RTC in Quezon City on May 31,
a manpower services company.4 Five parcels of land were
1999.
also acquired during the said period and were registered in
petitioner and respondent’s names, ostensibly as husband In her complaint, petitioner averred that she and respondent
and wife. The lands are briefly described as follows: started to live together as husband and wife in 1979 without
the benefit of marriage and worked together as business
1. A 255-square meter real estate property located at Malvar
partners, acquiring real properties amounting
St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 303224 and registered
toP15,500,000.00.15 Respondent, in his Answer,16 however,
in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to Betty
denied petitioner’s claim of cohabitation and said that the
Lacbayan."5
properties were acquired out of his own personal funds
2. A 296-square meter real estate property located at Main without any contribution from petitioner.17
Ave., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 23301 and registered
During the trial, petitioner admitted that although they were
in the name of "Spouses Bayani S. Samoy and Betty
together for almost 24 hours a day in 1983 until 1991,
Lacbayan."6
respondent would still go home to his wife usually in the wee
3. A 300-square meter real estate property located at Matatag hours of the morning.18 Petitioner likewise claimed that they
St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. RT-38264 and acquired the said real estate properties from the income of
registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to the company which she and respondent established.19
Betty Lacbayan Samoy."7
Respondent, meanwhile, testified that the properties were
4. A 183.20-square meter real estate property located at purchased from his personal funds, salaries, dividends,
Zobel St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 335193 and allowances and commissions.20 He countered that the said
properties were registered in his name together with petitioner
to exclude the same from the property regime of respondent
and his legal wife, and to prevent the possible dissipation of seen to present simultaneously two principal issues, i.e., first,
the said properties since his legal wife was then a heavy the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the
gambler.21 Respondent added that he also purchased the property sought to be partitioned and, second – assuming
said properties as investment, with the intention to sell them that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first – the issue of
later on for the purchase or construction of a new building.22 how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and
defendant(s). Otherwise stated, the court must initially settle
On February 10, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision the issue of ownership for the simple reason that it cannot
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.23 In resolving the properly issue an order to divide the property without first
issue on ownership, the RTC decided to give considerable making a determination as to the existence of co-ownership.
weight to petitioner’s own admission that the properties were Until and unless the issue of ownership is definitely resolved,
acquired not from her own personal funds but from the it would be premature to effect a partition of the properties.
income of the manpower services company over which she This is precisely what the trial court did when it discounted the
owns a measly 3.33% share.24 merit in appellant’s claim of co-ownership.26
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA asserting Hence, this petition premised on the following arguments:
that she is the pro indiviso owner of one-half of the properties
in dispute. Petitioner argued that the trial court’s decision I. Ownership cannot be passed upon in a partition case.
subjected the certificates of title over the said properties to
collateral attack contrary to law and jurisprudence. Petitioner II. The partition agreement duly signed by respondent
also contended that it is improper to thresh out the issue on contains an admission against respondent’s interest as to the
ownership in an action for partition.25 existence of co-ownership between the parties.