24 Sepulveda V Pelaez

Sepulveda v. Pelaez 1. In 1972, Atty.
Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint against his granduncle, Pedro

GR No. 152195 | January 31, 2005 | Modes of Extinguishing Co-Ownership| Callejo | Sepulveda Sr. in the CFI of Cebu for recovery of possession and ownership
Da Silva of his one-half undivided share of several parcels of land, covered by Tax
Declarations, his undivided one-third share in several other lots, also covered
Petitioner: Pedro Sepulveda, substituted by Socorro Lawas
by tax declarations, and all were located in Cebu.
Respondents: Atty. Pacifico Pelaez
2. The complaint also prayed for the partition of the properties among the co—
owners.
Recit-Ready: Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint for recovery of possession and
3. The eleven lots were among the 25 parcels of land which the Pelaez’s
ownership against his granduncle Pedro Sepulveda Sr. He alleged that Pedro
mother Dulce Sepulveda inherited from her grandmother Dionisia Sepulveda
refused to turn over his mother’s share in the estate of their grandmother. This
under the project of partition (a deed) submitted by Pedro Sepulveda Sr. as
covered eleven lots among the 25 parcels of land which were all allegedly inherited
the administrator of the estate of Dionisia.
by the mother of Pelaez from her grandmother. Pedro Sr. would later sell one of the
4. Pacifico alleged that despite demands by his mother, Pedro Sr. who was
co-owned lots to the City of Danao, while he was the mayor thereof. When
then mayor refused to deliver his mother’s share in the partition, claiming
Pacifico’s mother passed away, her husband thus became a co-owner as well. In
that he needed to reap the produce from said land to pay the realty taxes.
Pacifico’s complaint, he failed to implead all other indispensable parties, such as
There were repeated demands, all of which remained unheeded.
his father, the heirs of Santiago Sepulveda, and the City of Danao, all of whom were
5. Pacifico likewise stated that Pedro Sr. executed an affidavit stating that he
his fellow co-owners. This fact notwithstanding, the court a quo ruled in favor of
was the sole heir of Dionisia, when in fact Dionisia Sepulveda has other
Pelaez. Sepulveda the administrator of his estate, now comes before the Court
heirs.
assailing Pelaez’s action for recovery of possession and ownership may prosper.
6. Pedro Sr. Executed a Deed of Sale over one parcel of land in favor of the City
So the issue is whether or not Sepulveda’s action may prosper. The Court held that
of Danao, Cebu, without Pacifico’s knowledge
yes, the action of Sepulveda may prosper. The Court granted Sepulveda’s petition
7. Pedro Sr. later died intestate, and was substituted by the administrator.
for the sole reason that Pacifico failed to implead all indispensable parties in his
8. It is thus contended by the administrator of Pedro’s estate, on behalf of the
complaint. The Court ruled that as co-owners, Pacifico’s father, as well as the heirs
latter, that Pelaez and his mother had already received their share as proven
of Santiago Sepulveda were indispensable parties to the case. Under Articles 804
by an Affidavit of Consolidation, wherein 13 of the 25 parcels of land were
and 834 of the Civil Code, the surviving spouse is a forced heir, and entitled to a
already titled under Dulce’s name, and that there was already a verbal
share in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse. Under Rule 69 of the Rules
agreement between Dulce and Pedro, wherein the 11 parcels would serve as
of Court, all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Thus,
Pedro’s compensation for his services as administrator.
all the co-owners of a property are indispensable parties to an action for partition,
9. It is worth noting that the petitioners in this case failed to implead the wife of
and the same will not lie without the joinder of the parties. The mere fact that
Santiago (one of the sons of Dionisia) and their children.
Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. has repudiated the co-ownership between him and the
respondent does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
ISSUE/S:
action for partition, for, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a
declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second, the W/N the action of Sepulveda may prosper. YES.
conveyance of his lawful shares.
Doctrine: in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he
is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second, the conveyance of his lawful RATIO:
shares.
Issue 1: The petition is granted for the sole reason that the respondent failed to
FACTS: implead as parties all the indispensable parties in his complaint.
Rodolfo Pelaez, as surviving spouse, is entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that is proper in the premises, and that an accounting of rents and profits received by the
corresponding by way of legitime to each of the legitimate children who has not defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, "the parties
received any betterment. The rights of the usufructuary are provided in Articles 471 to may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper
490 of the old Civil Code.18 In Gamis v. Court of Appeals, we held that: 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
Under articles 807 and 834 of the old Civil Code the surviving spouse is a forced heir accounting is decreed, the order is a final one and may be appealed by any party
and entitled to a share in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse equal to that aggrieved thereby.
which by way of legitime corresponds or belongs to each of the legitimate children or
descendants who have not been bettered or have not received any share in the one- The second stage commences when the parties are unable to agree upon the
third share destined for betterment. The right of the surviving spouse to have a share partition ordered by the court. In that event, partition shall be effected for the parties
in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse is provided by law of which such by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This
spouse cannot be deprived and which cannot be ignored. Of course, the spouse may second phase may also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its
waive it but the waiver must be express. approval by the Court after the parties have been accorded the opportunity to be
heard thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled of
Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides that in an action for partition, all their just shares in the rents and profits of the real estate in question'.
persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants.
Note: the decision appealed from was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. - A person having the right
to compel the partition of real estate may do so as in this rule prescribed, setting forth
in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the
real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all the other
persons interested in the property.
Thus, all the co-heirs 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.
The mere fact that Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. has repudiated the co-ownership between
him and the respondent does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the action for partition, for, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff
seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second,
the conveyance of his lawful shares.
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

24 Sepulveda V Pelaez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

24 Sepulveda V Pelaez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sepulveda v. Pelaez 1. In 1972, Atty.

Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint against his granduncle, Pedro

You might also like