Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court 165 SCRA 118 (Case Digest)

 

Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court

165 SCRA 118

 

Facts:

The property was registered originally in the name of Januario Avendaño, a bachelor who died intestate and without issue on 22 October 1945.

The intestate heirs of Januario Avendafio executed a document entitled "Paghahati at Pagtagabuyan ng Mana sa Labas ng Hukuman."

On 28 September 1959, co-owners Illuminada, Gregorio, Miguel, Bernardino, Bienvenido, Numeriano and Rufina, all surnamed Avendaño, in consideration of the aggregate amount of P500.00, transferred their collective and undivided threefourths (3/4) share in Lot No. 1549 to respondent Ernesto Roque and Victor Roque.

Emesto and Victor Roque purportedly sold a three-fourths (3/4) undivided portion of Lot No. 1549 to their half-sister, petitioner Concepcion Roque.

Petitioner Concepcion Roque  filed a Complaint for "Partition with Specific Performance" against respondents Emesto Roque and the heirs of Victor Roque.

Respondents (defendants below) impugned the genuineness and due execution of the "Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan.

The Intermediate Appellate Court's decision appears to imply that from the moment respondents (defendants below) alleged absolute and exclusive ownership of the whole of Lot No. 1549 in their Answer, the trial court should have immediately ordered the dismissal of the action for partition and petitioner (plaintiff below), if she so desired, should have refiled the case but this time as an accion reinvindicatoria.

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA is correct in holding that from the moment respondents (defendants below) alleged absolute and exclusive ownership  in their Answer, the trial court should have immediately ordered the dismissal of the action for partition and petitioner.

 

 

Held:

No.

 

 

Ratio:

 An action for partition-which is typically brought by a person claiming to be co-owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes to be co-owners — may be seen to present simultaneously two principal issues. First, there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned. Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary issue of how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and defendant(s) — i.e., what portion should go to which co-owner.