WON THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015

ERROR IN NOT RULING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SPS. BUTIONG vs. PLAZO ACTED WITHOUT JURISDCITION IN ENTERTAINING THE
SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF
PERALTA, J.:
PEDRO RINOZA AND THE CIVIL ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF
FACTS: TITLE OF THE HEIRS AND THIRD PERSONS IN ONE
PROCEEDING.
Pedro L. Rifioza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including
his children with his first wife, respondents Ma. Gracia R.
HELD: NO
Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, as well as several properties
including a resort and a family home, both located in Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents'
Nasugbu, Batangas. causes of action pertaining to the properties left behind by the
decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and extent of
In their Amended Complaint for Judicial Partition with
their interests thereon may fall under an action for settlement
Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession, respondents
of estate. However, a complete reading of the complaint would
alleged that they discovered that their co-heirs, Pedros
readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the
second wife, Benita"Tenorio and other children, had sold the
allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action, is
subject properties to petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria
clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title and
and Maria Butiong.
recovery of possession.
When confronted about the sale, Benita acknowledged the
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:
same, showing respondents a document she believed
evidenced receipt of her share in the sale, which, however,
did not refer to any sort of sale but to a previous loan
RULE 74
obtained by Pedro and Benita from a bank.
Summary Settlement of Estate
Upon inquiry, the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu informed
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs.
respondents that he has no record of any transaction
- If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all
involving the subject properties, giving them certified true
of age5 or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal
copies of the titles to the same.
representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties
Subsequently, respondents learned that a notice of an extra- may without securing letters of administration, divide the
judicial settlement of estate of their late father was published estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public
in a tabloid called Balita. Because of this, They caused the instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and
annotation of their adverse claims over the subject should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of
properties before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu and filed partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself
their complaint praying, among others, for the annulment of the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of
all documents conveying the subject properties to the the register of deeds. The parties to an Extrajudicial settlement,
petitioners and certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending
action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire
In their Answer, petitioners denied the allegations of the
estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file,
complaint on the ground of lack of personal knowledge and
simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing
good faith in acquiring the subject properties.
of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for
Trial court nullified the transfer of the subject Properties to partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of
petitioners and spouses Bondoc due to irregularities in the deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount
Documents of conveyance offered by petitioners as well as equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as
the circumstances Surrounding the execution of the same. certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
Specifically, the Extra-Judicial Settlement was notarized by a conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be
notary public that was not duly commissioned as such on the filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the
date it was executed. The Deed of Sale was Undated, the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters
date of the acknowledgment therein was left blank, and the of administration within two (2) years after the death of the
Typewritten name "Pedro Rifioza, Husband" on the left side decedent.
of the document Was not signed.
The fact of the Extrajudicial settlement or administration shall
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial courts Judgment. be Published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no
Aggrieved, petitioners, substituted by their son Ruel Villafria,
Extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who
filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising the trial courts
has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
lack of jurisdiction.
In this relation, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
On appeal, this Court denied on petitioner's Petition for
provides:
Review on Certiorari for submitting a verification of the
petition, a certificate of non-forum shopping and an affidavit Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. - A
of service that failed to comply with the 2004 Rules on person having the right to compel the partition of real estate
Notarial Practice regarding competent evidence of affiant' s may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
identities. complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate
description of the real estate of which partition is demanded
This Court also denied petitioner's Motion for
and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the
Reconsideration in the absence of any compelling reason to
property.
warrant a modification of the previous denial.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the
The foregoing notwithstanding, petitioner filed a Petition for
allegations of respondents in their complaint are but
Annulment of Judgment and Order before the CA assailing
customary, in fact, mandatory, to a complaint for partition of
the decision and order of the RTC on the grounds of extrinsic
real estate. Particularly, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro
fraud and lack of jurisdiction, which the CA dismissed.
died intestate; (2) that respondents, together with their co-
heirs, are all of legal age, with the exception of one who is
ISSUE:
represented by a judicial representative duly authorized for the recovery of possession, filed within the confines of applicable
purpose; (3) that the heirs enumerated are the only known law and jurisprudence. Under Section 1 of Republic Act No.
heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an account and description of all 7691 (RA 7691), amending Batas Pambansa Big. 129, the RTC
real properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate has no shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions
known indebtedness; and (6) that respondents, as rightful heirs in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
to the decedents estate, pray for the partition of the same in estimation. Since the action herein was not merely for
accordance with the laws of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that partition and recovery of ownership but also for annulment
based on the allegations of the complaint, the case is one for of title and documents, the action is incapable of pecuniary
judicial partition. That the complaint alleged causes of action estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC. Hence,
identifying the heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, considering that the trial court clearly had jurisdiction in
and their rights thereto, does not perforce make it an action for rendering its decision, the instant petition for annulment of
settlement of estate. judgment must necessarily fail.

In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was

not disputed, that Pedro died without a will, leaving his estate
without any pending obligations. Thus, contrary to petitioners
contention, respondents were under no legal obligation to
submit the subject properties of the estate of a special
proceeding for settlement of intestate estate, and are, in fact,
encouraged to have the same partitioned, judicially or
extrajudicially.

Thus, respondents committed no error in filing an action for

judicial partition instead of a special proceeding for the
settlement of estate as law expressly permits the same.
Moreover, the fact that respondents' complaint also prayed for
the annulment of title and recovery of possession does not
strip the trial court off of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case. Asking for the annulment of certain transfers of property
could very well be achieved in an action for partition, as can be
seen in cases where 1-ourts determine the parties' rights
arising from complaints asking not only for the partition of
estates but also for the annulment of titles and recovery of
ownership and possession of property.

Indeed, an action for partition does not preclude the

settlement of the issue of ownership. In fact, the determination
as to the existence of the same is necessary in the resolution of
an action for partition, as held in Municipality of Bifzan v.
Garcia:

The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up

with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in
fact exists, and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally
proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all
the parties interested in the property. This phase may end with
a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition
either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is
legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand, with an
adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is
proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits
received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in
order. x x x

The second phase commences when it appears that "the

parties are unable to agree upon the partition" directed by the
court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by
the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
commissioners. This second stage may well also deal with the
rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the court
after the. Parties have been accorded opportunity to be heard
Thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties
thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the
real estate in question.

An action for partition, therefore, is premised on the existence

or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. Unless
and until the issue of co-ownership is definitively resolved, it
would be premature to effect a partition of an estate.
In view of the foregoing, petitioner's argument that the trial
court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the action of
settlement of estate and annulment of title in a single
proceeding is clearly erroneous for the instant complaint is
precisely one for judicial partition with annulment of title and