Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 985 views

    Ignacio Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting the respondents' petition for partition of properties allegedly co-owned by the petitioner and respondents. The Court found that the regional trial court shirked its duty by deferring the trial to await an order from the intestate court, rather than determining if co-ownership existed. It also found that the intestate court overstepped its jurisdiction in denying the motion for partition, as the issue involved determining ownership rather than settling an estate. The Supreme Court ordered the regional trial court to resume trial to determine ownership and whether partition is proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ignacio Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    985 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting the respondents' petition for partition of properties allegedly co-owned by the petitioner and respondents. The Court found that the regional trial court shirked its duty by deferring the trial to await an order from the intestate court, rather than determining if co-ownership existed. It also found that the intestate court overstepped its jurisdiction in denying the motion for partition, as the issue involved determining ownership rather than settling an estate. The Supreme Court ordered the regional trial court to resume trial to determine ownership and whether partition is proper.

    Original Description:

    remedial Law

    Original Title

    Ignacio vs Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting the respondents' petition for partition of properties allegedly co-owned by the petitioner and respondents. The Court found that the regional trial court shirked its duty by deferring the trial to await an order from the intestate court, rather than determining if co-ownership existed. It also found that the intestate court overstepped its jurisdiction in denying the motion for partition, as the issue involved determining ownership rather than settling an estate. The Supreme Court ordered the regional trial court to resume trial to determine ownership and whether partition is proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    985 views1 page

    Ignacio Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting the respondents' petition for partition of properties allegedly co-owned by the petitioner and respondents. The Court found that the regional trial court shirked its duty by deferring the trial to await an order from the intestate court, rather than determining if co-ownership existed. It also found that the intestate court overstepped its jurisdiction in denying the motion for partition, as the issue involved determining ownership rather than settling an estate. The Supreme Court ordered the regional trial court to resume trial to determine ownership and whether partition is proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    50 Ignacio v.

    Reyes subject properties since its jurisdiction relates only to matters having to do
    G.R. No. 213192 | July 12, 2017 with the settlement of the estate of deceased persons.
    Peralta, J.
     An action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is typically brought
    Topic: Partition by a person claiming to be the owner of a specified property against a
    Petitioner: Teresa Ignacio defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners,
    Respondent: Ramon Reyes, Florencio Reyes Jr., Rosario Du, and Carmelita Pastor and is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between
    the parties.
    DOCTRINE: There must be first a 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  In this regard, the RTC shirked from its duty when it deferred the trial to await
    may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. a request order from the intestate court regarding the possible distribution. In
    fact, it has not yet made a definite ruling on the existence of co-ownership.
    FACTS: There was no declaration of entitlement to the desired partition either because
     Angel Reyes and Oliva R. Arevalo filed before the then CFI of Rizal (now RTC a co-ownership exists or a partition is not legally prohibited. As this Court is
    of Pasig City, intestate court) a Petition for Letters of Administration of the not a trier of facts, it is for the trial court to proceed and determine once and
    Estate of their father Florencio Sr. for all if there is co-ownership and to partition the subject properties if there
     Thereafter, Teresa became the administratrix of the Florencio Sr. estate. is no legal prohibition. It is also best for the Baguio RTC to settle whether the
    Teresa executed several lease contracts over properties in Baguio City. respondents are claiming ownership over the properties by virtue of their title
     Herein respondents filed before the RTC three complaints for partition, adverse to that of their late father and his estate and not by any right of
    annulment of lease contract, accounting and damages with prayer for the inheritance.
    issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Teresa and the lessees of
    the subject Baguio properties. They alleged in their Complaints that, with the
    exception of the lessees, the parties and the Florencio Sr. estate own one-tenth
    (1/10) of each of the Session Road, Loakan and Military Cut-off, and Magsaysay
    properties. They claimed that Teresa misrepresented that the Florencio Sr.
    estate is the sole owner of the properties and leased the same to the other
    parties without their conformity. They also asserted in one of their complaints
    that the Florencio Sr. estate is different from the Heirs of Florencio Sr. and
    Heirs of Salud.
     They averred that, as co-owners, they have not received their share in the
    monthly rentals of the properties aforementioned.
     RTC – manifested that it shall await a Request Order from the intestate court
    regarding the possible distribution of the subject properties.
     Intestate Court – denied respondent’s motion
     CA – annulled order of intestate court. Granted respondent’s petition for
    partition.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in its decision? NO.

    HELD: Petition denied. CA affirmed with modification to resume trial to determine the
    question of ownership and if partition is proper.

     Respondents presented certificates of title of the properties registered under


    their names and the Florencio Sr. estate, and their respective shares. As such,
    they are considered the owners of the properties until their title is nullified or
    modified in an appropriate ordinary action. The co-ownership of the said
    properties by virtue of the certificates of title is a common issue in the
    complaints for partition led before the Baguio RTC. Thus, the intestate court
    committed grave abuse of discretion when it asserted jurisdiction over the

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy