You are on page 1of 2

ROQUE VS.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
No. L-75886. August 30, 1988.

FACTS:
Petitioner Concepcion Roque seeks for partition for a parcel of land sold unto her
by her half brother Ernesto and Victor Roque which is ¾ share of Lot 1549
evidenced by a “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan” dated November 27, 1961 but the
said document is unnotarized.

The remaining ¼ portion is being owned by Ernesto and Victor Roque from an
extrajudicial partition.

Upon the subdivision plan conducted by a Geodetic Engineer, Respondents
Ernesto Roque and heirs of Victor Roque refused to acknowledge the petitoner’s
claim of ownership and rejected the plan to divide the land.

Petitioner Concepcion Roque filed a Complaint for Partition with Specific
Performance at CFI Malolos claiming the legal ownership of ¾ portion of Lot
1549 by virtue of Bilihang Lubos at Panuluyan. She alleged that, as co-owner of
Lot 1549, she had a right to seek partition of the property, that she could not be
compelled to remain ion the co-ownership of the same.

Respondent impugned the geniuneness of the documents and that the
signatures do not appear authentic of the supposed signatures. Respondents
also refused to honor the unnotarized Kasulatan.

CFI ruled in favor of Concepcion Roque.

IAC reversed the judgment of the RTC and denied the petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.

IAC stated in its decision that an action for partition will not prosper as such from
the moment an alleged co-owner asserts an adverse title. The action that may be
brought by an aggrieved co-owner is accion reivindicatoria or action for recovery
of title and possession. Should the reinvidicatory action to prosper, a co-
ownership relation is found to have existed between the parties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Petitioner is a co-owner of the property sought to be
partitioned.

HELD:

Petitioner Concepcion Roque. the court may and should order the partition of the property in the same action. co-ownership of the property had continued to be recognized by all the owners. had been in continuous occupancy of the ¾ portion of Lot 1549. The action for partition of the thing owned in common does not prescribe. following execution of the “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan whereon the petitioner’s house and her sons are erected. . each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common. The court notes in this respect the finding of the trial court that petitioner. insofar as his share is concerned. CONCLUSION: If he court after trial should find the existence of co-ownership among the parties- litigant.Petitioner Concepcion Roque is a co-owner of Lot 1549 and therefore entitled to the ¾ portion of the said land. Prior to filing of the parties involved had asserted or manifested a claim of absolute and exclusive ownership ove the whole Lot 1549 thus. the co-owner seeking partition has been and is presently in open and continuous possession of the ¾ portion of the property owned in common. ANALYSIS: Under Art 494 for the Civil Code. The Supreme Court reinstated the decisionof CFI Malolos.