JULIAN REYES, ET AL.
REYES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellant, The right to bring such action or to ask at any time for the division of the common
vs.
FRANCISCA CORDERO, MARIA CORDERO, and AMANDO GATMAITAN, defendants-
appellees.
G.R. No. L-14242, September 20, 1920, EN BANC
ARAULLO, J.:
NATURE: Action for partition
FACTS: The plaintiffs alleged that they and the defendants were the descendants of
the owner of said parcel of land, Leon Alfaro, who died long ago; that upon his death,
one of his daughter, Felipa Alfaro, now deceased, mother of the defendants,
succeeded him in the possession thereof; and that said land was still undivided
property of the heirs. It was also alleged in the complaint that the other defendant,
Amando Gatmaitan, was made a party because he was in possession of said land,
claiming a supposed interest adverse to that to the plaintiffs.
To the complaint a demurrer was presented by the defendant Amando Gatmaitan
on the grounds of misjoinder of parties in that he was made a party defendant and
that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action as to him. After hearing,
the court sustained the demurrer, to which order the plaintiff excepted.
The plaintiffs not having amended their complaint within the time fixed by the rules
of court, the court dismissed the case as to Amando Gatmaitan, to which action of
the lower court the plaintiffs also excepted and brought the case to this court on
appeal by bill of exceptions.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant Amando Gatmaitan, who is neither a descendant of
the deceased Leon Alfaro, nor a coheir or coowner of the plaintiffs and the other two
defendant, as to the land described in the complaint, may be made a party to the
suit for partition instituted by the plaintiffs, or, in other words, whether his joinder
as a party defendant was proper.
HELD: The demurrer filed by said defendant to the complaint was correctly sustained
and the plaintiffs not having amended it within the time fixed by the rules of court,
the dismissal thereof as to said defendant was proper.
RATIO: An action for partition of real property, as the name itself clearly suggests, is
a judicial controversy between persons, who, being coowners or coparceners
thereof, seek to secure a division or partition among them of the common property,
giving to each one the part corresponding to him.
property belongs solely to a coowner or coparcener (art. 400, Civil Code, and section
181, Code of Civil Procedure). The action for partition of real property cannot
therefore be instituted except by the coowners or coparceners of said property, and
cannot be maintained against persons who are not such, because in an action for
partition of such property it is an indispensable requisite that there should be
common ownership of the thing and that the parties, plaintiffs and defendants,
should be coowners of coparceners.
The appellants admit in their brief that it is not alleged in the complaint that the
defendant Amando Gatmaitan is made a party for the reason that he is owner or
possessor of the property in that capacity; and they state that, as it has been alleged
therein that he is possession of the land and claims a supposed interest opposed to
that of the plaintiff, these facts are matters of proof, the burden of which is upon the
plaintiffs.
Had it been alleged that the possession of the defendant was in the capacity of
coowner with the plaintiffs or that his interest opposed to that of the latter consists
in his having been subrogated by assignment, sale, or other mode of transferring
ownership, to the proprietary right which any of the other defendants had in the
property in question, then the joinder of the defendant Gatmaitan as such would
have been proper, inasmuch as every coowner has the absolute right to his part and
consequently may alienate, assign, or mortgage it and even substitute another in its
enjoyment, the effect of the alienation being of course limited to the part which may
be adjudicated to him upon the division of the thing in common (art. 399, Civ. Code).
Said defendant, as coowner and coparcener, as to a part of the property, would have
the right to be a party to the partition proceeding, and, in such case, if he is not
joined as defendant, he could intervene. This is the reason why it is provided in
section 183 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the complaint in partition proceedings
should, besides stating the nature of the title of the plaintiff and describing the real
property sought to be partitioned, also name as defendant every tenant in common,
coheir or other person interested in said property. But he could by no means be
joined in the complaint as defendant, with the right to prove his common ownership
with the plaintiffs and the other two defendants or his corresponding right to the
property, because this would amount to converting the partition proceeding into
another proceeding for ejectment or unlawful entry against said defendant; and it
would serve as a means by which the plaintiffs could investigate the right or interest
which the defendant Gatmaitan claim to possess in the property which is the subject-
matter of the complaint for partition.
Nevertheless it is indisputable that when the property which is yet undivided among
various coowners has been usurped or is in the possession of a third person who
claims a title opposed to that of the former, the common owners thereof may
recover it in a proper proceeding, for, as the supreme court of Spain has held in its
decision of April 6, 1896 (79 Jur. Civ., 641), "Any coowner of an undivided property
may bring an action to recover it for the benefit of all." This once more shows that a
person cannot be joined as defendant, who does not a possess the property as
coowner or joint owner, but by virtue of a title the nature of which is unknown but
opposed to those seeking partition thereof as coowners, or who possesses the same
under a claim of interest opposed to the latter. A person who like the defendant,
Amando Gatmaitan, is in this situation, may be sued in another proceeding, but not
in a proceeding for partition.