1. File a partition case first then ejectment case or the other way around?

In the facts of the case of FELIPA GARBIN vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS [FORMER TENTH
DIVISION] 
and SPOUSES ANTONIO JULIAN and CASIMIRA GARBIN, G. R. No. 107653, February 5,
1996.  Chanrobles.com

On March 1, 1982, before judgment could become final in the ejectment case, private
respondents filed a complaint for annulment of sale, partition and damages with the Regional
Trial Court of Tarlac. The issue presented therein was whether or not private respondents, as the
alleged first vendees in a double sale [who annotated the same as an adverse claim on the
covering title], have a superior right over petitioner, the subsequent vendee [who received a
transfer certificate of title for the entire lot despite prior inscription of the adverse claim]………

Xxx to avoid multiplicity of suits; the plaintiffs-appellants and defendant-appellee are hereby
given thirty [30] days from finality of this disposition, to submit to the trial court of origin a
scheme of partition for subject lot on the basis of their undivided co-ownership of seven-twelfth
[7/12] and five-twelfth [5/12], respectively; otherwise, pursuant to Rule 69, Revised Rules of
Court, the lower court shall by order appoint not more than three [3] competent and disinterested
commissioners to effect the partition in accordance herewith.

_______________________________________________________________________

One who holds property in common and pro indiviso with others has a perfect right to have a
division made of the same. No hindrance to the exercise and effectiveness of this right can lie in
any conveyances made of various portion of the property by some of the cotenants thereof in
favor of other persons, for the law, besides granting these latter the right to a voice in the division
of the thing owned in common and to object to any division made without their concurrence,
considers them, in an action for the partition of real estate, as subrogated to the rights of the
vendors in the portion of the property in their possession. (Arts. 399, 400, 403, and 1051, Civil
Code; sec. 762, Code of Civil Procedure.) (Dancel vs. Dancel, 29 Phil., 25.)

. . . It has been held that under a statute providing that during the pendency of any partition suit
any person claiming to be interested in the premises may appear and assert his right, the right to
intervene is given to all persons claiming an interest in the land, whether under the common title
sought to be partitioned or by title independent thereof. But even under statutes allowing the
adjudication of the rights and interests of the parties to a bona fide partition suit, an action for
partition cannot be used as a substitute for the action of ejectment nor for the sole purpose of
testing a legal title. (Ruling Case Law, vol. 20, p. 730, paragraph 12.) lawphil.net