VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R.

Section JD-E CIVPRO

80. RULE 69 Spouses Butiong and Villafria vs. Plazo and Alaras, August 5, 2015

Facts:
Pedro Rinoza left his children and first wife, respondents. Pedro also left several properties
including a resort and a family home both located in Batangas. The respondent filed a judicial partition
with annulment of title and recovery of possession was filed since the subject properties was sold
without their consent. Later, respondents learned about a notice of an extra-judicial settlement of
estate of their father was published in a tabloid.

Petitioner Francisco contended that what they purchased was only the resort and presented a
extrajudicial settlement with renunciation, repudiations and waiver of rights and sale which provides
that respondents’ co heirs sold the family home to a certain spouses Bondoc as well as a Deed of Sale
whereby Benita sold the resort to petitioners. RTC nullified the transfer of the subject properties to the
petitioners and Sps. Bondoc. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC. Hence the case before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the complaint was one for settlement of estate and not of judicial partition.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that it is true that some of respondents' causes of action
pertaining to the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and
extent of their interests thereon, may fall under an action for settlement of estate. However, a complete
reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations
therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title
and recovery of possession.

Under Section 1 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides that a person having the right to
compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the
nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is
demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property. Hence, the Supreme
Court denied the petition.