CASE TITLE FACTS
RULE 69 – Partition
Balus vs. Balus Siblings
- Co-ownership
- Subject property purchased by the bank, failed to
redeem
petitioner and respondents executed an Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each of them a
specific one-third portion of the subject property
Respondents bought back the property
Meanwhile, petitioner continued possession of the
subject lot.
Respondents filed complaint for Recovery of
Possession and Damages; they were the new owners
of the disputed property, but the petitioner still
refused to surrender possession
RTC
ordering the respondents to execute a Deed of Sale in
favor of the plaintiff, the one-third share of the
property in question presently possessed by him
CA
Reversed; ordered petitioner to immediately
surrender possession of the subject property to the
respondents.
When petitioner and respondents did not redeem;
their co-ownership was extinguished.
Feliciano v Leona, Maria, Pedro, Salina = extra jud settlement of Whether the CA erred No.
Canoza estate of father Antonio
- Prescription,
4 years Excluded Esteban and Doroteo, deceased
Deed of absulote sale in favor of
Jacinto – Pedro
Felisa – salina
Pedro canoza – Leona and maria
Jacinto and canoza applied for free patent
ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
Whether co-ownership No. Partition calls for the segregation
exists and conveyance of a determinate
Petitioner and respondents are arguing on the wrong portion of the property owned in
premise that, at the time of the execution of the common. It seeks a severance of
Extrajudicial Settlement, the subject property formed the individual interests of each
part of the estate of their deceased father to which they co-owner, vesting in each of them
may lay claim as his heirs. a sole estate in a specific property
and giving each one a right to
There is no question that the Bank acquired exclusive
enjoy his estate without
ownership of the contested lot during the lifetime of
supervision or interference from
Rufo.
the other.
In the present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the
In other words, the purpose of
subject property during his lifetime, it only follows that
partition is to put an end to co-
at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no
ownership, an objective which
longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may
negates petitioner's claims in the
lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents
present case.
never inherited the subject lot from their father.
Petitioner and respondents, therefore, were wrong in
assuming that they became co-owners of the subject
lot. Thus, any issue arising from the supposed right of
petitioner as co-owner of the contested parcel of land is
negated by the fact that, in the eyes of the law, the
disputed lot did not pass into the hands of petitioner
and respondents as compulsory heirs of Rufo at any
given point in time.
a plain reading of the provisions of the Extrajudicial
Settlement would not, in any way, support petitioner's
contention that it was his and his sibling's intention to
buy the subject property from the Bank and continue
what they believed to be co-ownership thereof.
in reversing the trial
court's decision due to Petitioners argue that the CA erroneously treated the
prescription (4 years) action they filed at the trial court as one (1) for
annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and applied
the four (4)-year prescriptive period in dismissing the
same. They contend that the action they filed was one
(1) for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles,
Recovery of Real Property and Damages, and as such,
their action was imprescriptible pursuant to Article
1410 of the Civil Code.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE

Heirs of Esteban and doroteo filed a complaint against Undeniably, the said deed was fraudulently obtained as
salina, Felisa, heirs of jacinto, for declaration of nullity it deprived the known heirs of Doroteo and Esteban of
of documents of title and recovery of property = their shares in the estate. A deed of extrajudicial
settlement was done w/o their participation partition executed without including some of the heirs,
who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is
Canoza: buyer in good faith fraudulent and vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside
Othe respondents: same on the ground of fraud could be instituted. Such action
Others: in default for the annulment of the said partition, however, must
be brought within four (4) years from the discovery of
RTC
the fraud.
Renderned decision in favor of plaintiffs
x-jud settlement was null and void The records show that petitioners' complaint was filed
sale of property null and void only on October 18, 1993, or almost sixteen (16) years
after Jacinto Feliciano was issued Free Patent No. (IV-4)
CA
012293 on November 28, 1977, and almost fourteen
Reversed. Prescription of 4 years to annul (discovery
(14) years from the time Pedro Canoza was issued OCT
of fraud) x-jud settlement already set in
No. P-364 on November 28, 1979. As petitioners are
deemed to have obtained constructive notice of the
fraud upon the registration of the Free Patent, they
clearly failed to institute the present civil action within
the allowable period.
Mangahas v Illegitimate child, waiver Whether Court of Yes. An action for partition implies that
Brobio Appeals erred when it the property is still owned in
RTC stated that petitioner An action for partition implies that the property is still common. Considering that the
Granted the petition should have filed [an owned in common. Considering that the heirs had heirs had already executed a deed
action] for partition already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of extrajudicial settlement and
instead of a case for and waived their shares in favor of respondent, the waived their shares in favor of
CA specific performance. properties are no longer under a state of co- respondent, the properties are no
CA reversed, if disagreed, should have filed for ownership; there is nothing more to be partitioned, as longer under a state of co-
partition instead ownership had already been merged in one person. ownership; there is nothing more
to be partitioned, as ownership
Contrary to the CAs findings, the situation did not had already been merged in one
amount to intimidation that vitiated consent. person.

We join the RTC in holding that courts will not set aside
contracts merely because solicitation, importunity,
argument, persuasion, or appeal to affection was used
to obtain the consent of the other party. Influence
obtained by persuasion or argument or by appeal to
affection is not prohibited either in law or morals and is
not obnoxious even in courts of equity
Vda. De All heirs of Leandro Figuracion Whether CA erred in In a contract of sale of co-owned
Figuracion vs. holding that Emilia property, what the vendee obtains
 CASE TITLE FACTS
Figuracion- Carolina – surviving spouse
Gerilla Heirs of elena - C
Heirs of Hilaria -
- Acquisitive Heirs of quintin - C
prescription
v.
Emilia
Involves 2 parcels of land in Urdaneta, Pangasinan
owned (lots 2299 and 705) by Leandro. Leandro
executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of his children,
but shares were not delineated with particularity.
Also, lot 707 in Urdaneta, Pangasinan owned by
Adviento, carolina’s father (carolina’s mother was
second wife). Agripina is half-sister, from first
marriage
Nov 1961, Agripina executed a deed of quitclaim over
the eastern half of the lot to Emilia (niece).
Dec 1961, Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication adjudicating unto herself the entire Lot
No. 707 as the sole and exclusive heir of her deceased
parents, Eulalio and Faustina. On the same date,
Carolina also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over
Lot No. 707 in favor of petitioners Hilaria and Felipa,
who in turn immediately caused the cancellation of
OCT No. 15867 and the issuance of TCT No. 42244 in
their names.
In 1971, Emilia and her family went to the United
States and returned to the Philippines only in 1981.
Upon her return and relying on the Deed of Quitclaim,
she built a house on the eastern half of Lot No. 707.
In 1994 when Hilaria and her agents threatened to
demolish the house of Emilia who, in retaliation, was
prompted to seek the partition of Lot No. 707 as well
as Lot Nos. 2299 and 705.
RTC
Dismissed Emilia’s petition for partition
Annulled affidavit of self- adjudication of Carolina
ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
may compel partition by virtue of such a sale are the
of Lot 707 The petitioners argue that respondent Emilia has no same rights as the vendor had as
valid basis for her claim of ownership because the Deed co-owner, and the vendee merely
of Quitclaim executed in her favor by Agripina was in steps into the shoes of the vendor
fact a deed of donation that contained no acceptance as co-owner.
and thus, void.
Co-heirs or co-owners cannot
They further aver that the Deed of Quitclaim is riddled acquire by acquisitive prescription
with defects that evoke questions of law the share of the other co-heirs or
co-owners absent a clear
Issues not raised before the courts a quo cannot be repudiation of the co ownership.
raised for the first time in a petition filed under Rule 45
A trustee who obtains a Torrens
title over a property held in trust
The respondent can compel the partition of Lot No. 707 for him by another cannot
repudiate the trust by relying on
Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens the registration.
system does not mean that ownership thereof can no
longer be disputed. The certificate cannot always be
considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.37In
this case, co-ownership of Lot No. 707 was precisely
what respondent Emilia was able to successfully
establish, as correctly found by the RTC and affirmed by
the CA.
The respondent’s right to demand for partition is not
barred by acquisitive prescription or laches
The petitioners failed to comply with these conditions.
The act of Hilaria and Felipa in effecting the registration
of the entire Lot No. 707 in their names thru TCT No.
42244 did not serve to effectively repudiate the co-
ownership. The respondent built her house on the
eastern portion of the lot in 1981 without any
opposition from the petitioners.
In addition, when Hilaria and Felipa registered the lot in
their names to the exclusion of Emilia, an implied trust
was created by force of law and the two of them were
considered a trustee of the respondent’s undivided
share. As trustees, they cannot be permitted to
repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.
Partition of Lot No. 707
 CASE TITLE FACTS
Partition is premature, shares must be determined in
an estate settlement proceeding
CA
Emilia appealed with CA
The proper action in such case is not the nullification
of the sale, or for the recovery of possession of the
property owned in common from the third person, but
for a division or partition of the entire lot.
CA, however, agreed with the RTC that a partition of
Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 is indeed premature.
Lot 707, ½ owned by Emilia; ¼ each to Hilaria and
Felipa
Agarrado vs. Rodrigo (father) was involved in an illicit affair with Whether CA erred in
Librando- respondent Cristita Librando-Agarrado (Cristita),
Agarrado
- Jurisdiction Eventually married Cristita
- Liberal
application on
Cristita filed for partition
the
determination RTC
of the ordered the parties to partition the subject property
assessed "among themselves by proper instruments of
value of the conveyance or any other means or method
property
CA
Dismissed; affirmed RTC’s decision with modification
Petitioners argue that the complaint must be
dismissed for the failure of the respondents to allege
the assessed value of the subject property. They said
that the appellate court failed to appreciate this
jurisdictional requirement, which was indispensable in
the determination of the jurisdiction of the RTC. They
further averred that the case should not have
proceeded in the first place.
CA glossed over this issue by saying that the action for
partition instituted by the respondents in the RTC is
ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
Consequently, Agripina is entitled to 5/8 portion of Lot
No. 707 while the remaining 3/8 pertains to Carolina.
Thus, when Carolina sold Lot No. 707 to Hilaria and
Felipa, the sale affected only 3/8 portion of the subject
lot. Since the Deed of Quitclaim, bequeathed only the ½
eastern portion of Lot No. 707 in favor of Emilia instead
of Agripina’s entire 5/8 share thereof, the remaining 1/8
portion shall be inherited by Agripina’s nearest
collateral relative,66 who, records show, is her sister
Carolina.
Yes. An action for partition of real
affirming RTC’s estate is at once an action for the
decision as regards the For actions on partition, the subject matter is two- determination of the co-owners of
partition of the phased. In Bagayas vs. Bagayas, the Court ruled that the subject property and an action
property. partition is at once an action (1) for declaration of co- for the eventual conveyance of
ownership and (2) for segregation and conveyance of a specific portions thereof to the co-
determinate portion of the properties involved. owners. While this subject matter
is incapable of pecuniary
Thus, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks,
estimation, the proper court
first, a declaration that he/she is a co-owner of the
which would have jurisdiction over
subject properties, and second, the conveyance of
the action would still depend on
his/her lawful share.
the subject property's assessed
values in accordance with Secs.
Considering that the respondents failed to allege in
19(2) and 33(3) of The Judiciary
their complaint the assessed value of the subject
property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended.
motion to dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the
RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the
RTC.
A reading of the quoted cases would reveal a pattern
which would invariably guide both the bench and the
bar in similar situations. Based on the foregoing, the
rule on determining the assessed value of a real
property, insofar as the identification of the
jurisdiction of the first and second level courts is
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RESOLUTION DOCTRINE
one incapable of pecuniary estimation, which would concerned, would be two-tiered:
thus confer jurisdiction over the case to the RTC.
First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined
by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in
the complaint; and

Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the

assessed value of the property, while not alleged in the
complaint, could still be identified through a facial
examination of the documents already attached to the
complaint.

*Agarado vs. Agarado –

*Jurisdiction over actions for partition is determined by the assessed value of the property. So partition now, may either be brought in the MTC or RTC depending on the assessed value. The
treshhold is now Php. 400,000. This is same with foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Be careful. This is foreclosure and not annulment of foreclose which is incapable of pecuniary estimation so
always RTC.