Facts:

The case, G.R. No. 160918, involves Concepcion B. Alcantara, now represented by her son Dr. Antonio B. Alcantara as the petitioner, against Hilaria Roble de Templa and other respondents who are the heirs of the late Jesusa Booc, as well as the heirs of Candelario Booc and Columba Booc. This petition for review was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the 13 November 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court on 15 December 1997. The litigation roots back to a dispute over the partition of five parcels of land in Lapu-Lapu City, inherited by the siblings Jesusa, Candelario, Columba, Gervasio, and Concepcion.

Concepcion had overseen the properties located in Lapu-Lapu City, with Lot No. 2464 being particularly significant as it consisted of 2,017 square meters, with portions expropriated by the State. The inheritance and subsequent sales included transfers of parts of these lots to various individuals, i

...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural History

• The case involves the heirs of five siblings – Jesusa Booc, Candelario Booc, Columba Booc, Gervasio Booc, and Concepcion Booc – who inherited five parcels of land (referred to as Lots 1 to 5) in Lapu-Lapu City.
• Concepcion Booc Alcantara, initially a co-owner and overseer of the properties, later became involved in various conveyances of her share, and upon her demise, her son, Dr. Antonio B. Alcantara, substituted her as petitioner.
• The dispute arose from a complaint for partition filed by the heirs, countered by defenses alleging that only certain parcels were available for partition, issues of waiver, and claims of prescription and laches.
• The case proceeded first in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Lapu-Lapu City, where a decision was rendered on December 15, 1997. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals modified and affirmed the RTC decision on November 13, 2003.
• Antonio Alcantara, representing his late mother’s interests, petitioned for review under Rule 45 challenging the appellate ruling.

Description of the Properties

• Lot 1
• Initially covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-0571 in the names of all five siblings.
• Composed of 2,017 square meters, with 1,575 sq.m. expropriated by the State and later sold, leaving 442 sq.m. under TCT No. 7849.
• Subsequently, parts of Lot 1 were conveyed: 62 sq.m. sold by Gervasio to Marienela Rama; 124 sq.m. sold by the heirs of Jesusa and Columba to Antonio del Prado; and 127 sq.m. sold by Concepcion to Antonio del Prado.

Development of the Litigation

• At the RTC level, the court found that:
• The partition action had not prescribed, as a co-owner may demand partition at any time.
• Only the portions of the properties unencumbered by prior conveyances or expropriation were available for partition.
• Specific defenses regarding waiver, prescription, and laches were rejected as unsupported and speculative.
• While the case was pending, the death of Concepcion necessitated the substitution of her son, Antonio Alcantara, as petitioner, who further contended that:
• The evidentiary "exhibits 1 to 5" should be given full weight.
• There was no falsification committed by Concepcion in the issuance of documents.
• He was a bona fide purchaser.
• There was no genuine issue of co-ownership as previously alleged.
• The Court of Appeals, in its decision, reaffirmed and modified the RTC’s ruling by:
• Adjusting the portions available for partition in Lot 1 to a remaining 129 sq.m. after considering prior sales.
• Upholding that Parcel II (Lot 2) and Parcel V (Lot 5) be partitioned according to the extrajudicial settlement manifest in Exhibit “5”.
• Declaring certain subsequent conveyances and waivers (particularly in Lot 1 and Lot 4) void due to deficiencies in procedure and the lack of valid documentation encompassing all co-owners.

Issue:

Legal and Factual Issues on Partition

• Whether an action for partition, as a remedy available to any co-owner, is imprescriptible and immune to the doctrine of laches or acquisitive prescription.
• Whether the evidentiary documents (notably, "exhibits 1 to 5") should be accorded full faith and credit, particularly concerning their implications on the validity of subsequent conveyances and partition agreements.
• Whether the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 7849, which excluded Candelario Booc despite his status as a co-owner under the original OCT, was lawful and justified.
• Whether the subsequent extrajudicial partition, waivers, and alleged sales (including the deed of sale over Lot 2 and the partition in Lot 4) were valid and binding upon all co-owners, especially when not all parties purportedly assented or executed the necessary waivers.
• Whether the petition for review under Rule 45, which challenges questions that involve the assessment of factual evidence, is properly maintainable given that the petition must be confined to questions of law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)