Case Digest (G.R. No. 129704)
Facts:
Ulpiano Balo, Lydia Balo‑Lumpas, Eugenio Balo, Ulpiano Balo, Jr., Nida Balo‑Moraleta, Nora Balo‑Catano, Zaida Balo, Judith Balo‑Mandreza, Danilo Balo and Ronilo Balo v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Enrique Asis and Josefina Garrido, G.R. No. 129704, September 30, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Josefina Garrido filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Properties and Accounting with Damages (Civil Case No. 279) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog, Leyte, Branch 10, alleging co‑ownership with petitioners as heirs of the late spouses Eugenio Balo, Sr. and Ma. Pasagui‑Balo. She pleaded that the spouses left two children, Ulpiano, Sr. and Maximino (the latter deceased), that she is Maximino’s daughter, and that the petitioners are Ulpiano’s children; she claimed the defendants took possession of the properties after Eugenio Sr.’s death and refused her proposals for amicable partition.
Instead of an answer, petitioners moved to dismiss on grounds including failure to state a cause of action because the complaint did not allege the plaintiff’s legitimacy (invoking Art. 992, Civil Code), absence of settlement of the decedents’ estate, prior execution and repurchase of the properties, and adverse possession by petitioners. Private respondent opposed the motion.
On 12 September 1996, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint adequately alleged the essential facts for partition and that a motion to dismiss tests sufficiency, not veracity, of allegations; the RTC denied reconsideration on 7 November 1996. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 42803), which, in a resolution dated 16 April 1997, dismissed the certiorari petition as improperly seeking interlocutory review of the denial of a motion to dismiss; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 30 June 1997.
Petitioners then filed this petition for review under Rule 45, challenging (1) whether failure to allege the nature and extent of plaintiff’s title was fatal to the partition cause of action and (2) whether the action had prescribed, been waived, or abandoned. The Court of Appeals relied on the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari challenging the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss without determining whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the Complaint for judicial partition fail to state a cause of action because it did not allege the plaintiff’s legitimacy or the precise nature and extent of her title?
- Could petitioners properly raise prescription, waiver, or abandonment in a motion to dismiss when such matters a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)