Facts:

The case at hand, Balo v. Court of Appeals, was adjudicated by the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 30, 2005, under G.R. No. 129704. The petitioner respondents are 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. The respondent is the Honorable Court of Appeals presided over by Judge Enrique Asis alongside private respondent Josefina Garrido. This dispute arises from a complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Properties and Accounting with Damages, filed by private respondent Josefina Garrido against the petitioners at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog, Leyte.

The complaint contends that the petitioners and the private respondent jointly own undivided parcels of land located in Mayorga, Leyte, which originally belonged to the deceased spouses Eugenio Balo, Sr. and Ma. Pasagui-Balo. These spouses had two children: Ulpiano

...

Facts:

Parties and Property Background

• The complaint was filed by private respondent Josefina Garrido, who is the daughter of the late Maximino Balo and Salvacion Sabulao.
• The petitioners are 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 – all members of the Balo family and direct heirs or descendants.
• The subject matter involves undivided parcels of land located at Mayorga, Leyte, originally owned by the spouses Eugenio Balo, Sr. and Ma. Pasagui-Balo, who were married and are now deceased.
• Inheritance of the properties was apportioned between the two children of the deceased couple, namely Ulpiano, Sr. and Maximino; with Maximino having been deceased prior to the filing of the complaint.

Allegations and Claims

• Josefina Garrido asserted that upon the death of her grandfather Eugenio Balo, Sr., the petitioners took possession of the properties without her knowledge or consent.
• She requested an equitable partition of the properties, invoking her right under Article 982 of the Civil Code, which provides that the grandchildren may inherit by right of representation.
• The complaint detailed that the petitioners, being her uncles and cousins, refused to divide the estate fairly, leaving her with no recourse but to seek judicial intervention.
• The complaint included the annexation of 13 tax declarations (labeled from “A” to “M”) to support the ownership and extent of the estates.

Procedural History and Pre-Trial Proceedings

• A complaint for judicial partition and accounting was originally filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog, Leyte, Branch 10.
• Petitioners opposed the complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss on several grounds, including:
• Alleged failure of the private respondent to state a cause of action properly by not alleging her legitimacy as required under Article 992 of the Civil Code.
• Contentions that allowing her to inherit from the estate would result in intestate succession by an illegitimate child, assuming she was indeed the daughter of Maximino Balo.
• Assertions regarding unsettled estate obligations and the fact that the properties had been acquired through execution and subsequently repurchased by Ulpiano Balo.
• The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on 12 September 1996, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the existence of co-ownership and that any doubts on factual matters would be resolved at trial.
• Petitioners sought reconsideration at the RTC and later filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on the basis that an interlocutory order (such as a denial of a Motion to Dismiss) is not ordinarily reviewable unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• Subsequent motions for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals were also denied, leading to the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, wherein petitioners raised two main grounds regarding the sufficiency of the complaint and the purported prescription, waiver, or abandonment of the action.

Issue:

Sufficiency of the Complaint

• Whether the failure of the private respondent to allege the precise nature and extent of her title in the petition for partition is fatal to her cause of action, particularly when issues of legitimacy are raised.

Timeliness and Status of the Action

• Whether the action for judicial partition and accounting has prescribed, been waived, or otherwise abandoned, based on the petitioners’ arguments.

Appropriateness of Reviewing an Interlocutory Denial

• Whether the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, an interlocutory order, can be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari absent an overt showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)