G.R. No. 147148 - Goyena vs. Ledesma-Gustilo

The case involves petitioners—Felicidad Dadizon, Iluminada B. Murgia, Perla B. Matiga, Dominador M. Bernadas, Cirilo B. Delis, and heirs of Marcelino Bernadas (i.e., Fe Bernadas-Picardal and Carmelito Bernadas)—and respondents—Socorro Bernadas (substituted by Jeanette B. Alfajardo), Fely Bernadas, Juliet Bernadas, Godofredo Bernadas, Jr., and Sofia C. Bernadas.
The dispute arises from the estate left by the late Diosdado Bernadas, Sr. who died intestate on February 1, 1977, leaving co-owned agricultural and residential properties in Naval, Biliran, shared with his then-surviving spouse, Eustaquia Bernadas (who died on May 26, 2000).

On May 14, 1999, respondents filed a Complaint to compel the partition of the one-half conjugal share of the properties, alleging that petitioner Felicidad Dadizon maintained possession and refused partition.
In response, petitioners claimed that the extrajudicial partition deed dated February 24, 1996—sought to be enforced by respondents—had been revoked by a subsequent Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999. They also asserted that certain parcels of land had already been disposed of or partitioned.

Following initial negotiations, on June 13, 2000, both parties indicated they were in ongoing discussions to finalize an extrajudicial partition in light of their mother’s death.
During a later hearing on November 15, 2000, respondents’ counsel requested a postponement to secure additional signatures for a compromise agreement.
On January 30, 2001, respondents filed a Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, which was subsequently discussed on February 6, 2001, with the RTC ordering petitioners to comment within 15 days—a comment that was never filed.
The RTC, in multiple orders (notably on March 22, 2001, and reiterated on May 31, 2001), directed both parties to submit a signed and agreed extrajudicial partition for final approval.
On July 16, 2001, respondents submitted several documents including:

The Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000;
The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996; and
The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated August 1, 1997 (covering a parcel with Tax Declaration No. 00181).

The RTC approved the Project of Partition on July 23, 2001. Petitioners later filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in the RTC’s Order dated September 5, 2001.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s Order on December 7, 2005, and dismissed subsequent motions for reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 15, 2006.

Respondent Sofia C. Bernadas raised the issue that not all indispensable parties from the original case (Civil Case No. B-1066) appeared in the present appeal.
The Supreme Court clarified that while implementing all indispensable parties is required in an original action, it is not mandatory in an appeal, and that reversal of a judgment on appeal is binding only on the parties involved, except where interests are so interwoven as to be inseparable.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s Order, particularly in approving a Project of Partition that was filed solely by the respondents’ counsel without the signatures of all the parties and without the required participation of petitioners.
Whether the RTC should have, pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, ordered the appointment of commissioners to effect the partition because the parties failed to agree on a signed project.
Whether the procedural issue raised by respondent Sofia C. Bernadas regarding the joinder of all indispensable parties in the original proceedings affects the validity of the appeal.