G.R. No. 232437 - De Vera vs. Manzanero

Petitioners Mario T. De Vera, Florence De Vera Sanicolas, Teresita T. De Vera, Purisima De Vera Estrada, Lourdes T. De Vera, and Rosalida De Vera Pascua (also as attorney-in-fact of the co-petitioners) are the surviving children of Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr.
Bernardo acquired from the National Housing Authority (NHA) a residential property located at Block 1-C, Lot 13, Avocado corner Durian Street, CAA, Las Piñas City.
Bernardo died in 1993 without completing payment for the property.

On September 9, 1995, respondent Virgilio Manzanero, then Barangay Chairman of Barangay CAA, forcibly took possession of the property with twenty (20) men, demolished existing structures, and dispossessed petitioners.
Virgilio justified possession on the strength of an alleged waiver of rights executed by petitioners’ mother Emelie Moreno Vda. De Vera.
Petitioners initially endured threats and intimidation but eventually filed:

Complaint for destruction of property (January 6, 2000) with the Southern Police District.
Complaint for harassment, forgery, destruction to private property (May 13, 2001) with the Commission on Human Rights.
Charges with Barangay CAA in May 2009.

On August 28, 2012, petitioners received a Final Demand of Settlement of Account from NHA addressed to Bernardo to settle the outstanding balance.
On December 26, 2013, petitioner Rosalinda paid the outstanding purchase balance.

On June 19, 2014, petitioners filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas (Civil Case No. 14-0061), praying that respondents and all persons claiming rights under them be ordered to vacate and return possession of the property.
Respondents answered:

Claimed the entire property was sold by Emelie to Virgilio Manzanero on April 20, 1994, attaching an Affidavit of Waiver executed by Emelie allegedly transferring rights to Florentino A. Manzanero.
Moved to dismiss on ground of non-compliance with Barangay conciliation requirement (Section 412, Local Government Code).

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and subsequent motions for reconsideration.

Petitioners filed formal offer of evidence.
Respondents attempted to file a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and present evidence, both denied by the RTC.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on February 15, 2016, ruling that petitioners’ appropriate remedy was to initiate an action for judicial partition, not recovery of possession, reasoning as follows:

Bernardo’s heirs (petitioners and Emelie) are co-owners of the property by inheritance and their rights are governed by Article 493 of the Civil Code.
Emelie’s sale of her undivided share to Virgilio, while irregular in notarization, is presumed valid as it concerned her undivided share only.
Co-owners cannot claim specific portions before partition; hence, right of possession is undivided.
Petitioners’ complaints were premature as possession and ownership cannot be adjudicated without partition.

Petitioners and Emelie are co-owners having inherited the property upon Bernardo’s death.
Without an actual partition by agreement or judicial decree, petitioners cannot claim title to specific portions.
Action for judicial partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to resolve co-ownership disputes.
Question of validity of respondents’ acquisition of Emelie’s share can be resolved in partition case.

Petitioners filed for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its June 16, 2017 Resolution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the proper remedy is to file an action for partition.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents validly possessed the subject property.