G.R. No. L-47360 - Fabrica vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves a dispute over the partition of two parcels of land, Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467, situated in Talisay, Cebu, which are part of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate.
The properties were originally owned by the deceased spouses Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres, who died without leaving a will, leaving behind six children who are the ancestors of the present parties.
The parties include a mixture of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these deceased spouses. One of the key figures is Pedro Bas, whose surviving widow, Petra Fabrica, is among the defendants, while several other family members and heirs are petitioners.

It was stipulated that apart from Petra Fabrica (the surviving spouse of Pedro Bas), all parties are direct descendants (grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren) of Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres.
The spouses originally owned eight parcels of land, with Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467 being the subject of dispute.
An oral partition was allegedly made during the lifetime of the heirs, with assertions that certain lots were allotted exclusively—namely, that Pedro Bas (and by extension his heirs) took possession of Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467, while another lot (Lot 2528) and other parcels were distributed among the other heirs.

The lots in controversy were sold on installment basis, with patents (TCT Nos. 17900 and 18122) issued in 1936 to the legal heirs of Catalino Bas, thereby creating records of conveyance.
Despite the issuance of these deeds, the matter of the oral partition has been contentious, with petitioners contending that the oral partition and subsequent possession by defendants should not negate the rights of some heirs.

The trial court was seized with a complaint for partition filed by the private respondents (plaintiffs) against the petitioners.
The primary dispute was to determine whether the ownership of Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467 remains in common pro-indiviso among all heirs or if the properties were exclusively allocated to Pedro Bas or his heirs through an oral partition.
The trial court rendered judgment declaring that the disputed lots remained held in common by the heirs of Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres, thereby ordering their partition among them and also awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs.

Petitioners (defendants in the lower court) raised several points of error, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the evidence regarding the oral partition and the deeds of conveyance.
They contested that the trial court erroneously concluded that the properties had not been partitioned and that the evidence should have supported that Pedro Bas was allotted Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467.
The respondents, through their evidence and testimony, maintained that the deeds of conveyance and the continuous physical possession by the defendants were sufficient to establish exclusive ownership.
The Court of Appeals, however, held that the lower court’s judgment was interlocutory as it merely granted partition and did not finally resolve the rights of the parties, prompting the remand of the case to the trial court.

Whether Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467, which are covered by TCT Nos. 17900 and 18122, remain in common pro-indiviso among the legal heirs of Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres,
Or whether they were exclusively partitioned in favor of Pedro Bas (or his heirs) through an alleged oral partition.

Whether the trial court misinterpreted or failed to fully appreciate the totality of the evidence concerning the validity of the alleged oral partition,
Including the testimonies of respondents’ witnesses and the documentary evidence of the deeds of conveyance.

Whether the trial court’s decision declaring the nullity of the oral partition and ordering partition constituted a final judgment on the merits,
And if that decision, by definitively determining the rights concerning the disputed properties, is appealable even if it was accompanied by an order for accounting as incidental to partition.