Case Digest (G.R. No. 183546)
Facts:
Wilson A. Go v. Harry A. Go, G.R. No. 183546, September 18, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.On September 11, 2006, petitioner Wilson A. Go filed a complaint for partition with accounting against respondent Harry A. Go in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, docketed as Civil Case No. 179‑V‑06. Petitioner alleged that he and respondent are co‑owners of a 7,151 sq. m. parcel covered by TCT No. V‑44555, that respondent collected rentals from seven warehouses thereon without paying petitioner his one‑half share (P1,697,850.00 for March–September 2006), and that partition and an accounting were necessary.
In his answer respondent asserted that the property was actually purchased by their father, Sio Tong Go, and titled in the names of petitioner, respondent and a third person as a matter of Chinese custom; he alleged the title later vested in petitioner and respondent but that the property and improvements were ultimately the patrimony of their parents and the family business, and therefore indivision or joinder of all heirs was required. Respondent counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees.
On April 23, 2007 petitioner moved that respondent be ordered to deposit with the court petitioner’s one‑half share of rentals from September 11, 2006 to April 30, 2007 and thereafter; alternatively, petitioner sought deposit of rentals collected February–August 2006. On May 4, 2007 the RTC, Branch 172, granted the motion but ordered respondent to deposit all amounts collected from the lessees of the warehouses (i.e., the entire monthly rentals) in court within 30 days and prohibited withdrawals without court authority. The RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on July 4, 2007.
Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion; on April 21, 2008 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 100100 annulled and set aside the RTC’s May 4 and July 4, 2007 orders, reasoning that (drawing on Maglucot‑aw v. Maglucot) an action for partition involves a first phase to determine co‑ownership and only thereafter the propriety of partition, so deposit of rentals pending resolution of co‑ownership was premature. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a July 4, 2008 Resolution.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision; the Court noted Rule 65 was the wrong remedy but, invoking the liberal spirit of the Rules and Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC, tre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Supreme Court correct to treat the Rule 65 certiorari petition as a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in annulling the RTC’s orders requiring deposit of the monthly rentals with the trial court pending the partition an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)