Case Digest (G.R. No. 224849)
Facts:
Heirs of Ernesto Morales, namely: Rosario M. Dangsalan, Evelyn M. Sangalang, Nenita M. Sales, Ernesto Jose Morales, Jr., Raymond Morales, and Melanie Morales v. Astrid Morales Agustin, G.R. No. 224849, June 06, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Astrid Morales Agustin, filed a complaint for partition of a titled parcel of land (Lot No. 9217‑A, TCT No. T‑37139) located in Barangay Sto. Tomas, Laoag City, alleging successional co‑ownership as a grandchild and heir of the late Jayme Morales. The complaint was originally filed with Lydia Morales as co‑plaintiff; Lydia was later dropped as plaintiff and made a defendant by RTC addendum order. The petitioners are the heirs of Ernesto Morales (one of Jayme’s grandchildren), substituted in interest for their deceased father Ernesto.
The family structure was material to the dispute: Jayme and his wife died intestate and were survived by four children (Vicente, Simeon, Jose, Martina), each with their respective heirs. The respondent claimed successional rights as daughter of Simeon. The petitioners, through an Answer with Motion to Dismiss and compulsory counterclaims (filed originally by Ernesto), alleged that (a) the proper remedy should have been an estate settlement/administration rather than partition and (b) respondent’s parents (Simeon and Leonila) had already conveyed whatever successional interest they had in the subject property to Ernesto, thereby extinguishing respondent’s right to participate.
Procedurally, various heirs were served, including heirs of Martina who resided abroad (service by personal service abroad was allowed by RTC order and affidavits of service are in the record). One heir, Emeterio Enriquez, later filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of service of a copy of the Amended Complaint. On February 8, 2012, respondent testified and indicated readiness to submit exhibits. After hearings and resolution of incidents, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Laoag City, rendered a decision by way of summary judgment on November 22, 2013, decreeing partition of Lot 9217‑A into four one‑fourth shares by representation among the lineal branches of Jayme and ordering the parties to submit a common project of partition.
The RTC held inter alia that an intestate estate may be partitioned without a prior estate settlement or administration and that summary judgment was properly rendered despite the absence of a formal motion for summary judgment. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in CA‑G.R. CV No. 101991, affirmed the RTC via Decision dated August 13, 2015 and later denied reconsideration by Resolution dated April 21, 2016. The CA reasoned that (a) settlement of the entire estate was “of no moment” because respondent asserted co‑ownership by successional right from her father Simeon; (b) an action for partition is quasi in rem so jurisdiction over the re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the RTC deprived of jurisdiction such that its partition judgment is void for lack of proper service of summons on indispensable parties in a quasi in rem partition proceeding?
- Was the RTC’s rendition of a summary judgment without any party filing a motion for summary judgment and without the required hearing proper?
- Must an estate settlement/administration be determined and completed before a court may order partition of a titled property...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)