G.R. No. 217611 - Logrosa vs. Spouses Azares

Petitioner Rogelio Logrosa filed a verified complaint for partition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, docketed as Civil Case No. 4026, against respondents Spouses Cleofe and Cesar Azares, Spouses Abundio, Jr. and Antonieta Torres, Spouses Nelson Sala and Arlene Ang, and Spouses Bonifacio, Jr. and Welhelmina Baruiz.
The case involves eight parcels of land situated in Tagum City, Davao del Norte, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. T-52508 to T-52515, which indicate petitioner and respondents as co-owners.

Petitioner alleged that the original owner, Benjamin A. Gonzales, sold the subject properties collectively to petitioner and respondents in 1987 through a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 14, 1987, signed by Gonzales, petitioner, and several respondents.
Titles were issued to the parties on May 19, 1987, establishing co-ownership for over ten years without any agreement to keep the properties undivided.
Petitioner anchored his complaint on Article 494 of the New Civil Code, asserting his right to demand partition of the common property.

Only Spouses Azares filed an answer, denying petitioner’s co-ownership. They claimed petitioner did not contribute to acquisition, maintenance, or taxes.
They contended petitioner was their employee and only allowed to occupy a house on the property under the condition of eventual reimbursement of expenses.
The Spouses Azares alleged they purchased the properties to provide a place for all parties to live nearby, denying any co-ownership of petitioner and other respondents.
Other respondents either manifested no opposition or did not file an answer.

Petitioner testified and presented documents, including the Deed of Absolute Sale, supported by respondent Antonieta’s testimony.
Respondents Spouses Azares presented respondent Cesar Azares as their sole witness denying co-ownership.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit in its Decision dated February 27, 2012.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the RTC decision in its July 30, 2014 Decision, denying petitioner's claim of co-ownership due to lack of sufficient evidence.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 26, 2015.
Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner Logrosa’s complaint for partition on the ground that he is not a co-owner but merely a trustee of the subject properties.