G.R. No. 118114 - Acap vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves an action for judicial partition of real property composed of twelve parcels located in Sta. Rita, Agoo, La Union.
The property was originally owned by the late Toribio Oribello, whose multiple marriages produced various claims and interests among his heirs.
Petitioner Berlinda Oribello and respondent Remedios Oribello are central to the dispute, with Remedios asserting her right to a partition of the property as the adopted daughter of Toribio Oribello.

In 1974, an adoption decree was rendered by the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Occidental Mindoro, which declared Remedios Oribello (then eight years old) as the adopted daughter of Toribio Oribello.
The petitioner challenged the validity of this adoption decree, alleging:

That the decree was fraudulently obtained through machinations of Alfredo Selga, who acted as Remedios’ attorney‐in‐fact.
That the proceedings were void ab initio due to procedural irregularities, including a misrepresentation regarding the residency of Toribio Oribello and the use of an alleged simulated birth certificate.
That there was a confusion and misidentification involving the names “Toribio Orivillo” and “Toribio Oribello,” implicating that the person who testified was not the true owner or adopter.

Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that she was the adopted daughter of the late Toribio Oribello, entitling her to claim a share in the property, and denied that any fraud had occurred.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Union (Branch 31) rendered a decision on March 30, 1998, dismissing the complaint for partition on the ground that Remedios Oribello had failed to prove her co-ownership of the property.
In that RTC decision, the court awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant and emphasized that the petitioner did not sufficiently establish her right to partition through a preponderance of evidence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a decision on July 31, 2003, which:

Vacated and set aside the RTC decision.
Remanded the case to the lower court for the second phase of partition proceedings, while allowing for the possibility of a petition or separate action to annul the adoption decree.

The petitioner contended that there was a grave abuse of discretion by allowing the illegal use of a surname and by permitting a fraudulent claim to be asserted by the respondent.
Petitioner also argued that there were serious factual misapprehensions and errors in law, particularly in treating the allegations linked to the adoption decree as substantive to the partition claim, and in failing to implead an indispensable party (the alleged son of the late Toribio Oribello).
Respondent, conversely, defended her right to judicial partition on the basis of the adoption decree, contending that any issue regarding the adoption should be dealt with separately in the proper court of jurisdiction.

Whether a court of partition has the authority to nullify or annul an adoption decree issued by a Court of First Instance of equal rank, or whether such a remedy lies exclusively with the Court of Appeals.

Whether Remedios Oribello, as the adopted daughter and claimant to the property, has satisfactorily demonstrated her right to a judicial partition by preponderance of evidence.
Whether improper joinder or misjoinder of indispensable parties affects the adjudication of the partition claim.

Whether the petitioner’s allegations that the adoption decree was procured fraudulently, and that the use of an illegal surname resulted in a manifestly fraudulent claim, constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss the partition action.
Whether the lower and appellate courts erred in intermingling a collateral attack on the adoption decree with the substantive issues regarding property partition.

Whether the decision to allow a petition for relief or annulment of the adoption decree in a partition case violates the prescribed rules on venue and the principle of judicial stability.