G.R. No. L-14242 - Reyes vs. Cordero

The plaintiffs are descendants (heirs) of Leon Alfaro, the owner of the parcel of land in dispute, and they seek a judicial partition of this undivided property.
The defendants comprise two coheirs, Francisca Cordero and Maria Cordero (daughters of Felipa Alfaro, a daughter of Leon Alfaro), and a third defendant, Amando Gatmaitan.
It is alleged that the land has remained undivided among the heirs, and the plaintiffs are asking the court to effect a partition in accordance with law.

The complaint prayed for a trial judgment ordering the partition of the parcel of land described in the pleading, asserting that all parties share a common interest as coowners or coparceners.
In paragraph 6 of the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Amando Gatmaitan is in possession of the land and claims a supposed interest adverse to that of the plaintiffs, thereby implicating him in the controversy.

Defendant Amando Gatmaitan filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties, arguing that he was improperly joined because:

He is not a descendant, coheir, or coowner of the plaintiff’s title in the parcel of land; and
The facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action against him in the action for partition.

The Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in an order dated February 9, 1918, sustained the demurrer against Gatmaitan.
The plaintiffs excepted the order but failed to amend their complaint within the time fixed by the rules of court, leading to their case being dismissed as to Amando Gatmaitan.
The plaintiffs then brought the case on appeal by bill of exceptions, challenging the dismissal of the defendant from the partition proceeding.

The action for partition of real property is a judicial controversy intended solely for those who hold an interest in the property as coowners, coworkers, or coparceners.
The complaint for partition must name all parties who have a common ownership interest as an indispensable requirement for the suit.
The plaintiffs’ inclusion of Gatmaitan is questioned because his possession of the land does not come from a co-ownership or coparcenary relationship, but rather from a claim of an adverse interest.

The central issue in the case is whether the joinder of Amando Gatmaitan as a defendant in the partition suit is proper, particularly when:

He is not a descendant, coheir, or coowner in relation to the title of the land.
His alleged possession and claimed interest in the property are not derived from a shared ownership or proprietary right with the plaintiffs and the other defendants.

Whether the partition action, which is strictly for resolving interests among coowners, allows the inclusion of a third party whose title or claim is adverse rather than one of co-ownership.