G.R. No. 208281 - Metroplex Berhad vs. Sinophil Corp.

The dispute involves a 312-square meter parcel of land in San Juan, Malolos, Bulacan, designated as Lot No. 1549 of the Cadastral Survey of Malolos.
The land was originally registered in the name of Januario Avendano, a bachelor who died intestate on October 22, 1945.

On September 21, 1959, the intestate heirs of Januario Avendano executed a document entitled “Paghahati at Pagtagahuyan ng Mana sa Labas ng Hukuman” effecting an extrajudicial partition among the heirs.
The partition divided Lot No. 1549 into four undivided portions, wherein one-fourth was allotted to respondent Ernesto Roque and Victor Roque (children of Fidelina Avendano, a sister of Januario).

On September 28, 1959, the co-owners (other than Ernesto and Victor Roque) transferred their three-fourths interest to Ernesto Roque and Victor Roque through two separate notarized deeds titled “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan”.
On November 27, 1961, Ernesto and Victor Roque purportedly sold a three-fourths undivided share of Lot No. 1549 to their half-sister, petitioner Concepcion Roque, via an unnotarized document titled “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan”.

The property, still registered in the name of Januario Avendano, was surveyed on September 20, 1975, at the instance of petitioner Concepcion Roque and allegedly by respondent Ernesto Roque.
A Subdivision Plan was then created by a Geodetic Engineer and approved on November 3, 1975, which delineated a one-fourth portion (78 square meters) for respondent Ernesto Roque (and his deceased partner Victor Roque) and a three-fourths portion (234 square meters) for petitioner Concepcion Roque.

On December 6, 1977, petitioner Concepcion Roque filed a Complaint for “Partition with Specific Performance” (Civil Case No. 5236-M) seeking legal recognition of her alleged three-fourths interest in Lot No. 1549 based on the 1961 “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan.”
In her complaint, she also introduced an undated, unauthorized “Kasulatang Pagkilala” purportedly signed by the respondents as evidence of her purchase and co-ownership.
Petitioner additionally argued her right to partition the property and sought enforcement that she could not be compelled to remain in co-ownership with the respondents.

Respondents (Ernesto Roque and the heirs of Victor Roque) filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on December 28, 1977, questioning both the genuineness and the due execution of the 1961 document.
They asserted that petitioner was merely occupying a portion of the lot by their consent rather than as a bona fide co-owner.
On June 27, 1983, the trial court (Branch 9, RTC Malolos) ruled in favor of petitioner by ordering:

The execution of a confirmation deed of the sale (“Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan”) in favor of petitioner.
The partition of Lot No. 1549 in the proportion of three-fourths to petitioner and one-fourth to respondent Ernesto Roque and co-defendants.
Payment of a sum of P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs.

Ordering the execution of the confirmation deed.
Delivering a three-fourths share of the property to petitioner.
Giving credence to the authenticity of the 1961 document (alleging forged signatures).
Accepting petitioner’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies.

The Intermediate Appellate Court, in its decision dated July 31, 1986, reversed the trial court’s judgment on the partition action on the ground that:

The action, originally for partition, had become one invoking an issue of absolute ownership due to respondents’ assertion of exclusive title.
An action for partition ought to be dismissed if one party asserts adverse title, suggesting petitioner refile her case as an action reivindicatoria.

The Supreme Court noted that an action for partition inherently presents two issues: the determination of co-ownership and the subsequent segregation of property shares.
The Court emphasized that the partition action need not be dismissed even if respondents later claim exclusive ownership; rather, it should resolve whether co-ownership exists.
Considering petitioner’s continuous and open possessory claim since 1961 and the prolonged inaction of the respondents regarding her status as co-owner, the Court held that:

Respondents, through their delay and laches, effectively acquiesced to the co-ownership.

Consequently, while setting aside the portion of the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision dismissing petitioner’s partition complaint, the decision dismissing respondents’ appeal was affirmed, and the Regional Trial Court’s decision reinstated.

Whether the case should be dismissed as an action for partition when respondents asserted exclusive ownership, transforming the dispute into one of title rather than co-ownership.
Whether a co-owner’s right to partition the property may be pursued concurrently with an assertion of co-ownership.

The propriety and validity of relying on an unnotarized document to establish petitioner’s three-fourths interest in Lot No. 1549.
The implications of contested signatures and whether these affect the petitioner's claim.

Whether the prolonged period (more than sixteen years) during which petitioner occupied her share negated the respondents’ later claim of exclusive ownership.
Whether the respondents’ tardy objection amounted to laches, thereby precluding them from disputing the existence of co-ownership and petitioner’s right to partition.