G.R. No. 162759 - Nicolas-Lewis vs. Commission on Elections

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was filed against the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Danao City in Civil Case No. SF-175.
The case involves a dispute over the ownership, possession, and partition of several parcels of land covered by various Tax Declarations.
The properties in dispute include one-half (1/2) share of two parcels and one-third (1/3) share of nine other parcels, all originally part of a larger estate inherited by Dulce Sepulveda, the private respondent’s mother.

Atty. Pacifico S. Pelaez initiated the complaint in December 1972 before the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu.
His complaint sought recovery of possession and ownership of his share in the disputed land, as well as partition of the co-owned properties.

He claimed that his mother, Dulce, who inherited a share under a Project of Partition dated April 16, 1937, was wronged when Pedro Sepulveda, Sr.—her relative and administrator of the estate—refused to deliver her rightful share.
He further alleged that repeated demands by Dulce, her mother Carlota, and himself for the delivery of shares were met with refusal, with Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. justifying his retention on the ground that the property was needed for paying expenses such as realty taxes.
He also asserted that an affidavit executed by Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. in 1961 incorrectly declared him the sole heir of Dionisia, thereby colluding to dispossess other heirs.

Pedro Sepulveda, Sr.’s answer to the complaint admitted to executing a deed of sale over one parcel (T.D. No. 19804) in favor of Danao City, but denied any obligation to share the proceeds or deliver the relevant shares.
During the trial, Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. died intestate. A petition for the settlement of his estate was filed, and his daughter Socorro Sepulveda Lawas was subsequently appointed administratrix.
The substitution of the deceased by the petitioner was in compliance with the precedent of Lawas v. Court of Appeals.

The eleven (11) lots under dispute were part of the twenty-five (25) parcels covered by the Project of Partition executed for the estate of Dionisia Sepulveda.
The Project of Partition indicated that:

Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. was the owner of an undivided portion of Lot No. 28199, while Santiago Sepulveda, his brother and Dulce’s uncle, held ownership of parts of other parcels.
Dulce was originally entitled to a one-third (1/3) share in the remaining parcels alongside Pedro and Santiago.

Evidence presented included an Affidavit of Consolidation executed in 1940 and a CFI Order from March 24, 1962, denying the motion for reconstitution of records and the delivery of Dulce’s share.
In addition, evidence was introduced showing that:

Pedro Sepulveda, Sr.’s actions included having declared the property for taxation under his name from 1948 and continuing to do so even after the execution of the projects.
The disputed parcel sold to Danao City was for a purchase price of P7,492.00, a sum allegedly received without the private respondent’s knowledge.

Declaratory relief on his one-half and one-third shares in the respective parcels of land.
Orders for partition and segregation of his co-owned portions.
Payment of his share in the proceeds of the disposition of the property (P7,492.00), with interest until fully paid.
Award of moral and exemplary damages, a share in the fruits (rents and profits) of all the parcels, actual litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees.
Additional reliefs and remedies as might be deemed just and proper.

On June 7, 1993, the RTC of Danao City rendered judgment in favor of the private respondent, ordering:

The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed, with minor modifications, the trial court’s ruling.
The petitioner (Socorro Sepulveda Lawas) elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, raising issues primarily regarding the impleader of indispensable parties and misapplication of certain legal principles.

Whether the failure of the private respondent to implead all indispensable parties (specifically, his father Rodolfo Pelaez, the heirs of Santiago Sepulveda including Paz Sepulveda and her minor children, and the City of Danao) rendered the trial and appellate decisions null and void.
Whether the absence of these parties deprived the court of jurisdiction over certain aspects of the partition claim.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of Article 494 of the Civil Code regarding the creation or nonexistence of a trust relationship between Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. and the respondent.
Whether the appellate court sufficiently considered the doctrines of prescription and laches in relation to the factual matrix of the case.

Whether the trial court and CA improperly found that payment had been made by Danao City for one of the parcels and accordingly, that the private respondent was entitled to a share of the purchase price.
Whether the awarding of moral, exemplary damages, and the share in the rents and profits was legally supportable under the circumstances of the case.
Whether the increase in attorney’s fees was justified in view of the failure to join indispensable parties.