Case Digest (G.R. No. 128004)
Facts:
Marcelino Tan, Luz S. Briones, Carlos D. Briones, Conrado Briones, Felicisimo Briones, & Flora Briones Jovellanos v. Jose Renato Lim, et al., G.R. No. 128004, September 25, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Briones heirs (collectively Flora, et al.) and lessee Marcelino Tan; respondents include purchasers Jose Renato Lim and Cynthia Go and several other Briones/Reyes heirs (collectively Ambrocio, et al.). The dispute involves a 488-sq.m. parcel covered by TCT No. 95314 that originally belonged to the brothers Victoriano and Joaquin Briones; Victoriano’s heirs (petitioners Flora, et al.) occupied the front portion and Joaquin’s heirs (respondents Ambrocio, et al.) the rear portion after an alleged oral partition.
Two civil actions were filed and jointly tried in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac, Branch 64. In Civil Case No. 6521 (legal redemption), petitioners (Flora, et al.) sought to exercise their right of legal redemption under Article 1620 after Ambrocio, et al. sold their undivided interests in the rear portion to spouses Lim and Go. In Civil Case No. 6518 (injunction and damages), lessee Marcelino Tan sued Lim for padlocking the gate and demolishing improvements, seeking injunctive relief and damages. On June 15, 1992 the RTC ruled for petitioners: it ordered reopening of the gate and removal of constructions, awarded actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Tan, and ordered Lim and his vendee spouse to resell and reconvey the sold undivided shares upon payment in the redemption case.
Respondents Lim and Go appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, after jointly considering both cases, set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the complaints in a decision dated September 26, 1996—finding an oral partition had effectively ended co-ownership before the sales, that evidence excluded by the trial court (for failure to file a formal offer) should be considered because the two cases were jointly heard, and that Tan’s injunction claim was moot because his lease had expired. Petitioners’ motion f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there an oral partition between the heirs of Joaquin and the heirs of Victoriano of the property covered by TCT No. 95314, and if so, was the oral partition valid?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that respondent Jose Renato Lim’s formal offer of evidence in Civil Case No. 6518 was unnecessary and that his evidence could be considered?
- Was petitioner Marcelino Tan’s cause of action in Civil Case...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)