G.R. No. L-3004 - Tomias vs. Tomias

Eustaquio Tomias died intestate in 1920, leaving behind 7 children: Leon, Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Toribia (allegedly also known as Enrica), Agustina, and Josefa, all bearing the surname Tomias.
At the time of his death, Eustaquio possessed property, which was subsequently succeeded in possession and enjoyment by his 7 children.

Two of the original 7 heirs, Leon and Josefa, predeceased the incident, with Leon dying in 1931 and Josefa in 1944.
It is claimed that Josefa left behind a daughter known as either Josefa or Filomena Tomias.
Leon, who married twice, left behind 4 legitimate children, namely Conrado, Magdalena, Dolores, and Anicetas; there is also an allegation that he had a natural son named Filemon Tomias.

On January 19, 1948, Conrado Tomias, Magdalena Tomias (children of Leon), and their cousin Josefa or Filomena Tomias (daughter of Josefa) filed a complaint (civil case No. 857) seeking partition and accounting of 15 parcels of land in Occidental Negros that were allegedly owned by the deceased Eustaquio Tomias.
The defendants in the partition case were the remaining heirs: Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Enrica (allegedly Toribia), and Agustina. Additional defendants, Dolores and Anicetas, were included for refusing to join as plaintiffs.
The court rendered a decision on April 21, 1948, dividing the property among the heirs as follows:

One-seventh share each for Josefa (or Filomena), Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Enrica (identified with Toribia), and Agustina.
One-twenty-eighth share each for the 4 legitimate children of Leon (Conrado, Magdalena, Dolores, and Anicetas).

An order for accounting was also included in the decision, and after the lapse of the appeal period, the decision became final.

Approximately five months later, the defendants, together with Filemon Tomias (the alleged natural son of Leon), initiated an action to annul the partition decision (civil case No. 1063) on two grounds:

That the court did not have jurisdiction over certain parcels of land purportedly belonging to persons not joined as parties in the original suit.
That not all heirs were represented in the original suit, notably Filemon Tomias was excluded from the proceedings.

The lower court dismissed the annulment action on the basis that it raised issues already determined in the partition case.
Plaintiffs later moved for reconsideration, introducing for the first time:

An allegation that Toribia Tomias, supposedly not served with summons since she was identified in the suit as Enrica Tomias due to local nomenclature.
An affidavit by Filemon Tomias asserting his acknowledgement as a natural son of Leon Tomias.

Filemon Tomias was not considered an indispensable party without an official judicial decree acknowledging him as a natural child of Leon.
Toribia Tomias was deemed to be the same person as Enrica Tomias, as evidenced by local usage, and no prejudice was shown by awarding one-seventh of the inheritance to Enrica.

Whether the partition decision could be annulled on the basis that some parcels of land were not actually part of the property of the deceased Eustaquio Tomias but belonged instead to other persons who were not joined as parties in the original suit.
Whether the absence of Filemon Tomias, the alleged natural child of Leon Tomias, as a party in the partition action rendered the judgment void or in need of annulment.

Whether the claim that Toribia Tomias was not properly served (with the contention that she was represented or substituted by the name Enrica Tomias) was sufficient to disturb the integrity of the partition ruling.

Whether the issues raised in the subsequent annulment action had already been decided by the partition case and thus were subject to the doctrine of res judicata.
Whether any relief could be granted in view of the allegations without causing prejudice to those parties who were properly represented.