G.R. No. 129017 - Vda. de Daffon vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Concepcion Villamor was married to the late Amado Daffon.
They had one son, Joselito Daffon, who later married Lourdes OsmeAa.
Joselito and Lourdes had six children: Aileen, Joselito Jr., Ana Vanesa, Leila, Julius, and Suzette.
Amado Daffon passed away on January 21, 1982, and Joselito Daffon died on October 25, 1990.

On January 21, 1994, Lourdes OsmeAa (widow of Joselito) together with her six minor children filed an action for partition against petitioner Concepcion Villamor.
The partition action (Civil Case No. DNA-281 filed in the Regional Trial Court of Danao City, Branch 25) arose from the allegation that Amado Daffon left a series of real and personal properties as part of his conjugal partnership with the petitioner.
It was contended that since Joselito was a forced heir, he was entitled to at least one-half of Amado’s estate, which was never partitioned between him and Concepcion.

Petitioner Concepcion Villamor claimed absolute ownership over all the properties, alleging that she had repudiated the alleged co-ownership with Joselito.
She argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action for partition because she had maintained exclusive title to the properties.
As part of her defense, petitioner also contended that respondents had, in previous proceedings (specifically in another case involving recovery of a parcel of land in Mandaluyong), admitted that the land in question was the only property of the late Amado Daffon.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on three grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
Failure of the complaint to state a cause of action; and
Waiver, abandonment, and extinguishment of the obligation due to her allegedly repudiating co-ownership.

The trial court denied her Motion to Dismiss in an Order dated July 22, 1994 and her subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on September 23, 1994.

On October 25, 1994, petitioner elevated the matter by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R. SP No. 35536.
The Court of Appeals, on November 14, 1996, rendered a decision denying due course and dismissing her petition for certiorari.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on April 21, 1997.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review, raising several issues concerning procedural and substantive matters.

Whether the Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondents (the children of Joselito and Lourdes) need not be acknowledged as heirs of the deceased Amado Daffon.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it is unnecessary for the private respondents to be the registered owners of the properties claimed in the action for partition.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court is not required to take judicial notice of another case pending in a different court.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint (based on failure to state a cause of action) as reviewable by a special civil action for certiorari.