G.R. No. 172367 - Dadizon vs. Bernadas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172367)

Procedural Posture

Respondents filed a complaint on May 14, 1999 to compel partition of the conjugal share based on a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996. Petitioners answered, asserting revocation of that deed by a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999 and alleging prior disposals or partitions of certain parcels; they also pointed to a pending annulment action (Civil Case No. B-1091) filed by their mother to revoke certain sales. The RTC ordered the parties to submit an extrajudicial partition for approval. The RTC approved a Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 by order of July 23, 2001; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by RTC order dated September 5, 2001. The CA affirmed the RTC in a decision dated December 7, 2005 and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2006. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

Factual Background

Diosdado Bernadas died intestate leaving various agricultural and residential parcels in co-ownership with his then surviving spouse. Multiple extrajudicial deeds of partition exist: February 24, 1996 (submitted by respondents), August 1, 1997 (involving a parcel covered by Tax Declaration No. 00181), and February 10, 1999 (allegedly revoking the 1996 deed, asserted by petitioners). Respondents alleged possession by petitioner Felicidad Dadizon and refusal to partition. During pre-trial and trial, parties discussed an extrajudicial partition; respondents’ counsel filed a Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, unsigned by all heirs. The RTC proceeded to approve the Project despite the absence of signatures from all parties.

Parties’ Contentions

Respondents: Maintained the validity and enforceability of the February 24, 1996 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and related documents; argued that the subsequent February 10, 1999 deed was malicious and that sales to Socorro Bernadas remain valid because the annulment action had not resulted in cancellation. Respondents submitted the Project of Partition and asked for its judicial approval.
Petitioners: Contended that the 1996 deed had been revoked by the 1999 deed, that several parcels had been previously disposed of or partitioned, and that some alleged sales were subject to annulment proceedings. They argued that the Project of Partition filed by respondents was not signed by all parties and thus could not be approved as a consensual extrajudicial partition.

Trial Court Proceedings and Orders

The RTC repeatedly ordered the parties to submit a signed extrajudicial partition for approval. Respondents filed the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 and other documents on July 16, 2001. On July 23, 2001 the RTC issued an order approving that Project of Partition. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by RTC order dated September 5, 2001. The RTC based approval on the parties’ prior manifestations that they had agreed on the manner of partition and on petitioners’ failure to comment when ordered to do so.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA, in the decision appealed to the Supreme Court, found the appeal without merit and affirmed the RTC’s September 5, 2001 order. The CA relied on the trial court’s findings that both parties had manifested to the court that they already had an extrajudicial partition and noted petitioners’ failure to file any comment or suggestion regarding distribution when ordered.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s approval of the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 despite the absence of signatures of all parties and whether the RTC failed to follow the procedure mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court by not appointing commissioners after the parties failed to submit a signed project.

Applicable Law

Applicable Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision dated 2009).
Primary procedural statute: Rule 69 of the Rules of Court (Sections 2 and 3) governing partition actions. Section 2 permits partition by agreement among all parties with court confirmation where the parties have agreed and executed proper instruments. Section 3 mandates appointment of not more than three competent, disinterested commissioners to make the partition when the parties are unable to agree.

Supreme Court Analysis — Parties, Impleading, and Communality of Interest

The Court addressed a procedural contention that all indispensable parties from the original case were not impleaded on appeal. The Court explained that the mandatory requirement to implead all indispensable parties under Rule 7, Section 3 applies to original actions, not appeals; an appeal is a party’s option. The Court recognized the general rule that appellate reversal binds only parties to the appeal, but noted an exception when rights and liabilities of non-appealing parties are inseparable due to communality of interest. The Court found that the heirs’ rights were inseparable and that the exception applied; thus reversal would inure to benefit those not joined. The Court also observed that, on review of records, the requirement of joining indispensable parties in the proceedings below had in any event been satisfied.

Supreme Court Analysis — Proper Procedure Under Rule 69

The Court analyzed partition procedure and emphasized the two-stage nature of partition under Rule 69: (1) determination that co-ownership exists and that partition is proper; and (2) if the parties cannot agree, appointment of commissioners to effect partition. The Court stressed that Sections 2 and 3 provide two routes: by agreement under Section 2 (requiring an instrument signed by all parties and court confirmation) and by commissioners under Section 3 when agreement cannot be reached. The Court found that the RTC departed from this mandated procedure.

Supreme Court Findings on the Project of Partition

The Supreme Court found that the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 was filed only by respondents’ counsel and was not signed by the respondents or all parties. The Court held that only a document signed by all parties can signify agreement

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172367)

Case Caption and Nature of Proceeding

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside:
- Decision dated December 7, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA), and
- Resolution dated March 15, 2006 of the CA,
- which affirmed the Order dated September 5, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, 8th Judicial Region, Naval, Biliran, in Civil Case No. B-1066.
Petitioners and respondents are heirs (children and representatives of deceased children) of the late Diosdado Bernadas, Sr.
The Supreme Court rendered the final decision with Puno, C.J., as the author; Justices Carpio, Corona, Leonardo-De Castro, and Bersamin concurred.

Parties and Relationships

Petitioners:
- Felicidad Dadizon
- Iluminada B. Murgia
- Perla B. Matiga
- Dominador M. Bernadas
- Cirilo B. Delis
- Heirs of Marcelino Bernadas, namely Fe Bernadas-Picardal and Carmelito Bernadas
Respondents:
- Socorro Bernadas (substituted by Jeanette B. Alfajardo, Fely Bernadas, Juliet Bernadas, Godofredo Bernadas, Jr., and Sofia C. Bernadas)
Familial context:
- All parties are heirs of the late Diosdado Bernadas, Sr., who died intestate on February 1, 1977.
- Diosdado left several parcels of agricultural and residential land in co-ownership with his then surviving spouse, Eustaquia Bernadas (deceased May 26, 2000).

Subject Properties and Underlying Instruments

The subject properties are the one-half (1/2) conjugal share of properties left by Diosdado Bernadas, Sr.
Relevant extrajudicial instruments referenced in the records:
- Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996.
- Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999 (allegedly revoking the 1996 deed, per petitioners).
- Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated August 1, 1997 (involving one parcel covered by Tax Declaration No. 00181).
- Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 (filed as a project by respondents’ counsel but not signed by all heirs).

Complaint Filed by Respondents (May 14, 1999)

Respondents filed a complaint to compel partition of the one-half (1/2) conjugal share of the properties based on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996.
Allegation: Petitioner Felicidad Dadizon was in possession of the subject properties and refused respondents’ demand to effect partition.

Petitioners’ Answer and Contentions

Petitioners averred that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996 was revoked by a subsequent Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999.
Petitioners argued that certain parcels included in respondents’ complaint had long been disposed of or extrajudicially partitioned by petitioners.
Petitioners further claimed that certain parcels listed in the 1996 deed as sold to respondent Socorro Bernadas could not go to Socorro because those alleged sales were the subject of annulment in Civil Case No. B-1091 pending before RTC Branch 16, Naval, Biliran—an action filed by Eustaquia Bernadas to revoke sales of her one-half (1/2) conjugal share on grounds of lack of consideration, fraud and lack of consent.

Respondents’ Reply and Contentions

Respondents contended that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999 was produced maliciously against Socorro Bernadas because not all heirs participated in its execution.
Respondents maintained the sales executed between Eustaquia Bernadas and Socorro Bernadas had not been annulled by a court and therefore remained valid and subsisting.

Pre-trial Proceedings and Negotiations

June 13, 2000: Both parties manifested that, in view of the death of Eustaquia Bernadas, they were negotiating an extrajudicial partition to resolve their disputes.
November 15, 2000: Respondents’ counsel requested postponement to solicit signatures of other heirs to complete a compromise agreement.
January 30, 2001: Respondents’ counsel filed a Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, but it was not signed by all heirs.
February 6, 2001: The Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 was discussed in court; the RTC ordered petitioners to submit their comment within 15 days. Petitioners did not file any comment.

RTC Orders Directing Submission of Partition Instruments

March 22, 2001 RTC Order:
- Noted parties informed the court they already had an extrajudicial partition.
- Ordered both parties to submit the extrajudicial partition for the court’s approval.
May 31, 2001 RTC Order:
- Reiterated the March 22, 2001 order directing both parties to submit the signed extrajudicial partition.

Respondents’ Compliance and Documents Submitted (July 16, 2001)

Respondents filed a Compliance attaching:
- Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000.
- Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996.
- Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated August 1, 1997 (one parcel: Tax Declaration No. 00181).
Respondents prayed the documents be considered relative to subdivision of the estate.

RTC Action on the Project of Partition (July 23, 2001) and Subsequent RTC Ruling

July 23, 2001 RTC Order: The RTC approved the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 23 order.
September 5, 2001 RTC Order (denying reconsideration):
- Noted petitioners failed to file any comment or objection despite prior order to do so.
- Observed that the parties had already agreed during pre-trial to seek court approval.
- Concluded the Project of Partition could be approved given the posture of the proceedings.

Petitioners’ Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioners appealed the RTC orders to the CA, alleging among other things:
- The RTC erred in finding petitioners’ counsel agreed to the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000.
- The Project of Partition did not bear the signature of petitioners’ counsel (and was filed only by resp