Case Summary (G.R. No. 234203)
Procedural History
Private respondents sought judicial partition in 1968 under Rule 69. Defendants (petitioners here) pleaded prescription, res judicata, exclusive ownership, estoppel, and laches. The trial court (1981) dismissed the petition, finding that the island had already been partitioned into four parts among original co-owners or their successors. On appeal the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, declaring all co-owners pro indiviso and ordering cancellation of conflicting titles and entry of final physical partition. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court in December 1985.
Issue
Whether Cagbalite Island remains undivided common property subject to partition proceedings or whether prior agreements and co-owner actions effected a valid partition terminating co-ownership.
Ruling of the Court
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming that no physical partition was ever effected. All prior agreements merely allocated ideal shares; physical division requires compliance with Rule 69, Rules of Court. Co-ownership endures until actual partition by agreement of all co-owners or by judicial decree.
Legal Analysis
- Co-ownership Doctrine: Under Civil Code Articles 494 and 497, any co-owner may demand partition at any time; partition actions are imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches or prescription.
- Ideal vs. Physical Partition: Agreements of 1859 and 1868 only determined shares in abstract—each co-owner held a one-quarter ideal share (“pro indiviso”). The 1907–1908 contracts provided for surveys and plans but were never implemented; mere agreement on distribution does not substitute for actual demarcation and exclusive possession of subdivided portions.
- Pro Indiviso Sales: A co-owner may validly sell his undivided share, but cannot unilaterally appropriate a definite physical portion without consent of other co-owners or court decree (Mercado v. Liwanag; Pamplona v. Moreto).
- Res Judicata and Prior Cases: Decisions in related cases used “partition” in an ideal sense and did not adjudicate concrete boundaries; thus,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234203)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari filed December 5, 1985 challenging:
• The Court of Appeals Decision of May 17, 1985 (AC-G.R. CV No. 70460) reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the special action for partition.
• The Court of Appeals Resolution of October 15, 1985 denying petitioners’ motions for reconsideration and supplement thereto. - Trial Court rendered judgment on November 6, 1981 dismissing the complaint and cross-claims without prejudice; Motion for Reconsideration denied February 25, 1982.
- On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed and set aside the trial court decision, decreed co-ownership, ordered cancellation of titles, and remanded for partition under Rule 69, RCP; denied motions for reconsideration October 15, 1983.
- Separate but consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 72620 and 72694) resulted in consolidated comments and replies; Court gave due course to petition June 8, 1987.
- Memoranda of private respondents and petitioners were filed July and August 1987 respectively.
Facts of the Case
- On February 11, 1859, in San Rafael, Bulacan, brothers Benedicto, Jose and Manuel Pansacola (Fr. Manuel Peña) agreed to purchase Cagbalite Island (approx. 1,600 hectares) in Mauban, Tayabas (now Quezon) from the Spanish Government as common property.
- Co-ownership included Domingo Arce and Baldomero Angulo (minors represented by Fr. Manuel Peña); sharing of benefits was fixed at one-quarter each for Benedicto and Jose, and two-quarters for the minors under their father’s care.
- On August 14, 1866, co-owners took actual possession and enjoyment of the island.
- On April 11, 1868, the parties modified their agreement, allocating one-quarter each to:
• Benedicto Pansacola
• Jose Pansacola
• Children of the deceased Eustaquio Pansacola (Mariano, Maria, Hipolito)
• Nephews and nieces of Manuel Pansacola (six minors under his care) - On November 18, 1968, private respondents filed a special action for partition under Rule 69, RCP, nam