Title
Fabrica vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-47360
Decision Date
Dec 15, 1986
Heirs of Catalino Bas dispute ownership of Lots 2464 and 2467, claimed as common property versus exclusive possession by Pedro Bas. Trial court ruled for partition; Supreme Court deemed judgment final, remanded for appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47360)

Applicable Law

The decision is grounded in the provisions of the 1973 Philippine Constitution as the case was decided in 1986, prior to the enactment of the 1987 Constitution. Relevant laws on property ownership, partition, and estate succession apply, including the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership.

Background of the Case

The case originates from a petition for partition of estates left by Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres, who died in the early 20th century. The petitioners argue that after the death of Restituto Bas, the respondents unlawfully retained possession of Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467, claiming ownership through oral partitions made prior to the formal partition of the estate.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (the private respondents), recognizing that the two parcels of land were still owned in common by the heirs of Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres. It determined that prior claims of exclusive ownership by Pedro Bas through oral partitions were unfounded, thereby concluding that a partition was warranted among all heirs.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court's judgment was interlocutory, asserting that it could not be appealed at that stage. They remanded the case back to the lower court to clarify issues before finalizing the partition. This decision indirectly delayed the resolution of the ownership dispute.

Petitioners' Assignments of Error

The petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the appeal based on the classification of the trial court’s judgment as interlocutory. They argued that the trial court made determinations regarding ownership that were final, which should allow for an appeal. Specific errors outlined included misinterpretation of testimonies, insufficient appreciation of evidence regarding the oral partitions, and the failure to recognize the rights of Pedro Bas.

Legal Analysis and Conclusion

In evaluating the merits of the case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for finality on the issue of ownership before proceeding with partition. It reinforced prior jurisprudence stating that a judgment determining ownership, even if part of a partition case, should be appealable and treated as a definitive judgment. The Court resolved that the issues of ownership raised by the defendants warranted a conclusive ruling

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.