G.R. No. 183546 - Go vs. Go

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183546)

Factual Background

Wilson A. Go and Harry A. Go are two of five children of Spouses Sio Tong Go and Simeona Lim Ang. They appeared as registered co-owners of a 7,151 square meter parcel in Valenzuela City under Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-44555. Petitioner alleged that respondent collected rents from seven warehouses on the property without giving petitioner his one-half (1/2) share, amounting to P1,697,850.00 between March 2006 and September 2006. Petitioner stated that he held the owner’s duplicate of the title and that loss of trust justified a demand for partition and an accounting.

Trial Court Complaint and Answer

Petitioner filed a complaint for partition with accounting praying that the court partition the land and improvements equally, direct respondent to render an accounting, order joint collection or deposit of monthly rentals pending resolution, and award attorney’s fees and costs. In his answer, Harry A. Go alleged that their father had purchased the property and caused title to be placed in the names of petitioner, respondent and a third person in observance of Chinese customs; that the interest of the third person was later transferred to petitioner and respondent by extrajudicial settlement; that their father exercised control and stewardship of the business and entrusted the title to petitioner for safekeeping while giving operations to respondent; and that the property and buildings were sourced from their parents’ funds. Respondent asserted indivision was imposed as a condition, that partition would prejudice other heirs who depended on the rentals, and that the issue of ownership must first be resolved.

Trial Court Orders to Deposit Rentals

On April 23, 2007, Wilson A. Go moved for an order requiring respondent to deposit petitioner’s one-half (1/2) share of rental collections from September 11, 2006 to April 30, 2007 and thereafter, and to account for rentals from February 2006 to August 2006. On May 4, 2007, the trial court granted the motion but directed deposit of all amounts collected by respondent from the lessees and prohibited withdrawal without prior written court authority. The trial court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in its July 4, 2007 Order.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari and annulled and set aside the May 4 and July 4, 2007 Orders. The CA relied on the two-phase character of partition actions as discussed in Maglucot-aw v. Maglucot, namely that the court first must determine whether co-ownership exists before granting partition or related relief. The CA held that ordering deposit of rentals was premature while the nature and extent of respondent’s title remained unresolved and that if additional heirs were found to share ownership they would be indispensable parties under Section 1, Rule 69.

Procedural Posture in the Supreme Court

Petitioner invoked Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in this Court, but the Supreme Court observed that the proper remedy from the CA’s adverse ruling was a petition for review under Rule 45. Exercising liberality, the Court treated the petition as one under Rule 45 because it was filed within the fifteen-day period prescribed by that rule.

Issue Presented on Review

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the trial court’s order requiring respondent to deposit monthly rentals with the trial court during the pendency of the partition and accounting action.

Parties’ Contentions

Wilson A. Go maintained that the order was provisional and preservatory, intended to prevent dissipation of rental income while title and entitlement were litigated, and that the fact that the title is in the names of petitioner and respondent supported the order. Harry A. Go countered that title’s nominal recordation does not automatically establish co-ownership, that surrounding circumstances and customs indicated the property was effectively owned and controlled by their father, that petitioner acquiesced for years, and that petitioner had not shown any undue dissipation that would justify deposit. Respondent also pointed out that petitioner prayed only for his one-half (1/2) share while the trial court ordered deposition of the entire collections.

Authority for Provisional Deposits and Precedents

The Supreme Court acknowledged that although the Rules of Court do not expressly provide for deposit of rentals as provisional relief in partition actions, courts possess inherent and ancillary powers under Rule 135, Sections 5 and 6, to issue provisional orders necessary to make their jurisdiction effective. The Court cited The Province of Bataan v. Hon. Villafuerte, Jr. and Bustamante v. Court of Appeals as precedents sustaining escrow or deposit orders of rentals pending resolution of main actions, and affirmed that deposit of rentals may be an appropriate preservatory remedy even before determination of co-ownership.

Supreme Court’s Determination on the May 4, 2007 Order

Despite recognizing the propriety of provisional relief in appropriate circumstances, the Court found grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order because the RTC required deposit of the entire monthly rentals while petitioner had prayed only for deposit of his one-half (1/2) share. The Court reiterated the principle that a court generally may not grant more relief than what is prayed for and held that the RTC offered no justification for ordering deposit of the whole collections.

Assessment of Petitioner’s Alleged One-Half Share

The Court examined the allegations and procedural record and found that petitioner’s contention of a co-owner one-half (1/2) interest rested solely on names in the title as pleaded in the complaint, whereas respondent’s answer revealed that their father purchased the property, controlled the business, and placed title in the sons’ names consistent with family custom. Petitioner did not effectively refute that account on appeal and, in subsequent submissions, advanced alternative and inconsistent theories including a claimed donation under Article 1448, Civil Code. The Court concluded that these shifting positions and the answer’s allegations created serious doubt about petitioner’s asserted one-half (1/2) interest.

Provisional Share to Be Protected Pending Final Adjudication

Applying presumptions and succession rules, the Court reasoned that if the property was conjugal and acquired during Sio T

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183546)

Parties and Posture

Petitioner was Wilson A. Go who instituted an action for partition with accounting in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, docketed as Civil Case No. 179-V-06.
Private respondent was Harry A. Go who answered and counterclaimed in the trial court and later sought relief from the Court of Appeals.
The trial court issued interlocutory orders dated May 4, 2007 and July 4, 2007 directing deposit of rental collections with the court, which the Court of Appeals annulled in its April 21, 2008 Decision.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, which the Supreme Court treated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court filed within the reglementary period.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner alleged that he and private respondent were among five children of Sio Tong Go and Simeona Lim Ang and that they were registered co-owners of a 7,151 square meter parcel of land covered by TCT No. V-44555.
Petitioner alleged possession of the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. V-44555 and alleged that private respondent rented out seven warehouses thereon and collected rentals amounting to P1,697,850.00 from March 2006 to September 2006 without paying petitioner his one-half (1/2) share.
Private respondent alleged that their father, Sio Tong Go, purchased the land and placed title in the names of the sons in observance of Chinese customs, that the father controlled the business during his lifetime, and that the property and improvements derived from the parents’ funds.
Private respondent alleged that the rentals amounted to P228,000.00 per month and that income was used to pay debts, utilities, and preservation expenses, and he contended that ownership must first be resolved before partition.

Trial Court Orders

The trial court granted petitioner’s April 23, 2007 motion and ordered on May 4, 2007 that private respondent deposit within thirty days all amounts collected from the lessees of the warehouses and prohibited withdrawal without prior written authority of the court.
The trial court denied private respondent’s motion for reconsideration in its July 4, 2007 Order.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals granted private respondent’s petition for certiorari and annulled and set aside the May 4 and July 4, 2007 Orders of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals held that an action for partition involved two phases and that the nature and extent of co-ownership must be resolved before interlocutory relief ordering deposit of rentals could be granted, citing Maglucot-aw v. Maglucot and Rule 69, Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the RTC’s order constituted grave abuse of discretion because the question of co-ownership and the possible existence of other indispensable heirs had not been resolved.

Issue Presented on Review

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the trial court’s order requiring private respondent to deposit monthly rentals with the trial court during the pendency of the partition and accounting action.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that the trial co