Title
Heirs of Malit vs. Heirs of Malit
Case
G.R. No. 205979
Decision Date
Apr 28, 2021
Co-owners dispute over land partition; oral agreement breached, property registered solely by one party. RTC dismissed due to prior judgment, procedural lapses; SC upheld CA, denied appeal as untimely.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205979)

Background of the Case

The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. initiated a Complaint for Partition and Damages against the Heirs of Jesus Malit. The complaint alleged an oral agreement regarding the title and registration of the subject property, which the Heirs of Jesus Malit purportedly breached by subdividing the land and obtaining titles solely in their names. The Respondents countered the complaint with defenses including lack of cause of action, forum shopping, and failure to comply with a condition precedent.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

The RTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds of a prior judgment in a different case (Civil Case No. 4816), claims concerning the property being non-partitionable due to prior patent acquisition by the Heirs of Jesus Malit, insufficient verification of the complaint, and failure to demonstrate earnest efforts for compromise as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code. The RTC concluded that the dismissal was final and therefore barred any action for a similar claim.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

The CA upheld the RTC's dismissal, maintaining that the correct course of action for the Petitioners would be to appeal rather than file a certiorari petition under Rule 65. The CA found that the Petitioners’ arguments addressed errors in judgment rather than grave abuse of discretion, reinforcing that their appeal was filed late, as it was submitted 51 days after the RTC's denial of their motion for reconsideration.

Issue for Resolution

The primary issue at hand was whether the CA erred in dismissing the Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr.'s petition on the grounds of incorrect remedy or untimeliness of filing.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, asserting that the RTC's dismissal constituted a final order making the dismissal with prejudice, thus disqualifying the Petitioners from seeking certiorari. The Court reiterated that litigation rules allow for dismissal w

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.