Title
Heirs of Marasigan vs. Marasigan
Case
G.R. No. 156078
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2008
Dispute over partition of Alicia Marasigan's 496-hectare estate; SC upheld assignment to one heir, citing impractical physical division, due process compliance, and valid auction.
partition of estate
lack of notice
reversal
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153310)

Core factual matrix: nature and extent of the estate

Alicia owned undivided 2/21 shares in 13 parcels forming Hacienda Sta. Rita with aggregate titles and tax declarations described in detail. The 2/21 pro indiviso share actually represented 422,422.65 square meters. Each heir’s 1/7 share of Alicia’s 2/21 interest equated to 67,496.09 square meters (roughly 6.7496 hectares). Cesar (later deceased) claimed additional properties and assets for inclusion in the partition; private respondents contended those were already partitioned.

Procedural history leading to partition order

On 17 December 1997 private respondents filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition (RTC of Pili, Special Civil Action No. P-77-97). By Order dated 4 February 2000 the RTC decreed partition of Alicia’s estate and ordered partition of her 2/21 interest, determining the area of the estate and the 1/7 shares. The RTC also validated prior partition of San Juan, Batangas properties as reflected in the minutes of the Rural Bank of Bolbok.

Commissioners appointed under Rule 69 and ocular inspection

When the parties could not agree on physical division, the RTC appointed commissioners pursuant to Sections 3–7, Rule 69. Two commissioners conducted an ocular inspection on 26 October 2000 (Cesar contended he received no notice and did not attend). The commissioners submitted a Report (17 November 2000) finding the 2/21 pro-indiviso share could not be physically divided without prejudice and recommending assignment of each heir’s 1/7 share to any willing party at P700,000 per hectare (P4,724,726.30 per 1/7 share), or sale at public auction if so requested.

Cesar’s opposition and RTC approval of the Commissioners’ report

Cesar opposed the commissioners’ recommendation, arguing physical division was possible and Section 5, Rule 69 may not be properly invoked. The RTC, after consideration, issued an Order dated 22 June 2001 approving the commissioners’ report in toto, adopting the assignment valuation of P700,000/ha and directing supplemental inspection for San Juan, Batangas properties. Cesar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Substitution and elevation to the Court of Appeals

Cesar died on 25 October 2001 and his heirs (petitioners) substituted. Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (CA G.R. SP No. 67529), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC: lack of due notice for the commissioners’ viewing, misapplication of Rule 69 and Articles 492/494/495, and that assignment would not terminate co-ownership.

Court of Appeals ruling and reasoning

The Court of Appeals (31 July 2002) dismissed petitioners’ certiorari and prohibition petition, holding the RTC acted within authority. The appellate court found petitioners failed to prove proceedings were unfair or prejudicial, that petitioners were afforded opportunity to be heard (including hearing on 18 January 2001), and that determination whether partition would prejudice interests is a factual matter for the commissioners whose findings are discretionary and not reviewable by certiorari. The CA treated physical impossibility/impracticality as encompassed by “prejudice” in Section 5, Rule 69.

Subsequent execution, public auction, and related procedural contests

While the Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court was pending, the RTC granted private respondents’ urgent motion for execution (26 December 2002) and ordered sale of petitioners’ 1/7 share. Public auction was held on 26 February 2003; Apolonio won with a bid of P701,000/ha, and petitioners’ 1/7 share sold for P3,777,689.00 (lower than the commissioners’ valuation because a portion of Hacienda Sta. Rita was subject to compulsory DAR acquisition under RA 6657). Petitioners moved to annul the auction and filed appeals and motions; the RTC denied due course to their notice of appeal as certiorari was the proper remedy; subsequent CA Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 78912) was dismissed for defective verification (signed only by one petitioner without proof of authority); the Supreme Court later denied a related petition (G.R. No. 164970) challenging that CA resolution.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners raised assignments of error alleging: (1) deprivation of due process because no notice to attend commissioners’ viewing and examination; (2) misapplication of Articles 494/495 and Section 5, Rule 69; (3) Section 5, Rule 69, as construed by CA to include “physical impossibility” within “prejudice,” is unconstitutional for altering substantive rights under the Constitution; (4) lack of jurisdiction/cause of action and invalid partition of an undivided share; and (5) irregularities tainting proceedings and the auction sale.

Court’s procedural disposition on newly raised jurisdictional issues

The Supreme Court observed petitioners raised certain jurisdictional and cause-of-action arguments for the first time in their Memorandum. The Court enforced procedural rules barring new issues raised at that stage, citing the rule that defenses and objections not pleaded are deemed waived (Rule 9, Sec. 1) and the principle against introducing new issues in a memorandum. The Court found Cesar (and thus petitioners) had actively participated earlier and therefore were estopped from belatedly challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction or the cause of action on those grounds.

Waiver/estoppel and characterization of alleged jurisdictional defects

The Court explained that while lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time if apparent, the facts here showed active participation by Cesar (seeking affirmative reliefs), which precludes belated jurisdictional challenge. The Court also treated petitioners’ arguments about docket fees and inclusion of the entire 496-hectare hacienda as more appropriately venue or fee issues, not subject-matter jurisdiction apparent on the face of pleadings.

Due process and notice to attend commissioners’ viewing

On the due process claim, the Court emphasized that due process fundamentally requires opportunity to be heard. Although lack of notice for the ocular inspection was a procedural infirmity, the Court found petitioners were not deprived of substantive rights: Cesar and his heirs had the opportunity to file comments/opposition to the commissioners’ report and to seek reconsideration of the RTC approval. No competent proof established prejudice resulting from the alleged lack of notice; mere allegation of prejudice is insufficient.

Factual determination of “prejudice” under Section 5, Rule 69

The Court analyzed the commissioners’ factual finding that partition would prejudice the parties. It held that whether division would prejudice the interests of co-owners is essentially factual, depending on the property’s type, condition, location, and use; the commissioners are properly delegated to determine that question. Given that Alicia’s estate comprised scattered parcels across two municipalities and the heirs’ shares would be small and widely dispersed (resulting in diminished utility/value), the commissioners’ finding of impracticality/prejudice was credible and entitled to deference.

On reviewability: certiorari limited to jurisdictional errors and grave abuse

The Court reiterated that certiorari (Rule 65) is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Disagreement on factual determinations or errors of judgment are not proper certiorari issues. The Court found no showing that the RTC’s adoption of the commissioners’ recommendation involved such grave abuse or jurisdictional defect.

Constitutional challenge to Section 5, Rule 69

Petitioners’ contention that interpreting “prejudice” to include physical impossibility renders Section 5 unconstitutional (impermissibly altering substantive rights) was not entertained substantively. The Court declined to reach the constitutional question because it was not necessary to decide the case — the dispute could be resolved on statutory and factual grounds. The Court underscored the prudential rule that constitutional issues are entertained only if essential to resolution.

Assignment versus termination of co-ownership and purpose of partition law

The Court clarified that

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms