G.R. No. 166393 - Reillo vs. San Jose

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166393)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Complaint filed in RTC (Civil Case No. 99-1148-M) by respondents: October 26, 1999 (annulment of title, annulment of extrajudicial settlement, partition, damages).
Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver of Rights executed: January 23, 1998.
TCT No. M-94400 issued in Ma. Teresa’s name: July 6, 1999.
RTC Order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings, annulling deed and title, directing cancellation of TCT M-94400, and ordering partition: May 9, 2000; denial of reconsideration August 29, 2000.
Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC: August 31, 2004; CA denied reconsideration December 14, 2004.
Supreme Court disposition: petition for review on certiorari denied; CA decision and resolution affirmed.

Applicable constitution and rules: 1987 Constitution (decision after 1990); Rules of Court provisions relied upon in the decisions include Rule 34 §1 (judgment on the pleadings), Rule 6 §§6–7 (counterclaims), Rule 69 §1 (action for partition), Rule 74 §1 and Rule 76 §3 (succession publication provisions referenced).

Facts Alleged and Pleadings

Respondents alleged that petitioners executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights (January 23, 1998) which falsely represented petitioners as the “legitimate descendants and sole heirs” of Quiterio and Antonina and adjudicated the subject parcel exclusively to Ma. Teresa. Respondents claimed that execution of that deed, without knowledge or consent of other heirs (including respondents), was falsified and resulted in cancellation of TCT No. 458396 and issuance of TCT No. M-94400 to Ma. Teresa, thereby depriving respondents of their lawful shares. Respondents sought annulment of the deed, annulment/cancellation of the title, partition of the property in accordance with intestate succession, and damages. Petitioners denied falsification, asserted the settlement was valid and implemented, and filed a Counter-Petition for partition alleging claims to twelve other parcels of land allegedly belonging to the spouses’ estate.

Motions, Procedural Contentions, and Trial Court Rulings

Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that petitioners’ answer failed to tender an issue because it (a) contained negative pregnant denials, (b) did not specifically deny misrepresentation that they were sole heirs, and (c) by reference to their counter-petition impliedly admitted they were not sole heirs. Respondents also moved to dismiss the counter-petition for partition on the ground that petitioners failed to pay requisite docket fees. The RTC granted respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, declared the extrajudicial settlement and TCT M-94400 null and void, directed cancellation of TCT M-94400, and ordered partition of the subject parcel according to intestate succession. The RTC declined to consider petitioners’ counter-petition for partition for nonpayment of docket fees.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioners principally argued that: (1) the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s judgment on the pleadings and thereby violated due process and property rights (also alleging multiplicity of suits would result); (2) the CA should have given due course to their appeal; (3) the RTC erred in dismissing their counter-petition for partition on the ground of unpaid docket fees instead of allowing them to cure the defect; and (4) the RTC erred in ordering partition without the publication required by Rules 74 and 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed both the CA Decision of August 31, 2004 and the CA Resolution of December 14, 2004. The RTC’s May 9, 2000 Order annulling the extrajudicial settlement and TCT No. M-94400 and directing partition of the subject parcel according to intestate succession was upheld.

Reasoning on Judgment on the Pleadings

The Court applied Rule 34 §1 of the Rules of Court: where an answer fails to tender an issue or admits material allegations of the adverse pleading, the court may direct judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that petitioners’ answer, while denying the deed was falsified, admitted respondents’ material allegation that the deceased spouses had five children (including respondents). That admission was decisive because respondents’ core theory was that the extrajudicial settlement fraudulently excluded co-heirs and thereby deprived them of their lawful shares. Petitioners’ own pleadings and counter-petition for partition (asserting claims to other parcels) reinforced the inference that petitioners were not sole heirs. Because petitioners’ answer, taken in its entirety, failed to generate a genuine issue on the material allegation of sole-heir status, the Court concluded the RTC did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings and annulling the extrajudicial settlement and the title issued pursuant thereto. The Court reiterated precedent that an extrajudicial partition excluding heirs who did not participate or consent is fraudulent and void.

Reasoning on Counter-Petition and Docket Fees

The Court analyzed the nature of petitioners’ counter-petition for partition under Rule 6 §§6–7. It characterized petitioners’ counter-petition as permissive rather than compulsory because it sought partition and accounting of twelve other parcels not described in respondents’ complaint and thus was not necessarily connected with the subject matter of respondents’ action (which concerned only the parcel covered by TCT No. M-94400/TCT No. 458396). A permissive counterclaim requires payment of docket fees upon filing or the court will not acquire jurisdiction. The Court accepted the CA’s view that although courts may, in some instances, allow belated payment within a reasonable time, here petitioners did not request time to pay, did not pay during the hearing of the motion to dismiss, and did not seek relief by paying the fees when the RTC dismissed the counter-petition. The Court therefore found no reversible error in the dismissal of petitioners’ counter-petition for nonpayment of docket fees and emphasized that petitioners could not shift their statutory duty to the trial court.

Reasoning on Partition and Publication Requirements

Following annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and cancellation of the title issued in favor of Ma. Teresa, the property reverted to the estate of the original registered owners, Quiterio and Antonina. The Court accepted the CA’s reasoning that, because the parties to the suit admitted heirship, the property was co-owne

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166393)

Facts

Spouses Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo were original registered owners of a parcel of land in E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Teresa, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 458396 (Register of Deeds of Rizal).
Antonina died on July 1, 1970; Quiterio died on October 19, 1976.
The couple had five children: Virginia, Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria and Catalina. Virginia and Virgilio predeceased the events relevant to the case; Virginia was survived by her husband Zosimo Fernando, Sr. and seven children; Virgilio was survived by his wife Julita Gonzales and children including Maribeth S.J. Cortez.
Petitioners include Zosimo Fernando, Sr. and several of Virginia’s children (Cristina F. Reillo, Leonor F. Puso, Adelia F. Rocamora, Sofronio S.J. Fernando, Efren S.J. Fernando, Zosimo S.J. Fernando, Jr., and Ma. Teresa F. Piaon).
On January 23, 1998, a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights was executed by petitioners, which (allegedly) represented that those executing it were the “legitimate descendants and sole heirs of Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo,” and adjudicated the subject parcel to Ma. Teresa F. Piaon (a.k.a. Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando).
The Deed included a purported waiver by some heirs (Zosimo Sr., Cristina, Leonor, Adelia, Sofronio, Efren and Zosimo Jr.) of their rights and interests over the subject parcel in favor of Ma. Teresa.
On July 6, 1999, TCT No. M-94400 was issued in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando, allegedly on the strength of the January 23, 1998 Deed.
Respondents (Galicano, represented by attorneys-in-fact Annalisa S.J. Ruiz and Rodelio S. San Jose; Victoria; Catalina; and Maribeth) alleged the Deed was falsified and that they were deprived of their lawful participation in the estate as surviving heirs.
Respondents filed a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa and obtained a certification to file court action for failure to settle the matter amicably, then filed suit in the RTC.

Complaint, Answer and Counterclaims

On October 26, 1999, respondents filed a Complaint in RTC Civil Case No. 99-1148-M for annulment of title, annulment of deed of extrajudicial settlement, partition and damages against Zosimo Sr., his children (petitioners), Ma. Teresa, and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal.
The complaint alleged falsification of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement (dated January 23, 1998), waiver of rights in favor of Ma. Teresa, the issuance of TCT No. M-94400 on July 6, 1999, deprivation of respondents’ rights, and sought annulment of the Deed and all documents issued on its basis, including TCT No. M-94400.
Petitioners filed an Answer with Counter-Petition and with Compulsory Counterclaim denying falsification and maintaining that the extrajudicial settlement was made and implemented according to law.
In their Counter-Petition for partition, petitioners listed twelve (12) other parcels of land allegedly belonging to the estates of Quiterio and Antonina which petitioners alleged were in respondents’ possession or control and sought partition/accounting of those properties.

Procedural Motions and Pleadings

On January 18, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting, inter alia:
- Petitioners’ denials were in the form of negative pregnant;
- Petitioners failed to state grounds rebutting the allegation that the Deed was falsified;
- Petitioners failed to specifically deny plaintiffs’ allegations that they misrepresented themselves as sole heirs;
- Petitioners’ reference to their counter-petition for partition amounted to an implied admission they were not sole heirs.
Respondents filed a Reply to Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and concurrently moved to dismiss petitioners’ counter-petition for partition for failure to pay the required docket fees.
Petitioners filed a Rejoinder and later a Comment to respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, requesting the action be decided on the basis of pleadings (except respondents’ unverified Reply), and opposed the motion to dismiss their counter-petition for partition.
Petitioners did not pay docket fees for their Counter-Petition for partition and did not secure time from the trial court to pay same during proceedings.

RTC Decision (May 9, 2000)

Dispositive portion of the RTC Order:
- Declared the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated January 23, 1998, and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando null and void.
- Directed the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Morong Branch, to cancel TCT No. M-94400.
- Directed the heirs of Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo to partition the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. M-458396 in accordance with the law of intestate succession.
RTC reasoning:
- Based on pleadings, petitioners misrepresented themselves as sole heirs in the extrajudicial settlement.
- Petitioners’ filing of a counter-petition for partition involving other parcels bolstered respondents’ claim of falsification.
- Petitioners’ Counter-Petition for Partition was not considered filed for lack of payment of docket fees.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on August 29, 2000.

Court of Appeals Decision (August 31, 2004) and Resolution (December 14, 2004)

The CA affirmed the RTC’s May 9, 2000 Order and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
CA findings and rulings:
- Petitioners’ Counter-Petition for Partition filed in their Answer involved twelve (12) other parcels and was in the nature of a permissive counterclaim rather than compulsory; as a permissive counterclaim it required payment of docket fees.
- Petitioners, as plaintiffs in the counter-petition, had the duty to pay docket fees; failure to do so deprived the court of jurisdiction over that counter-petition.
- Petitioners admitted in their Answer that Quiterio and Antonina had five children (including respondents), which supported respondents’ claim that petitioners were not sole heirs and thus misrepresented themselves in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.
- The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement excluding respondents was fraudulent and vicious; extrajudicial settlements are not binding upon non-participating persons.
- TCT No. M-94400 issued in Ma. Teresa’s name was without basis and must be cancelled.
- The RTC’s order of partition of the subject property in accordance with intestate succession was proper given annulment of the deed and title; the RTC had authority limited to the property described in respondents’ pleading.
The CA also addressed the petitioners’ contention regarding multiplicity of suits