Title
Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 75886
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1988
A land partition dispute arises over a 312-sqm property in Bulacan, involving heirs and alleged forged sales; Supreme Court affirms co-ownership, orders partition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75886)

Background and Property History

Originally, Lot No. 1549 was registered in the name of Januario Avendano, a bachelor who passed away intestate on October 22, 1945, without any surviving heirs. On September 21, 1959, the intestate heirs of Januario Avendano executed a document titled "Paghahati at Pagtagahuyan ng Mana sa Labas ng Hukuman," which partitioned the property among the heirs, allocating undivided shares among them, including a share to Ernesto and Victor Roque. Subsequently, on September 28, 1959, the co-owners sold their collective three-fourths share of Lot No. 1549 to Ernesto and Victor Roque for P500.00, formalized through notarized deeds.

Subsequent Transactions

On November 27, 1961, Ernesto and Victor Roque executed an unnotarized sale of a three-fourths undivided portion of Lot No. 1549 to petitioner Concepcion Roque. Despite this transaction, the property continued to be registered under the name of Januario Avendano. A survey conducted on September 20, 1975, led to the preparation of a subdivision plan indicating the ownership divide: a one-fourth portion for Ernesto and Victor, and a three-fourths portion for Concepcion. However, the respondents disputed Concepcion's ownership, rejecting attempts at amicable settlement.

Initial Complaint and Denial of Ownership

On December 6, 1977, Concepcion filed a complaint for "Partition with Specific Performance" against the respondents, claiming her legal ownership based on the 1961 deed. The respondents opposed this by questioning the validity of the deed, alleging forgery, and asserting that Concepcion was occupying the land merely with their tolerance, denying her status as a co-owner.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court

On June 27, 1983, the Regional Trial Court of Malolos ruled in Concepcion’s favor. The trial court's decision included an order for the respondents to execute a deed confirming the sale and for the partition of Lot No. 1549 according to the approved subdivision plan. The trial court found compelling evidence in favor of Concepcion's claim.

Appeal and Reversal by the Intermediate Appellate Court

Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the respondents appealed, alleging various errors, including the refusal to recognize the sale's validity. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision in a ruling dated July 31, 1986, concluding that once co-ownership was contested, the appropriate action for Concepcion would have been an action reivindicatoria rather than a partition suit.

Legal Reasoning and Ownership Dispute

The appellate court emphasized that an action for partition could not prevail against an assertion of adverse title from the defendants. The court underscored that the action should have transformed into a claim for recovery of title once the defendants denied co-ownership. It recommended that the trial court should have dismissed the partition action, prompting Concepcion to re-file under the correct cause of action.

Court's Conclusion on Concepcion's Claim

In reviewing the case, the court stated that a partition action encompasses both the determination of co-ownership and the subsequent division of property among co-owners. If the court determines the plaintiff's co-ownership status favorably, then partitioning can follow within the sa

...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.