Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4818)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Relevant dates in the record include: the deaths of Cornelio (March 15, 1991), Valentina (August 19, 1990) and Valeriana (August 4, 1998); filing of the partition/accounting complaint (August 22, 2002); trial court judgment ordering partition (Regional Trial Court, September 22, 2008); Court of Appeals decision modifying partition (November 30, 2010) and denial of reconsideration (April 4, 2011); and the Supreme Court resolution of the present appeal (decision promulgated December 7, 2016; reported September 18, 2017).
Applicable Law (constitutional and statutory basis)
Because the decision was rendered after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional framework underlying judicial authority. The primary statutory and doctrinal provisions applied are from the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, specifically: Article 493 (rights of co-owners), Articles 1087–1088 (rules on partition and alienation of hereditary rights), Article 500 (mutual accounting upon partition), and Rule 69 of the Rules of Court (procedures for partition, including Sections 2, 3 and 11). Controlling jurisprudence cited includes Alejandrino v. CA, Torres v. Lapinid, and Vda. de Daffon v. Court of Appeals.
Factual Background — property, ownership and sale
The three lots have areas of 77,147 sq.m., 13,659 sq.m., and 9,546 sq.m., totaling 100,352 sq.m.; each of the three siblings thus had an equal one‑third share (33,450.66 sq.m.). Valentina and Valeriana executed on August 18, 1982 a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying “all our shares, rights, interests and participations” in the parcels to Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra for ₱10,000. The plaintiffs (heirs of Cornelio) allege defendants excluded them from sharing in the fruits of the property and sought partition of the three parcels and accounting for fruits; the defendants asserted they had acquired Valentina’s and Valeriana’s pro indiviso shares by valid sale and thus the partition should exclude the sold portions.
Trial Court Judgment and Court of Appeals Modification
The RTC (Branch 64, Tarlac City) ordered partition of the three parcels among the compulsory and legal heirs of Cornelio, Valentina and Valeriana. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the judgment by recognizing the sales to Sebastian and Tarcila and limiting partition and accounting to only the unsold portion — a one‑third portion equal to 33,450.66 sq.m. The CA concluded that the Deed of Absolute Sale was valid and subsisting and therefore the sold shares could not be included in the partition among Cornelio’s heirs.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly restricted the partition and accounting to only 33,450.66 square meters — i.e., whether Valentina’s and Valeriana’s sales of their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila were valid and thereby reduced the portion available for partition among Cornelio’s heirs.
Supreme Court Ruling — summary of holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision with modification. It held (1) that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Valentina and Valeriana conveying their pro indiviso shares was valid and subsisting and properly made without Cornelio’s consent, (2) that the effect of those sales was to vest the sold shares in Sebastian and Tarcila (making them co‑owners), (3) therefore only the one‑third portion corresponding to Cornelio’s share (33,450.66 sq.m.) remained subject to partition among Cornelio’s heirs, and (4) that the trial court and CA nevertheless failed to describe and segregate the specific metes and bounds of the portions to be allotted and therefore the case must be remanded to the RTC to effectuate a proper partition and accounting limited to the undivided one‑third share.
Legal analysis — alienability of pro indiviso shares (Article 493 and Article 1088)
The decision rests fundamentally on the rule that a co‑owner may alienate his pro indiviso share even before partition. Article 493 explicitly grants each co‑owner full ownership of his part, including the right to alienate or mortgage it; the legal effect of such an alienation among co‑owners is limited to the share that will be allotted upon termination of co‑ownership. Article 1088 (regarding heirs) provides mechanisms for co‑heirs to subrogate themselves to the purchaser’s rights by reimbursing the purchase price within a statutory period if notified. Applying these rules, the Court found that Valentina and Valeriana lawfully conveyed their hereditary pro‑indiviso interests to Sebastian and Tarcila and that Cornelio’s heirs could not successfully impugn those conveyances in the partition action.
Legal analysis — practical effect on co‑ownership and composition of shares
Because each sibling held an undivided one‑third share of 100,352 sq.m., the sale of Valentina’s and Valeriana’s shares meant Sebastian and Tarcila acquired those respective one‑third interests. Consequently, the co‑ownership framework after the sales became: (a) Sebastian (and his heirs) holding one‑third, (b) Tarcila holding one‑third, and (c) Cornelio’s one‑third share subject to succession and thus owned pro indiviso by Cornelio’s heirs (the petitioners and, as successors, some of the respondents). The Court thus treated the sold shares as no longer available to Cornelio’s heirs for purposes of partition and accounting.
Partition procedure — requirement for metes and bounds and remand
Although the CA correctly recognized the validity of the sales and the reduced portion subject to partition, the Supreme Court found the CA erred procedurally by not segregating and describing the specific portions by metes and bounds as required by Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. When actual partition is decreed, the judgment must state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion assigned to each party so that title can vest in severalty. Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC to: (a) determine the technical metes and bounds and the specific shares to be allotted among the co‑owners in accordance with the proportions established in the decision; (b) effect physical partition either by agreement and confirmed conveyances or, if no agreement is reached, by appointing commissioners (Section 3, Rule 69) to allocate the parts as directed.
Specific prop
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4818)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported as 802 Phil. 532; 113 OG No. 38, 6999 (September 18, 2017), First Division, G.R. No. 196403, December 07, 2016.
- Appeal from the Court of Appeals decision promulgated November 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92920 (pened by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino (ret.) and Ruben C. Ayson (ret.) concurring), which modified the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Tarlac City judgment of September 22, 2008 (pened by Presiding Judge Domingo C. San Jose, Jr.).
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals which was denied on April 4, 2011; the present appeal to the Supreme Court followed.
Parties and Relationships
- Petitioners: Arsenio Tabasondra, Fernando Tabasondra, Cornelio Tabasondra, Jr., Mirasol Tabasondra-Mariano, Fausta Tabasondra-Tapacio, Guillermo Tabasondra, Myrasol Tabasondra-Romero, and Marlene Tabasondra-Maniquil — children of Cornelio Tabasondra by his second wife, Sotera (successors-in-interest of Cornelio).
- Respondents: Spouses Conrado Constantino and Tarcila Tabasondra-Constantino, Pacita Arellano-Tabasondra, and heirs of Sebastian Tabasondra — Tarcila and Sebastian were children of Cornelio by his first wife, Severina.
- Note: Tarcila’s name also appears as Tarsila in parts of the record, including the decision under review.
Subject Property — Description and Ownership History
- The three parcels of land located at Dalayap, Tarlac City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 106012, comprised:
- Lot No. 2536 — 77,147 sq. m.;
- Lot No. 3155 — 13,659 sq. m.;
- Lot No. 3159 — 9,546 sq. m.
- Aggregate area of the three lots: 100,352 sq. m.
- Original registered owners: siblings Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana Tabasondra.
- Deaths and intestacy:
- Cornelio died March 15, 1991;
- Valentina died August 19, 1990, single and intestate;
- Valeriana died August 4, 1998, single and intestate;
- All died intestate and without partition of the property under TCT No. 106012.
- Resulting status: possession and occupation of the property by descendants/heirs of Cornelio (the plaintiffs-appellees and defendants-appellants in the trial court).
Factual Core: The Deed of Absolute Sale and Its Terms
- Valentina and Valeriana executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 18, 1982, conveying "all our shares, rights, interests and participations in the above-described parcel of land" to Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra for the consideration of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
- The deed explicitly certified that the vendees (Sebastian and Tarcila) were "the actual tillers or tenants of the above-described parcel of land subject matter of this deed of absolute sale and, as such, have the prior right of pre-emption and redemption, under the Land Reform Code."
- The Court of Appeals found the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale not rebutted by plaintiffs-appellees.
Complaint, Counterclaims and Reliefs Sought in the Trial Court
- Plaintiffs-Appellees (petitioners here) filed suit on August 22, 2002, alleging:
- The parcels are owned in common by plaintiffs and defendants-appellants;
- Defendants-appellants did not give plaintiffs their share in the fruits (profits) of the land;
- Plea for partition of the land, issuance of new titles in respective names, accounting of fruits, and partition of the fruits.
- Defendants-Appellants’ Answer and Counterclaim:
- Did not object to partition provided it is limited to Cornelio’s share only;
- Claimed ownership of Valentina’s and Valeriana’s shares by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 18, 1982;
- Alleged plaintiffs were the ones enjoying the fruits and therefore should be ordered to render an accounting and to pay damages; counterclaimed for accounting and damages.
Trial Court (RTC) Judgment — September 22, 2008
- The RTC rendered judgement in favor of the plaintiffs ordering partition of the three parcels covered by TCT No. "16012" among the compulsory and legal heirs of Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana (note: decision text uses TCT No. 16012).
- RTC fallo provided specific square meter allotments:
- Sotero Duenas Tabasondra (presumably an heir) — 3,040 sq. m.;
- Plaintiffs and defendants — 6,690 sq. m. each.
- The RTC thereby ordered a general partition among heirs without qualification that prior sales had divested Valentina and Valeriana of their pro indiviso shares.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals — Issues Raised by Respondents
- Respondents (defendants-appellants) assigned reversible errors to the RTC decision, contending:
- The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Valentina and Valeriana in favor of Tarcila and Sebastian was valid and subsisting and the RTC erred in disregarding it;
- The RTC gravely erred in ordering partition of the property without legal and valid grounds.
Court of Appeals Disposition — November 30, 2010
- The Court of Appeals GRANTED the appeal and AFFIRMED the RTC decision with MODIFICATION:
- Ordered that partition and accounting be made only with respect to a 33,450.66 sq. m. portion of the property (i.e., one-third of the aggregate 100,352 sq. m.).
- The CA thus recognized the validity and effect of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Valentina and Valeriana.
Petitioners’ Grounds in the Supreme Court Appeal
- Petitioners argued, among other points:
- The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction by summarily dismissing new matters of substance raised in their motion for reconsideration;
- The CA allegedly reneged on its duty to resolve legal and factual issues properly a