Title
Tomias vs. Tomias
Case
G.R. No. L-3004
Decision Date
May 30, 1951
Eustaquio Tomias' heirs disputed land partition; court ruled co-ownership, denied annulment due to jurisdiction, proper representation, and Filemon Tomias' separate claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3004)

Procedural History

On January 19, 1948, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in civil case No. 857 with the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. They alleged that Eustaquio Tomias owned 15 parcels of land valued at P8,290, which the defendants had refused to partition among the heirs. Defendants included Dolores and Anicetas Tomias for their refusal to join the plaintiff's action. The defendants, represented by Atty. Jose M. Millares, filed a general denial in response to the complaint. A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed by the plaintiffs, leading the court to declare all parties as co-owners of the contested property on April 21, 1948.

Attempts to Annul the Judgment

Five months after the decision became final, the defendants, along with Filemon Tomias, initiated another action to annul the judgement under civil case No. 1063. They contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over certain parcels purported to be owned by individuals not parties to the original suit, and further claimed that not all heirs, specifically Filemon Tomias, were included in the initial action. The court dismissed this annulment suit on grounds that the issues had already been addressed in the prior case, and therefore, the decision did not warrant revocation.

Reconsideration and Denial of Claims

In a subsequent motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs raised the issue that Toribia Tomias had not been served with summons during the initial action. They presented an affidavit asserting her nondelivery of the complaint, but the court denied the motion, asserting that Filemon Tomias was not an indispensable party due to the lack of judicial acknowledgment of his status as a natural child. The court also concluded that Toribia Tomias was adequately represented under her alias, Enrica. A second motion for reconsideration was similarly denied, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal the decision to a higher court.

Court's Rationale and Conclusion

The court found no merit in the appeal process, emphasizing that the mere allegation of other parcels not belonging to Eustaquio Tomias does not invalidate t

...continue reading

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