G.R. No. L-39384 June 22, 1984
PABLO GARBO, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CIPRIANO GARBO, EUSEBIO GARBO, PEDRO GARBO, MARIANO GARBO, RESTITUTO GARBO, LEONILA GARBO and ANICETA GARBO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action for partition filed by respondents (brothers and sisters) against petitioner Pablo Garbo over a parcel of land. Petitioner claimed exclusive ownership based on a deed of sale, while respondents asserted the property was purchased by their late father, Francisco Garbo, and was thus held in co-ownership. The Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered a judgment on September 15, 1972, declaring the land as part of Francisco Garbo’s estate and ordering its partition into eight equal shares among all siblings. The court also directed the parties to submit a project of partition, with a provision for appointing a commissioner if they failed.
The parties did not submit a project of partition. Consequently, the trial court appointed a commissioner, whose report was approved on July 3, 1973. Petitioner received this approval order on July 7, 1973. He then filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 1973, an appeal bond on July 30, 1973, and a record on appeal on August 1, 1973. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court’s September 15, 1972 judgment was final and appealable or merely interlocutory, which determines if petitioner’s appeal was timely filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the September 15, 1972 judgment was a final judgment on the merits, not an interlocutory order. The Court explained that while the general rule in partition suits is that an appeal awaits the termination of partition proceedings, this rule does not apply when the appellant claims exclusive ownership over the entire property and denies the adverse party’s right to any partition. Petitioner Pablo Garbo precisely asserted exclusive ownership, contesting the very basis of co-ownership and partition. The trial court’s judgment definitively resolved this central issue of ownership by declaring the property as commonly owned by all siblings and ordering its partition.
Since the judgment was final, the reglementary period to appeal began from petitioner’s receipt of the judgment on October 11, 1972, making the deadline November 10, 1972. Petitioner’s appeal actions in July and August 1973 were therefore filed beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment had become final and executory. The Supreme Court, while noting a liberal application of the material data rule was warranted, dismissed the petition on the substantive ground of the appeal’s untimeliness. The partition of the property in implementation of the 1972 judgment was ordered to proceed.