G.R. No. 151334 ; February 13, 2013
CAROLINA (CARLINA) VDA. DE FIGURACION, et al., Petitioners, vs. EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Respondent.

FACTS

The parties are heirs of Leandro Figuracion. The dispute involves three parcels of land. Two lots (Lots 2299 and 705) were acquired by Leandro during his lifetime and registered in his name “married to Carolina Adviento.” Leandro executed a Deed of Quitclaim over these properties in favor of his six children in 1955, but their shares were not delineated. The third property, Lot 707, was originally owned by Eulalio Adviento, Carolina’s father. Eulalio had a daughter, Agripina, from his first marriage, and Carolina from his second. In 1961, Agripina executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the eastern half of Lot 707 in favor of her niece, respondent Emilia. In 1962, Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication claiming the entire Lot 707 as sole heir and immediately sold it to her daughters, petitioners Hilaria and Felipa, who obtained a new title.
In 1994, after a dispute, Emilia filed a Complaint for partition of all three lots, annulment of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and subsequent sale, reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for partition of Lots 2299 and 705, ruling ownership was yet to be transmitted via estate settlement. For Lot 707, it nullified Carolina’s Affidavit and the subsequent documents but refused to adjudicate ownership to Emilia, stating Eulalio’s estate needed settlement. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, ordering the partition of Lot 707.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether an action for partition of Lot 707 is proper without prior settlement of Eulalio Adviento’s estate.

RULING

Yes, partition is proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, modifying the RTC decision. The legal logic proceeds from the established co-ownership over Lot 707. Upon Eulalio’s death, his estate (Lot 707) passed to his compulsory heirs: his children Agripina and Carolina. Thus, they became co-owners, each with a ½ undivided share. Carolina’s Affidavit of Self-Adjudication claiming the entire lot was void with respect to Agripina’s share. Consequently, the sale to Hilaria and Felipa could only transfer Carolina’s ½ share; it was void as to Agripina’s ½ share. Agripina validly conveyed her ½ share to Emilia via the 1961 Deed of Quitclaim.
Since Carolina had already sold her share, the property was held in a state of co-ownership between Emilia (owning ½ from Agripina) and Hilaria and Felipa (owning ½ from Carolina). An action for partition is precisely the remedy to terminate this co-ownership. There is no legal requirement for prior judicial settlement of Eulalio’s estate because the rights of the heirs (Agripina and Carolina) had already become vested upon his death, and the property had effectively been transmitted to them. The estate was not in a condition of being administered, as the heirs had already acted upon their shares. Therefore, the partition of Lot 707 among the current co-owners is legally tenable. The case was remanded to the RTC to effect the partition.