GR 201011; (January, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201011 ; January 27, 2014
THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA, RICARDO, and GLORIA, all surnamed DIMAGUILA, Petitioners, vs. JOSE and SONIA A. MONTEIRO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Monteiro filed a complaint for partition against petitioners, the Dimaguilas, claiming co-ownership over a residential lot in Laguna based on a deed of sale from the heirs of Pedro Dimaguila. The Dimaguilas countered that the property had already been partitioned in 1945 between two brothers, Perfecto and Vitaliano, with the northern half going to Vitaliano, from whom they descended, and the southern half to Perfecto. They asserted that the Spouses Monteiro, not being heirs of either brother, had no claim. After protracted proceedings, the Spouses Monteiro amended their complaint to one for recovery of possession, adopting the Dimaguilas’ original admission of the 1945 partition. They specifically claimed Pedro’s one-third share of Perfecto’s southern half, which they purchased, alleging the Dimaguilas were occupying it.
The Dimaguilas, in their answer to the amended complaint, reversed their original position. They now argued that the 1945 extrajudicial partition only created a co-ownership by stating a division “share and share alike,” and that the sale to the Spouses Monteiro was void for specifying a definite portion of an allegedly undivided property. The trial court ruled in favor of the Spouses Monteiro, ordering the Dimaguilas to vacate the specific portion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Spouses Monteiro have a valid cause of action for recovery of possession of a specific portion of the subject property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic hinges on judicial admissions and estoppel. In their original answer, the Dimaguilas clearly admitted that the property was partitioned in 1945, with specific halves allotted to Perfecto and Vitaliano, and that this division was respected by their heirs. This admission, which was not shown to be made through palpable mistake, is conclusive against them. They are estopped from subsequently claiming the existence of a co-ownership, as the Spouses Monteiro relied on this admission in amending their complaint. Having judicially admitted a completed partition, the Dimaguilas cannot assert that the property remained undivided. Consequently, Perfecto’s heirs, including Pedro, owned a definite southern half. Pedro’s heirs could validly sell his specific one-third portion of that divided half to the Spouses Monteiro. The Dimaguilas’ occupation of that specific portion sold, which they admitted was part of the southern half adjudicated to Perfecto’s line, gave rise to the Spouses Monteiro’s actionable claim for recovery of possession.