G.R. No. 161030 ; September 14, 2011
JOSE FERNANDO, JR., ZOILO FERNANDO, NORMA FERNANDO BANARES, ROSARIO FERNANDO TANGKENCGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS FERNANDO, represented by ALFREDO V. FERNANDO, HEIRS OF GUILLERMO FERNANDO, represented by Ronnie H. Fernando, HEIRS OF ILUMINADA FERNANDO, represented by Benjamin Estrella and HEIRS OF GERMOGENA FERNANDO, Petitioners, vs. LEON ACUNA, HERMOGENES FERNANDO, HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANTONIO FERNANDO AND FELISA CAMACHO, represented by HERMOGENES FERNANDO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs and successors-in-interest of the registered owners Jose A. Fernando and Antonia A. Fernando, filed a Complaint for partition of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-487 (997) located in San Jose, Baliuag, Bulacan. The defendants (heirs of Germogena Fernando) admitted the allegations and did not oppose the partition. Respondent Leon Acuna intervened, claiming that a portion of the property (Lot 1303) had already been adjudicated by a 1929 Cadastral Court Decision to specific persons, including Antonio Fernando (predecessor of respondent Hermogenes Fernando) and Jose Fernando (petitioners’ predecessor). Acuna further alleged he acquired a share (Lot 1303-D) through a series of sales and that petitioners had previously sold their respective shares in the property to a third party in 1978. He also cited a 1980 Court of First Instance (CFI) Decision concerning another portion (Lot 1302) which had already been titled to various claimants, including Norma Fernando (a petitioner). Respondent Hermogenes Fernando also intervened, asserting ownership over specific lots (1302-A, 1302-F, 1302-G, 1302-H, 1302-J) based on the same 1980 CFI Decision and claiming the action was barred by res judicata. During trial, petitioners admitted they were only claiming Lot 1303 and an area called “Sapang Bayan,” acknowledged the 1929 Decision subdividing Lot 1303, and confirmed the 1978 sale of a portion of Lot 1303. They claimed, however, that the 1929 Decision was never implemented. Respondent Hermogenes testified that the persons named in the 1929 Decision, including his parents, had occupied their respective allotted portions of Lot 1303, though no titles were issued based on that Decision.

ISSUE

Whether the action for partition is proper given the claims of prior adjudication and sale affecting the property.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision which had reversed the Regional Trial Court. The action for partition cannot prosper. A partition action presupposes a co-ownership of an undivided property. The evidence, particularly the 1929 Cadastral Court Decision, shows that the property in question (Lot 1303) had already been adjudicated and subdivided among specific individuals, thereby terminating any co-ownership. The designated portions became the exclusive property of the respective adjudicatees. Furthermore, petitioners admitted selling their interests in the property in 1978. Consequently, they no longer have any rightful share to partition. The Court also noted that “Sapang Bayan,” claimed to be a dried-up river, is a property of public dominion under the Civil Code and cannot be subject to private ownership or partition. The action was improper as the property was no longer undivided.