GR L 3004; (May, 1951) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-3004; May 30, 1951
BENITA TOMIAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CONRADO TOMIAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Eustaquio Tomias died intestate in 1920, leaving seven children: Leon, Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Toribia (also known as Enrica), Agustina, and Josefa. He was succeeded in his property by these children. Leon died in 1931 and Josefa in 1944. Josefa was survived by a daughter, Josefa or Filomena Tomias. Leon was survived by four legitimate children: Conrado, Magdalena, Dolores, and Anicetas. It is also claimed he had a natural son, Filemon Tomias. On January 19, 1948, Conrado and Magdalena Tomias (Leon’s children), along with their cousin Josefa or Filomena Tomias (Josefa’s daughter), filed a complaint for partition and accounting (Civil Case No. 857) against their aunts Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Enrica, and Agustina, alleging these defendants had refused to divide the estate. Dolores and Anicetas Tomias (Leon’s other children) were included as defendants for refusing to join as plaintiffs. The defendants, through counsel Atty. Jose M. Millares, filed an answer that was a general denial. Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court rendered a decision on April 21, 1948, declaring the parties as co-owners of the 15 parcels of land, allocating one-seventh each to Josefa, Benita, Monica, Bernabela, Enrica, and Agustina Tomias, and one-twenty-eighth each to Conrado, Magdalena, Dolores, and Anicetas Tomias (the legitimate children of Leon). The decision became final. Approximately five months later, the defendants, together with Filemon Tomias, filed an action to annul the judgment (Civil Case No. 1063) on the grounds that: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction because some partitioned lands belonged to persons not made parties, and (2) not all heirs were represented as Filemon Tomias, an alleged natural child of Leon, was not a party. The lower court dismissed the annulment action, holding it raised issues already decided. A motion for reconsideration was filed, alleging for the first time that Toribia Tomias was not served with summons and did not authorize Atty. Millares to represent her, supported by her affidavit. An affidavit from Filemon Tomias claiming to be an acknowledged natural son of Leon was also filed. The lower court denied the motion, holding that Filemon was not an indispensable party absent a judicial decree of acknowledgment, and that Toribia and Enrica were the same person. A second motion was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the judgment in the partition case is void on the ground that some partitioned properties belonged to persons not made parties to the suit.
2. Whether the judgment is void due to lack of service of summons upon and representation for Toribia Tomias.
3. Whether the judgment is void for not including Filemon Tomias, an alleged natural son of Leon Tomias, as a party.

RULING

1. No. The judgment may not be annulled on the mere allegation that some partitioned lands belonged to non-parties when none of those persons has come to court to protest.
2. No. There is no showing Toribia Tomias was prejudiced, as the court found Toribia and Enrica to be one and the same person, and there is no claim she was entitled to more than the one-seventh adjudicated.
3. No. Filemon Tomias’s claim as an alleged natural son does not warrant annulment of the partition judgment. His claim should be asserted in a separate action against the four legitimate children of Leon Tomias to whom Leon’s share was adjudicated.
The order appealed from is affirmed, without prejudice to any proper action appellant Filemon Tomias may bring against the legitimate heirs of Leon Tomias. Costs against appellants.