G.R. No. 136803 ; June 16, 2000
Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr., petitioner, vs. Ma. Elvira Castillo, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr. and respondent Ma. Elvira Castillo, both legally married to other spouses, cohabited and jointly operated a customs brokerage business. During their union, they acquired various real and personal properties, which were registered solely in respondent’s name. After their separation, petitioner filed a complaint for partition, accounting, and damages, claiming co-ownership over these properties acquired through their joint efforts. Respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that no co-ownership could exist under Article 144 of the Civil Code because both parties were incapacitated to marry each other due to their prior subsisting marriages. She further contended that the action for partition constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the certificates of title issued in her name.
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals initially reversed this decision and ordered a trial on the merits. However, upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the appellate court issued an amended decision affirming the dismissal. It held that the proper remedy was an action for reconveyance, not partition, and that ordering partition would violate due process as to properties registered in the names of corporations and other individuals not parties to the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for partition through summary judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for trial. Summary judgment was improper because the case presented genuine factual issues requiring a full trial. The core issue of whether the properties were acquired through the parties’ joint work or industry, which would determine the existence of an implied trust or a co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code, is factual and cannot be resolved summarily. An action for partition is precisely the proper remedy to settle the question of co-ownership; it does not become an action for title merely because the defendant asserts exclusive ownership. The Court clarified that if the plaintiff is unable to prove co-ownership, the complaint will be dismissed, but this determination must be made after a trial on the merits. The concern over due process regarding properties registered to non-parties can be addressed by simply excluding those specific properties from the partition action, not by dismissing the entire complaint. Thus, petitioner must be afforded the opportunity to prove his claim of co-ownership over the properties registered in respondent’s name.