G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015
BERLINDA ORIBELLO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION), AND REMEDIOS ORIBELLO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Berlinda Oribello is the surviving spouse of the late Toribio Oribello, the registered owner of twelve parcels of land in Agoo, La Union. Toribio was first married to Emilia, and their marriage was dissolved in 1981. He married Berlinda in 1982 and died intestate in 1993. Respondent Remedios Oribello, represented by her natural father Alfredo Selga, filed an action for partition and damages against Berlinda, claiming to be the adopted daughter of Toribio by virtue of a decree of adoption issued on March 26, 1974, by the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Occidental Mindoro in Sp. Proc. No. R-94. The petition for adoption was filed by Toribio and his first wife, Emilia. Berlinda denied Remedios’s status as an adopted daughter, alleging the adoption decree was fraudulently secured by Alfredo Selga, that the proceedings were void, that Toribio was a lifelong resident of Agoo, La Union and could not have filed in Occidental Mindoro, and that the Toribio in the adoption case was a different person. She also pointed to a second, archived adoption petition filed by Alfredo in 1983. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the partition complaint, finding Remedios was not a co-owner of the properties. It ruled the adoption decree was obtained through fraud and machination and that the Tomas Orivillo who adopted Remedios was not the same Tomas Oribello who was Berlinda’s husband. The Court of Appeals (CA) vacated the RTC decision and remanded the case for the second phase of partition, holding that the RTC had no authority to annul the adoption decree in a partition suit and that the proper remedy was a separate petition for relief or annulment of the decree. Berlinda appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, in an action for partition, had the authority to declare the adoption decree void and, based on that declaration, dismiss the complaint for lack of co-ownership.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s judgment dismissing the partition case. The Court held that while the CA was correct in stating that the validity of an adoption decree should not be directly attacked in a partition action, the RTC in this case did not annul the adoption decree. Instead, the RTC, in determining whether a co-ownership existed as the first phase of a partition suit, made a factual finding that the “Tomas Orivillo” named in the adoption decree was not the same “Tomas Oribello” who was the registered owner of the properties and Berlinda’s husband. This finding was based on the evidence presented, including discrepancies in the names, residences, and the fraudulent machinations of Alfredo Selga. The RTC’s dismissal was not based on invalidating the adoption decree but on its conclusion that Remedios failed to prove she was a co-owner of the specific properties of the deceased Tomas Oribello. Therefore, the RTC acted within its jurisdiction in hearing and settling the conflicting claims of the parties in the partition suit.