G.R. No. 172367 ; June 5, 2009
FELICIDAD DADIZON, ILUMINADA B. MURGIA, PERLA B. MATIGA, DOMINADOR M. BERNADAS, CIRILO B. DELIS, and HEIRS OF MARCELINO BERNADAS, Namely: FE BERNADAS-PICARDAL and CARMELITO BERNADAS, Petitioners, vs. SOCORRO BERNADAS, substituted by JEANETTE B. ALFAJARDO, FELY BERNADAS, JULIET BERNADAS, GODOFREDO BERNADAS, JR. and SOFIA C. BERNADAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners and respondents are children and representatives of the deceased children of the late Diosdado Bernadas, Sr., who died intestate on February 1, 1977, leaving several parcels of agricultural and residential land in Naval, Biliran in co-ownership with his surviving spouse, Eustaquia Bernadas (who died on May 26, 2000). On May 14, 1999, respondents filed a complaint to compel partition of the one-half conjugal share of the properties based on a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996, alleging that petitioner Felicidad Dadizon was in possession and refused to partition. Petitioners argued that this deed was revoked by a subsequent Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999, and that some properties had already been disposed of or were under annulment in a separate case (Civil Case No. B-1091) filed by Eustaquia Bernadas to revoke sales to respondent Socorro Bernadas on grounds of lack of consideration, fraud, and lack of consent.
During trial, both parties manifested ongoing negotiations for extrajudicial partition. Respondents’ counsel later filed a Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, which was not signed by all heirs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its Order dated July 23, 2001, approved this Project of Partition, noting that both parties had filed it and agreed to its approval. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing they had not agreed, but the RTC denied it, noting petitioners’ failure to comment despite an order to do so. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s Order dated September 5, 2001, which approved the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, despite alleged lack of agreement among all parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and RTC decisions. The Court held that the RTC departed from the procedure mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court for partition. Under Rule 69, partition involves two stages: first, determining whether co-ownership exists and partition is proper; second, if parties cannot agree, partition shall be done by the court with commissioners. The records showed that the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000 was filed solely by respondents’ counsel and was not signed by all parties, contrary to the RTC’s finding that both parties agreed. Petitioners’ consistent objections, including their appeal to the Supreme Court, demonstrated a lack of agreement. The Court emphasized that partition by agreement requires consent of all parties, and absent such consent, the court must appoint commissioners. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the RTC erred in approving the project of partition without unanimous agreement. The case was remanded to the RTC to appoint commissioners to effect partition under Rule 69. The Court also addressed a procedural issue, noting that while not all indispensable parties were named in the petition, their rights were inseparable, so any reversal would inure to their benefit.