G.R. No. 206667 , June 23, 2021
GUILLERMA S. SILVA, PETITIONER, VS. CONCHITA S. LO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Carlos Sandico, Jr. died intestate on May 20, 1975, leaving his surviving spouse, Concepcion Lim-Sandico, and their seven children as compulsory heirs. In 1976, the heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, agreeing to own the properties in common, pro indiviso. A 1978 Memorandum of Agreement for physical division was never implemented. In 1989, one heir, Enrica, filed an action for partition (Civil Case No. Q-89-3137) before the RTC of Quezon City, impleading all other heirs. During the proceedings, respondent Conchita S. Lo, along with two other heirs residing abroad, executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of their mother Concepcion and their sister, petitioner Guillerma S. Silva. The RTC encouraged the heirs to negotiate a partition. Over several years, the parties, through their counsels or attorneys-in-fact, engaged in court-supervised negotiations and conducted raffles to determine the allocation of specific properties. A final draft of a Compromise Agreement was prepared and signed by the plaintiffs (Enrica and Teodoro), but the defendants, including Concepcion (acting for herself and as Conchita’s attorney-in-fact), refused to sign. Consequently, the plaintiffs moved for the RTC to decide based on the stipulations in its various orders. On January 11, 2000, the RTC issued an Order of Partition, approving the partition based on the terms of the final Compromise Agreement signed by the plaintiffs, which it deemed a valid project of partition, and incorporated it into the order. On June 26, 2000, Conchita executed a Revocation of the SPA in favor of Concepcion. Later, in 2007, Conchita moved for the RTC to nullify the proceedings and the 2000 Order of Partition, arguing she was not properly represented as her SPA had been revoked. The RTC denied her motion. The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC’s orders, ruling that Conchita was not properly represented after the revocation of the SPA, making the proceedings void as to her. Petitioner Guillerma elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC’s Orders of Partition on the ground that respondent Conchita S. Lo was not properly represented by her attorney-in-fact after she revoked the Special Power of Attorney.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and reinstated the RTC’s Orders. The Court held that the RTC’s January 11, 2000 Order of Partition was a final judgment on the merits that adjudicated the parties’ co-ownership and ordered the partition of the estate. Conchita’s revocation of the SPA in June 2000 occurred after this final order was issued; thus, the proceedings and the order were not void for lack of representation. The authority of the attorney-in-fact was relevant only during the pendency of the suit up to the rendition of the final judgment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the RTC’s Order of Partition was valid. The extensive court-supervised negotiations, stipulations, and raffles constituted substantial compliance with the rules on partition. The final Compromise Agreement, though unsigned by the defendants, sufficiently embodied the parties’ agreements and served as a proper project of partition. The rights of a co-owner, like Conchita, to seek partition are imprescriptible and cannot be waived. The RTC correctly implemented the partition based on the agreements reached, which were binding on all heirs.