GR 210252; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210252, June 16, 2014
VILMA QUINTOS, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact FIDEL I. QUINTOS, JR.; FLORENCIA I. DANCEL, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact FLOVY I. DANCEL; and CATALINO L. IBARRA, Petitioners, vs. PELAGIA I. NICOLAS, NOLI L. IBARRA, SANTIAGO L. IBARRA, PEDRO L. IBARRA, DAVID L. IBARRA, GILBERTO L. IBARRA, HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. IBARRA, namely CONCHITA R., IBARRA, APOLONIO IBARRA, and NARCISO IBARRA, and the spouses RECTO CANDELARIO and ROSEMARIE CANDELARIO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners and respondent siblings are co-heirs, being the children of the late spouses Bienvenido and Escolastica Ibarra, who owned a 281 sqm. parcel of land in Camiling, Tarlac. In 2002, respondent siblings filed an action for partition (Civil Case No. 02-52), which was dismissed by the RTC in 2004 for failure of the parties to appear; this dismissal became final. Subsequently, in 2004, respondent siblings executed a Deed of Adjudication transferring the property to all ten siblings, leading to the issuance of a new TCT in their names. In 2007, respondent siblings sold their 7/10 undivided share to respondent spouses Candelario. Petitioners filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages, alleging they received the property as their exclusive share from their parents and had been in adverse possession for over four decades, and denying participation in the Deed of Adjudication and an Agreement of Subdivision. Respondents counterclaimed for partition. The RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint, declared the Candelarios as absolute owners of a 7/10 portion, and ordered partition. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, ordering partition according to a subdivision plan submitted by the Candelarios.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioners were able to prove ownership over the property.
2. Whether respondents’ counterclaim for partition is barred by laches or res judicata.
3. Whether the CA was correct in approving the subdivision agreement as the basis for partition.
RULING
1. No, petitioners were not able to prove equitable title or ownership. For an action to quiet title to prosper, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title. The CA correctly found petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of exclusive ownership or acquisitive prescription. Their possession was not in the concept of an owner, as evidenced by respondent siblings entering into a lease contract over the property without petitioners’ objection. The determination of this issue is factual, and the Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the lower courts’ findings.
2. No, the counterclaim for partition is not barred by laches or res judicata. Res judicata does not apply because the first partition case (Civil Case No. 02-52) was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, not on the merits. A dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits only if the order expressly so states; here, the dismissal order did not. Therefore, the right to demand partition remains. Laches also does not apply because the delay was not unreasonable, and respondents actively pursued their claim by filing the first partition case and asserting their rights in the subsequent quieting of title case.
3. No, the CA was not correct in approving the subdivision agreement as the basis for partition. The CA erred in ordering partition in accordance with the subdivision plan submitted by the Candelarios. Partition must be conducted under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which provides a specific procedure, including the appointment of commissioners, hearing of objections, and rendition of judgment. The subdivision plan, allegedly based on a falsified agreement, cannot be imposed on the co-owners without following the proper judicial process. The case was remanded to the RTC to conduct partition in accordance with Rule 69.
The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition. The CA Decision and Resolution were AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The declaration of co-ownership (petitioners with 3/10 and spouses Candelario with 7/10) was upheld, but the order for partition based on the subdivision plan was set aside. The case was REMANDED to the RTC for partition proceedings under Rule 69.