G.R. No. 237767. November 10, 2021
JUSTINA DELMOLIN-PALOMA AND JUANILLO PALOMA, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTER DELMOLIN-MAGNO AND ABIGAIL R. DELMOLIN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Spouses Santiago and Eulalia Delmolin had three children: Ester Delmolin-Magno (Ester), Justina Delmolin-Paloma (Justina), and Cristobal Delmolin (Cristobal). Cristobal predeceased his father and was survived by his wife Abigail and children. Santiago died in 1996, leaving a parcel of land registered under his name (OCT No. P-1539). On August 28, 1967, Santiago sold a 300-square meter portion of this land to Justina for ₱10,000. This Deed of Sale was registered only on August 13, 2000. Upon registration, Justina executed a “Kasulatan ng Pagpapatunay” stating the land area was 684 square meters, leading to the cancellation of OCT No. P-1539 and the issuance of TCT No. T-52423 in her name for the entire lot.
Ester constructed a house on the land in 1980. After Santiago’s burial, Justina gave Ester a copy of the Deed of Sale, which was the first time Ester learned of it. Ester, along with Abigail (representing Cristobal’s heirs), sought partition. The dispute was brought before the Barangay, where an agreement was reached to partition the land: 342 sqm for Justina, 171 sqm for Ester, and 171 sqm for Abigail’s family. A Certificate of Agreement was signed by Ester, Michael (Abigail’s son), the Barangay Chairperson, and the BARC Chairperson, but Justina refused to sign, opting to consult a lawyer first. Nonetheless, a partition agreement was prepared and approved by the Land Management Bureau. Michael constructed a fence around his allotted portion with Justina’s knowledge, and Justina shared in the expenses for a subdivision survey. However, Justina later refused to implement the partition.
Respondents Ester and Abigail filed a petition before the RTC for annulment of TCT No. T-52423 and for judicial partition. The RTC declared the Deed of Sale null and void insofar as it prejudiced the shares of Ester and Cristobal’s heirs, ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-52423, and directed the equal partition of the 684-sqm lot into three portions of 228 sqm each. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the misjoinder of actions (annulment of title and partition) was not a ground for dismissal, especially absent any objection, and that the trial court could grant proper relief based on the facts and evidence, including the nullity of the sale, even if not specifically prayed for, due to the general prayer for equitable relief.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision which: (1) declared the Deed of Sale null and void with respect to the shares of the other heirs and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-52423; and (2) ordered the partition of the property into three equal shares.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s ruling. On the procedural issue, the misjoinder of causes of action (annulment of title and partition) is not a ground for dismissal. The court may order severance or, in the absence of objection, adjudicate them simultaneously if it has jurisdiction. Petitioners did not object to the misjoinder, and the RTC validly adjudicated both actions.
On the merits, the general prayer in the complaint for “other relief and remedies under the premises as may be deemed just and equitable” allowed the court to grant relief warranted by the facts and evidence, including declaring the sale void as to the other heirs’ shares. The sale of the entire property to Justina was dubious. Santiago applied for a free patent in his own name in 1976, years after the alleged 1967 sale. The registration of the sale was delayed for over three decades without explanation. Justina’s act of confirming the total area as 684 sqm, instead of the 300 sqm purportedly sold, indicated an attempt to appropriate the whole property. Her participation in the barangay partition agreement, including sharing survey costs and allowing the heirs to act on the agreed partition, constituted recognition of the co-ownership. The property, being the only estate left by Santiago, should be divided equally among his three children by right of representation. Thus, the Deed of Sale was correctly annulled insofar as it prejudiced the lawful shares of Ester and Cristobal’s heirs, and the property was properly ordered to be partitioned into three equal portions.