G.R. No. L-22621 September 29, 1967
JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, RITA D. RAMIREZ, BELEN T. RAMIREZ, DAVID MARGOLIES, MANUEL UY and SONS, INC., BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, in its capacity as judicial administrator of the Testate Estate of the late Jose Vivencio Ramirez, defendants-appellants, ANGELA M. BUTTE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Jose Maria Ramirez, owner of a one-sixth (1/6) pro indiviso share, filed an action for partition of a parcel of land at the corner of Escolta and Plaza Sta. Cruz, Manila, against the defendants who collectively owned the remaining five-sixths (5/6). The property, Lot 1 of Block 2120, contained two buildings: a two-storey commercial building (“Sta. Cruz Building”) and a small two-storey residential building at the back. While some defendants agreed to partition, others objected, claiming it was “materially and legally” impossible and would cause great prejudice. The lower court referred the matter to a commission to determine susceptibility to partition. The commissioners individually reported that partition was feasible but submitted different plans for segregating the plaintiff’s share. The trial court rendered a decision declaring the plaintiff entitled to segregation and ordering partition according to the plan submitted by the commissioner for the plaintiff (Valencia), with expenses to be borne proportionately by the parties. The defendants (except Angela M. Butte) appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the property is legally susceptible of physical division.
2. Whether the lower court erred in adopting the partition plan of commissioner Valencia instead of the plan of commissioner Cuervo (for defendants) or considering a purchase proposal by the plaintiff.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to bear the incidental expenses of partition exclusively.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision.
1. On the first issue, the Court held the property was susceptible of physical division. The appellants’ claim of “inestimable damage” was unsupported by evidence. Segregating the plaintiff’s share of 260.26 square meters would leave a substantial lot of 1,301.34 square meters for the defendants, the value of which would not be impaired to an extent rendering the property indivisible under Article 495 of the Civil Code. The remaining buildings would still be serviceable for commercial and residential purposes.
2. On the second issue, the Court found no error in adopting the Valencia plan. The defendants’ objection to the Valencia plan—that it left a 169-square-meter lot behind the plaintiff’s share that would be difficult to subdivide later—was offset by the fact that the defendants’ remaining share retained valuable frontages on both Plaza Santa Cruz and Escolta Street. The Cuervo plan was less desirable as it would require partitioning the residential building, potentially rendering it unserviceable. The plaintiff’s offer to buy the remaining back portion was merely an unaccepted proposal.
3. On the third issue, the Court ruled that the expenses should be borne proportionately by all co-owners since the segregation inured to the benefit of all parties.