G.R. No. L-4625
VICENTE BRIONES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PETRA PLATON, defendant-appellee.
December 18, 1908

FACTS:
More than fifty years prior to this action, Domingo Castillo and his wife died, leaving a tract of land, including the orange grove in question, in undivided shares among their four children. The last of these children died over thirty years ago. Plaintiff Vicente Briones, a descendant, alleged that in 1903, all family members agreed upon a partition, which was purportedly carried out in 1907. However, none of the defendants participated in this partition, nor did they have knowledge of it. A witness, Epifanio Atienza, testified that he, as the eldest male, assumed to represent his branch of the family in dividing the land without any written or oral power to do so. The plaintiff sought to recover the exclusive possession of the orange grove occupied by the defendants. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.

ISSUE:
Can the defendants be bound by a partition agreement of which they had no knowledge and in which they did not participate?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court found that while the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription, the dismissal itself was correct on a different basis. The Court ruled that the defendants are not bound by a partition operation in which they took no part and had no knowledge of. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot succeed in recovering the exclusive possession of the land occupied by the defendants. The judgment of the court below dismissing the action was affirmed, leaving both plaintiff and defendants to assert their original rights in the property, whether as tenants in common or otherwise, in a proper way.