G.R. No. L-47360 December 15, 1986
Petra Fabrica, et al., petitioners, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and Zacarias Bas, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of Lots Nos. 2464 and 2467 among the heirs of spouses Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres. The lots were originally acquired from the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, and patents were issued in 1936 in the name of “The Legal Heirs of Catalino Bas.” The petitioners, heirs of Pedro Bas, claim exclusive ownership, asserting the lots were allotted to Pedro during an extrajudicial partition of the estate. The private respondents, heirs of the other children of Catalino and Cristeta, filed an action for partition, contending the properties remain undivided and owned in common.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the lots as properties still owned in common by all the heirs and ordering their partition. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was merely interlocutory and not appealable because it ordered partition, and thus remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioners sought a review of this dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the trial court, which declared the subject lots as co-owned properties and ordered their partition, is a final and appealable judgment or merely an interlocutory order.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s judgment was final and appealable, reversing the Court of Appeals. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the adjudication made by the trial court. While an action for partition typically results in an interlocutory order when it merely declares the existence of co-ownership and orders its liquidation, a judgment becomes final and appealable when it definitively settles the issue of ownership between the parties.
Here, the trial court did more than just acknowledge a state of co-ownership; it resolved a substantive and contested issue of title. The petitioners claimed exclusive ownership by virtue of an alleged prior partition, a claim the trial court explicitly rejected. By declaring the properties as still commonly owned and ordering partition among all heirs, the court conclusively adjudicated the adverse claims of ownership. This determination of title is a judgment on the merits. Following the doctrine in Miranda v. Court of Appeals, a judgment that settles the question of ownership is final for purposes of appeal, with the subsequent partition being merely incidental to its execution. To hold otherwise would allow the issue of ownership to remain unsettled and subject to change by subsequent judges during the partition proceedings, leading to multiplicity of suits and violating the policy of speedy dispute resolution. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in treating the judgment as interlocutory and in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s decision and ordered it to give due course to the petitioners’ appeal and decide it on the merits.