G.R. No. L-6375, October 19, 1911
EDUARDO BALOLOY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE EDU, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On June 12, 1909, plaintiff-appellant Eduardo Baloloy filed an action for partition of four parcels of land in Ilocos Norte against defendants-appellees Jose Edu, et al. The defendants claimed exclusive ownership of the first two parcels and disclaimed any interest in the third and fourth parcels, which they stated were possessed by another person. They also alleged the lands were not properly described in the complaint. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that: (a) the lands had already been partitioned; (b) the description in the complaint did not match the plaintiff’s plan; and (c) the defendants’ documentary evidence supported their ownership and possession. Baloloy appealed, raising assignments of error that presented purely factual questions.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the action for partition.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The Court found that the plaintiff’s own evidence, particularly Exhibit A (an 1869 agreement), established that a partition of the subject lands had already taken place between the parties’ parents. Consequently, an action for partition was not the proper remedy. If the plaintiff had lost his share from that prior partition, his remedy was an action to recover possession, not a new partition. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the insufficiency of the evidence in identifying the lands with certainty, noting the lack of exact descriptions and corresponding plans that would allow for a clear determination of their location and possession. The appeal, being based solely on questions of fact, provided no grounds to reverse the lower court’s findings.