BETTY B. LACBAYAN vs. BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR., G.R. No.

165427, March 21, 2011

FACTS: During their illicit relationship Lacbayan and Samoy, together with three more
incorporators, were able to establish a manpower services [Link] parcels of land were
also acquired during the said period and were registered in their names, ostensibly as husband
and wife. Eventually, however, their relationship turned sour and they decided to part and both
parties agreed to divide the said properties and terminate their business partnership by executing
a Partition Agreement. Initially, Samoy agreed to Lacbayan’s proposal that the properties in
Malvar St. and Don Enrique Heights be assigned to the latter, while the ownership over the three
other properties will go to Samoy. However, when petitioner wanted additional demands to be
included in the partition agreement, respondent refused. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a
complaint for judicial partition of the said properties before the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether the action for partition is proper?

RULING: The determination as to the existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution

of an action for partition.  Thus:The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up
with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a partition is proper
and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase
may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co-
ownership does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand, with an
adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an
accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in
order.
The second phase commences when it appears that "the parties are unable to agree upon the
partition" directed by the court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court
with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This second stage may also deal
with the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the court after the parties have been
accorded opportunity to be heard thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties
thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the real estate in question
While it is true that the complaint involved here is one for partition, the same is premised on the
existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. Lacbayan insists she is a co-
owner pro indiviso of the five real estate properties based on the transfer certificates of title
(TCTs) covering the subject properties. Samoy maintains otherwise. Indubitably, therefore, until
and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to
effect a partition of the disputed... properties. More importantly, the complaint will not even lie if
the claimant, or petitioner in this case, does not even have any rightful interest over the subject
properties.
LEONARDO LIM DE MESA vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS [Link]., G.R. No. 5609     
September 1, 1911

FACTS: The case stemmed from an action for partition filed by herein private respondents
(alfredo, zenaida) against their eldest brother, herein petitioner Leonardo Lim de Mesa, and his
sister Leticia Lim de Mesa, Private respondents prayed therein for the partition of the property
left by their parents, that petitioner Leonardo de Mesa be compelled to render an accounting of
the income of the funeral parlor business and that private respondent Rogelio Lim de Mesa be
declared the owner of eight-tenths (8 /10) of the entire estate, as the other heirs had assigned their
interests to [Link] his answer, petitioner admitted that their deceased parents left the house and
lot described in the complaint, but claimed that the funeral parlor, known as Lim de Mesa
Memorial Chapel, was solely owned by him. Petitioner also alleged that their deceased parents
left other properties and businesses which are in the possession and under the management of the
two other plaintiffs therein.

After trial, the trial court ordered defendant Leonardo Lim de Mesa to render an accounting of
the operation and management of the funeral business within thirty (30) days from the date this
decision becomes final. A writ of execution was issued, but the same was returned unsatisfied on
September 21, 1992 due to petitioner's refusal to comply with the same. Private respondents then
filed a motion to enforce judgment which was granted by the lower court in its order dated
October 14, 1992. 5

ISSUE: Whether the decision ordering partition may be appealable?

RULING: Yes. Jurisprudentially entrenched is the rule that a judgment ordering partition with
damages is final and duly appealable, notwithstanding the fact, which petitioner seeks to
capitalize on, that further proceedings will still have to take place in the trial court.  In the
decision ordering partition, the execution of that part of the judgment which will not necessitate
any further proceedings may be enforced. Further proceedings, such as the appointment of
commissioners to carry out the partition and the rendition and approval of the accounting, may
be had without prejudice to the execution of that part of the judgment which needs no further
proceedings. Thus, it has been held that execution was entirely proper to enforce the defendant's
obligation to render an accounting and to exact payment of the money value of the plaintiffs'
shares in the personal property and attorney's fees due defendants, as well as the costs of the suit
and damages. 

In the present case, the decision ordering partition and the rendition of accounting had already
become final and executory. The execution thereof thus became a matter of right on the part of
the plaintiffs, herein private respondents, and is a mandatory and ministerial duty on the part of
the court. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it
executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor need not be given advance notice of the
application for execution nor be afforded prior hearings thereon. 
CONCEPCION ROQUE vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT et al., G.R.
No. 75886 (1988)

FACTS: A 312 square meter parcel of land originally in the name of Januario Avendaño, a
bachelor who died intestate. Years later, the intestate heirs of Januario executed a document
entitled "Paghahati at Pagtagabuyan ng Mana sa Labas ng Hukuman." Through this instrument,
extrajudicial partition of the lot was effected among the intestate, wherein it was co-owned by 4
parties, and the 1/4 undivided portion was given to respondent Emesto Roque and Victor Roque.
Years later, all the other co-owners sold their undivided portion to Ernesto and Victor, thus, the
full ownership of the land was vested to the Ernesto and Victor. Subsequently, in an unnotarized
"Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan" Emesto and Victor Roque purportedly sold a three-fourths (3/4)
undivided portion of the property to their half-sister, petitioner Concepcion Roque. The property,
however, remained registered in the name of the decedent, Januario. Thereafter, Ernesto and the
legal heirs of Victor, however, refused to acknowledge Concepcion's claim of ownership of any
portion of the property and rejected the plan to divide the land. Thus, Concepcion filed a
Complaint for “Partition with Specific Performance” against Ernesto and the heirs of Victor.

ISSUE: Whether an action for partition is the correct remedy?

RULING: Yes. An action for partition which is typically brought by a person claiming to be co-
owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes to
be co-owners — may be seen to present simultaneously two principal issues. First, there is the
issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned.
Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary
issue of how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and defendants. Should the trial court
find that the defendants do not dispute the status of the plaintiff as co-owner, the court can
forthwith proceed to the actual partitioning of the property involved. In case the defendants
assert in their Answer exclusive title in themselves adversely to the plaintiff, the court should not
dismiss the plaintiffs action for partition but, on the contrary and in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction, resolve the question of whether the plaintiff is co-owner or not. Should the trial
court find that the plaintiff was unable to sustain his claimed status as co-owner, or that the
defendants are or have become the sole and exclusive owners of the property involved, the court
will necessarily have to dismiss the action for partition. This result would be reached, not
because the wrong action was commenced by the plaintiff, but rather because the plaintiff having
been unable to show co-ownership rights in himself, no basis exists for requiring the defendants
to submit to partition the property at stake. If, upon the other hand, the court after trial should
find the existence of co-ownership among the parties litigant, the court may and should order the
partition of the property in the same action. Judgment for one or the other party being on the
merits, the losing party may then appeal the same. In either case, however, it is quite unnecessary
to require the plaintiff to file another action, separate and independent from that for partition
originally instituted. Functionally, an action for partition may be seen to be at once an action for
declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the
property involved. This is the import of our jurisprudence on the matter and is sustained by the
public policy which abhors multiplicity of actions.