24 Sepulveda V Pelaez

Sepulveda v. Pelaez

1.

In 1972, Atty. Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint against his granduncle, Pedro

GR No. 152195 | January 31, 2005 | Modes of Extinguishing Co-Ownership| Callejo |

Sepulveda Sr. in the CFI of Cebu for recovery of possession and ownership

Da Silva

of his one-half undivided share of several parcels of land, covered by Tax Declarations, his undivided one-third share in several other lots, also covered

Petitioner: Pedro Sepulveda, substituted by Socorro Lawas Respondents: Atty. Pacifico Pelaez Recit-Ready: Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against his granduncle Pedro Sepulveda Sr. He alleged that Pedro

by tax declarations, and all were located in Cebu. 2.

owners. 3.

under the project of partition (a deed) submitted by Pedro Sepulveda Sr. as

covered eleven lots among the 25 parcels of land which were all allegedly inherited co-owned lots to the City of Danao, while he was the mayor thereof. When

the administrator of the estate of Dionisia. 4.

that he needed to reap the produce from said land to pay the realty taxes.

Pacifico’s complaint, he failed to implead all other indispensable parties, such as his fellow co-owners. This fact notwithstanding, the court a quo ruled in favor of

There were repeated demands, all of which remained unheeded. 5.

So the issue is whether or not Sepulveda’s action may prosper. The Court held that yes, the action of Sepulveda may prosper. The Court granted Sepulveda’s petition for the sole reason that Pacifico failed to implead all indispensable parties in his complaint. The Court ruled that as co-owners, Pacifico’s father, as well as the heirs

heirs. 6.

of Danao, Cebu, without Pacifico’s knowledge Pedro Sr. later died intestate, and was substituted by the administrator.

8.

It is thus contended by the administrator of Pedro’s estate, on behalf of the latter, that Pelaez and his mother had already received their share as proven by an Affidavit of Consolidation, wherein 13 of the 25 parcels of land were

and 834 of the Civil Code, the surviving spouse is a forced heir, and entitled to a

already titled under Dulce’s name, and that there was already a verbal

share in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse. Under Rule 69 of the Rules

agreement between Dulce and Pedro, wherein the 11 parcels would serve as

of Court, all persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Thus, and the same will not lie without the joinder of the parties. The mere fact that

Pedro’s compensation for his services as administrator. 9.

action for partition, for, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second, the conveyance of his lawful shares.

It is worth noting that the petitioners in this case failed to implead the wife of Santiago (one of the sons of Dionisia) and their children.

Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. has repudiated the co-ownership between him and the respondent does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the

Pedro Sr. Executed a Deed of Sale over one parcel of land in favor of the City

7.

of Santiago Sepulveda were indispensable parties to the case. Under Articles 804

all the co-owners of a property are indispensable parties to an action for partition,

Pacifico likewise stated that Pedro Sr. executed an affidavit stating that he was the sole heir of Dionisia, when in fact Dionisia Sepulveda has other

Pelaez. Sepulveda the administrator of his estate, now comes before the Court assailing Pelaez’s action for recovery of possession and ownership may prosper.

Pacifico alleged that despite demands by his mother, Pedro Sr. who was then mayor refused to deliver his mother’s share in the partition, claiming

Pacifico’s mother passed away, her husband thus became a co-owner as well. In his father, the heirs of Santiago Sepulveda, and the City of Danao, all of whom were

The eleven lots were among the 25 parcels of land which the Pelaez’s mother Dulce Sepulveda inherited from her grandmother Dionisia Sepulveda

refused to turn over his mother’s share in the estate of their grandmother. This by the mother of Pelaez from her grandmother. Pedro Sr. would later sell one of the

The complaint also prayed for the partition of the properties among the co—

ISSUE/S: W/N the action of Sepulveda may prosper. YES.

Doctrine: in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second, the conveyance of his lawful

RATIO:

shares. Issue 1: The petition is granted for the sole reason that the respondent failed to FACTS:

implead as parties all the indispensable parties in his complaint.

Rodolfo Pelaez, as surviving spouse, is entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that

is proper in the premises, and that an accounting of rents and profits received by the

corresponding by way of legitime to each of the legitimate children who has not

defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, "the parties

received any betterment. The rights of the usufructuary are provided in Articles 471 to

may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper

490 of the old Civil Code.18 In Gamis v. Court of Appeals, we held that:

instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by all the parties." In either case, whether the action is dismissed or partition and/or

Under articles 807 and 834 of the old Civil Code the surviving spouse is a forced heir

accounting is decreed, the order is a final one and may be appealed by any party

and entitled to a share in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse equal to that

aggrieved thereby.

which by way of legitime corresponds or belongs to each of the legitimate children or descendants who have not been bettered or have not received any share in the one-

The second stage commences when the parties are unable to agree upon the

third share destined for betterment. The right of the surviving spouse to have a share

partition ordered by the court. In that event, partition shall be effected for the parties

in usufruct in the estate of the deceased spouse is provided by law of which such

by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This

spouse cannot be deprived and which cannot be ignored. Of course, the spouse may

second phase may also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its

waive it but the waiver must be express.

approval by the Court after the parties have been accorded the opportunity to be heard thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled of

Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides that in an action for partition, all

their just shares in the rents and profits of the real estate in question'.

persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Note: the decision appealed from was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. - A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as in this rule prescribed, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all the other persons interested in the property. Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties. The mere fact that Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. has repudiated the co-ownership between him and the respondent does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action for partition, for, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property; and, second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. The first stage of an action for judicial partition and/or accounting is concerned with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, that is, it is not otherwise legally proscribed and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase may end in a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to the desired partition either because a coownership does not exist or a partition is legally prohibited. It may also end, on the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, that partition