Rule 69 PARTITION

Geodetic Engr. Alfeo S. Galang (Galang Plan), Lot 733 was

subdivided into three lots, i.e., Lots A to C.

#1 GR. NO. 192486, November 21, 2012

RUPERTA CANO VDA. DE VIRAY and JESUS CARLO
GERARD VIRAY vs. SPS. JOSE USI and AMELITA USI

TCT 141-RP would eventually be canceled and, in lieu thereof,

three derivative titles were issued to the following, as indicated:
TCT 1584-RP for Lot 733-A to Mallari; TCT 1585-RP for Lot 733B to Sps. Usi; and TCT 1586-RP for Lot 733-C to Mendoza.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
At the core of the present controversy are several parcels of land
which form part of what was once Lot No. 733, Cad-305-D,
Masantol Cadastre (Lot 733 hereinafter), registered in the name
of Ellen P. Mendoza (Mendoza), married to Moses Mendoza,
under TCT No.141-RP of the ROD of Pampanga. With an area of
9,137 sq.m., more or less, Lot 733 is located in Brgy. Bebe Anac,
Masantol, Pampanga. On April 28, 1986, Geodetic Engineer
Abdon G. Fajardo prepared a subdivision plan (Fajardo Plan) for
Lot 733, in which, was divided into six (6) smaller parcels of
differing size dimensions, designated as: Lot 733-A, Lot 733-B,
Lot 733-C, Lot 733-D, Lot 733-E, and Lot 733-F consisting of
336, 465, 3,445, 683, 677 and 3,501 sq.m., respectively.

On April 5, 1991, Mendoza, McDwight P. Mendoza, Bismark P.

Mendoza, Beverly P. Mendoza, Georgenia P. Mendoza, Sps.
Alejandro Lacap and Juanita U. Lacap, Sps. Nestor Coronel and
Herminia Balingit, Sps. Bacani and Martha Balingit, Sps. Ruperto
and Josefina Jordan, and Sps. Jose and Amelita Usi executed
another Subdivision Agreement (2nd SA) covering and under
which the 8,148-sq. m. Lot 733-C was further subdivided into 13
smaller lots (Lot 733-C-1 to Lot 733-C-13 inclusive). The
subdivision plan for Lot 733-C, as likewise prepared by Engr.
Galang was officially approved by the LMB on March 1, 1991.

Mendoza executed two separate deeds of absolute sale, the

first, transferring Lot 733-F to Jesus Carlo Gerard Viray (Jesus
Viray), and the second deed conveying Lot 733-A to spouses
Avelino Viray and Margarita Masangcay (Sps. Viray).

In effect, the two subdivision agreements paved the way for the
issuance, under the Sps. Usis name, of TCT Nos. 1585-RP,
2092-RP, and 2101-RP, covering Lots 733-B, 733-C-1 and 733C-10, respectively. On the other hand, the subdivision of Lot 733,
per the Galang Plan, and the two subdivision agreements
concluded based on that plan, virtually resulted in the loss of the
identity of what under the Fajardo Plan were Lot 733-A and Lot
733-F. The Sps. Viray and the late Jesus Viray, to recall,
purchased Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F, respectively, from Mendoza.

Herein petitioner, Ruperta Cano Vda. de Viray (Vda. de Viray), is

the surviving spouse of Jesus Viray, who died in April 1992. The
dispositions made on and/or the ownership profile of the
subdivided lots appearing under the Fajardo Plan are as follows:

As to be expected, the foregoing overlapping transactions

involving the same property or portions thereof spawned several
suits and countersuits featuring, in particular, herein petitioners
and respondents, viz:

Lot No. Area Conveyances by Mendoza

Civil Case No. The Parties Action/Suit for Subject Lot(s)

Disposition

Lot 733-A 366 sq. m. Sold to Sps. Avelino and Margarita Viray
Lot 733-B 465 sq. m. Unsold
Lot 733-C 3,445 sq. m Unsold
Lot 733-D 683 sq. m. Proposed Road
Lot 733-E 677 sq. m. Unsold
Lot 733-F 3,501 sq. m. Sold to Jesus Viray
The said conveyances notwithstanding, Mendoza, Emerenciana
M. Vda. de Mallari (Vda. de Mallari) and respondent spouses
Jose Usi and Amelita T. Usi (Sps. Usi or the Usis), as purported
co-owners of Lot 733, executed a Subdivision Agreement, or the
1st subdivision agreement (1st SA), which adopted as base of
reference of the LMB-approved subdivision plan prepared by

88-0265-M Sps. Usi vs. Sps. Viray Annulment of Deed of

Absolute Sale 733-A (Fajardo Plan) Decision in favor of Sps.
Viray. Decision is now final.
88-0283-M Mendoza vs. Jesus Viray Annulment of Deed of
Absolute Sale 733-F (Fajardo Plan) Decision in favor of Sps.
Viray. Subject of CAG. R. CV Nos. 24981-82 denied. Subject
of G.R. No. 122287 petition denied.
91 (13) Jesus Viray vs. Sps. Usi Forcible Entry 733-F (Fajardo
Plan) Judgment in favor of Viray. No appeal.
99-0914M Sps. Usi vs. Vda. de Viray Petition for Annulment of
MCTC Decision in CC No. 91(13) 733-F (Fajardo Plan) RTC
dismissed petition. CA-G.R. CV No. 67945 appeal dismissed.
G.R. No. 154538 petition denied.

(02)-1164(M) Vda. de Viray vs. Mendoza, et al. Cancellation of

Titles before RTC, Br. 55, Pampanga Lots 733 C-8 to 733-C-12
(Lot 733-F (Fajardo Plan) Pending before the RTC.
01-1118(M) Sps. Usi vs. Vda. de Viray Petition for Accion
Publiciana and Reivindicatoria before RTC, Br. 55, Pampanga
733-B, 733-C- 1 and 733-C- 10 (Galang Plan) Petition
dismissed. CA-G.R. CV No. 90344 reversed RTC Decision.
Subject of instant case, G.R. No. 192486
Only two cases of the original six revolving around Lot 733
remained unresolved. The first case is subject of the present
recourse which refers to the petition for review of the decision of
the CA in Civil Case No. 01-1118(M), a Petition for Accion
Publiciana/ Reivindicatoria and Damages, and the second is
Civil Case No. (02)- 1164(M) for Cancellation of Titles or
Surrender of Original Titles with Damages which still pending
before the RTC, and its resolution doubtless on hold in light of
the instant petition. In the meantime, the Sps. Usi have remained
in possession of what in the Galang Plan are designated as Lots
733-B, 733-C-1 and 733-C-10.
RTC dismissed the petition of the Sps. Usi for Accion
Publiciana/Reivindicatoria holding that the Sps. Usi failed to
establish by preponderance of evidence to support their claim of
title, possession and ownership over the lots subject of their
petition. On appeal, the CA rendered the assailed decision,
reversing and setting aside the RTC decision.
ISSUE:
WON the two (2) subdivision agreements partake of a bona fide
and legally binding partition among co-owners which validates
the transfer of the subject lots to respondent spouses Usi.
RULING: NO
The Court agreed with Petitioners in contending first off that the
CA erred in its holding that the partitions of Lot 733 and later of
the divided unit Lot 733-C following the Galang Plan were
actually the partitions of the pro-indiviso shares of its co-owners
effectively conveying to them their respective specific shares in
the property.
Partition, in general, is the separation, division, and assignment
of a thing held in common by those to whom it may belong.
Contrary to the finding of the CA, the subdivision agreements
forged by Mendoza and her alleged co-owners were not for the
partition of pro-indiviso shares of co-owners of Lot 733 but were
actually conveyances, disguised as partitions, of portions of Lot
733 specifically Lots 733-A and 733-B, and portions of the
subsequent subdivision of Lot 733-C.

A scrutiny of the records with a fine-tooth comb likewise fails to

substantially show a partition of Lot 733 by its co-owners. While
the 1st and 2nd SAs purport to be deeds of partition by and
among co-owners of the lot/s covered thereby, partition as a fact
is belied by the evidence extant on record.

#2 MODESTO LEOVERAS vs.CASIMERO VALDEZ, G.R. No.

169985 June 15, 2011
BRION, J.:
Facts:
* Maria Sta. Maria and Dominga Manangan were the registered
owners of a parcel of land In Sept. 1932, Sta. Maria sold her
share to Benigna Llamas. When Benigna died in 1944,7 she
willed share equally to her sisters Alejandra Llamas and Josefa
Llamas.
* On June 14, 1969, petitioner & respondent purchased the land
(roughly 10,564 square meters), as co-owners, from Josefa
Llamas, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale and
immediately executed an Agreement, allotting their portions of
the subject property (Leoveras 3,020 sqm and Valdez
7,544.27 sqm).
* In 1996, the respondent learned that Leoveras had already
obtained in his name 2 transfer certificates of title:
o TCT No. 195812 - covering an area of 3,020 sqm;
o TCT No. 195813 - covering an area of 1,004 sqm (or a total of
4,024 sqm).
* On June 21, 1996, the Valdez filed a complaint for Annulment
of Title, Reconveyance and Damages against the petitioner,
seeking the reconveyance of the 1,004-square meter portion
(disputed property) covered by TCT No. 195813, on the ground
that the petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters
identified in the parties Agreement.
* RTC dismissed the complaint.
* On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC. CA nullified the
petitioners certificates of title and ordered the reconveyance of
the entire subject property (4,024 sqm) in the respondents favor.
Issue: W/N reconveyance of the entire 4,024 sqm of the subject
property to the respondent is correct? NO!
Ruling: (SC granted Petition for Review on Certiorari)

Upon purchase, the parties immediately terminated this state of

indivision as co-owners by executing an Agreement, which is in
the nature of a partition agreement.
The Civil Code of the Philippines defines partition as the
separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common
among those to whom it may belong. Partition is the division
between two or more persons of real or personal property,
owned in common, by setting apart their respective interests so
that they may enjoy and possess these in severalty, resulting in
the partial or total extinguishment of co-ownership.
One of the legal effects of partition, whether by agreement
among the co-owners or by judicial proceeding, is to terminate
the co-ownership and, consequently, to make the previous coowners the absolute and exclusive owner of the share allotted to
him.
Since 3,020 sqm was allotted to the petitioner as stated in the
Agreement, TCT No. 195812 (3,020 sqm) should NOT be
reconveyed in favor of the respondent since he is not the rightful
owner of the property covered by this title. Accordingly, the Court
directed the petitioner to RECONVEY to the respondent the
parcel of land covered by TCT No. 195813 (1,004 sqm).

in equal shares among the respondents and their sister

petitioner. Each of them was entitled to one-fourth share of the
aforesaid property. The TCT in the name of Djayari Moro was
ordered annulled and cancelled, and, in lieu thereof the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Basilan City was ordered to issue a new
TCT in the names of the respondents and their sister petitioner.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied in an order dated 19 July 2000.
Hence, the present petition.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Shari'a District Court erred in
ordering the partition of the subject property and annulment of
the Transfer Certificate of Title on the basis alone of
respondents' claim that Saupi Moro, their predecessor-ininterest, was the one who owned the said parcel of land during
his lifetime, thereby disregarding the protection accorded to the
persons dealing with property registered under the Torrens
system.
RULING: The petition is meritorious. The first stage in an action
for partition is the settlement of the issue of ownership, and the
action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the
property in
dispute. In the case at bar, Hadji Munib, et al., herein
respondents, failed to prove their right to the land in dispute.

#3 Garingan vs. Garingan (455 SCRA 480)

FACTS: Hadji Munib Saupi Garingan, et al., herein respondents,
alleged that their grandfather Sauri Moro owned an agricultural
lot, fully panted with coconut and other fruit bearing trees,
containing an area of 11.3365 hectares. Saupi Moro acquired the
land through purchase from Gani Moro. Saupi Moro then
donated the land to his daughter Insih Saupi, mother of Hadji
Munib, et al. and petitioner Haymaton S. Garingan.
After the death of Saupi Moro in 1954, Haymaton and and
husband Pawaki, who was also known as Djayari Moro, herein
petitioners, took over the administration of the land. Later,
petitioners declared the land, then still untitled, in their names for
taxation purposes. Petitioners refused to share with the
respondents the income from the sale of fruits from the land.
Petitioners claimed that on 22 September 1969, Pawaki alleged
that he bought the land from Jikirum M. Adjaluddin (Jikirum) and
a TCT was issued in the name of Djayari Moro. Pawaki took
possession of the land in the concept of an owner in the same
year. He declared the land for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. 1675.
Respondents filed an action for Partition and Injunction with
prayer for Preliminary Injunction against petitioners with the
Shari'a District Court, Third Shari'a Judicial District, Zamboanga
City. The Shari'a District Court then ordered to partition the land

The subject property originally belonged to Gani Moro and was

acquired through sale by Saupi Moro. After Gani Moro's death,
his heirs, including Andaang, offered to repurchase the land, but
Saupi Moro refused. The heirs instituted a civil case for Unlawful
Detainer but was dismissed by the court. Despite the dismissal,
Andaang filed for a homestead patent over the said property. It
was approved on 17 February 1955 and he was issued Letters
of patent. On 6 December 1955, an Original Certificate of Title
was issued in Andaang's name. In July 1956, the brothers and
sisters of Saupi Moro filed a civil case for the annulment of the
OCT and damages against Andaang. Again, the case did not
prosper. The plaintiffs did not revive the case and it was
considered abandoned.
Andaang died intestate in 1959. On 13 April 1960, Andaang's
widow and sole heir, Cristeta Santiago vda. de Gani, executed
an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale adjudicating to herself the
land in dispute and at the same time selling it to Jikirum.
Consequently, a TCT was issued in the name of Jikirum.
CA 141 requires the applicant for a homestead patent, to enter in
possession of, improve and cultivate the land. Petitioners, insist
that Andaang did not comply with these requirements. A person
deprived of the land, estate, or interest therein by virtue of a
decree of registration may avail of the remedy provided under
Section 38 of Act 496. Section 38, however, contemplates of an

external fraud. In the case of Libudan vs. Gil, the Court

explained the scope of external or collateral fraud as any
fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant "outside the
trial of the case against the defeated party, or his agents,
attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case".
The fraud being attributed to Andaang is not extrinsic and
collateral.
Granting that Andaang committed extrinsic and collateral fraud,
respondents failed to avail of the remedy provided under Section
38 of Act 496 within the prescribed period. In Nelayan, et al. vs.
Nelayan, et al., this Court ruled that in the case of public land
grants (patents), the one-year period under Section 38 counted
from the issuance of the patent by the government.
Upon registration, the land in dispute falls under the operation of
Act 496 and becomes a registered land. A homestead patent,
once registered, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title.
Instead of availing the remedy of Section 38 of Act 496,
respondents filed an action for partition, which must fail because
a Torrens title is not susceptible to collateral attack.
In any event, the respondents are not the proper parties to file
the action for reconveyance of the land in dispute. In the civil
cases, respondents did not claim that the land was privately
owned and thus not proper for homestead application. They only
alleged continuous possession of the land. The respondents
acknowledged that the Illegal Detainer case filed by the heirs of

Gani Moro, only confirmed Saupi Moro's physical possession of

the land. This, however, did not settle the issue of ownership of
the land.
Evidently, the land was not privately owned by Gani Moro from
whom Saupi Moro acquired it. The land in dispute was part of
public domain before the issuance of OCT in the name of
Andaang. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for
Andaang to file a homestead application.
Respondents' action for partition effectively seeks to cancel the
homestead patent and the corresponding certificate of title.
However, even if the homestead patent and the certificate of title
were cancelled, respondents will not acquire the land in the
concept of an owner. The land will revert to the government and
will again form part of the public domain. The proper party to
bring such action of patent cancellation is the Government. This
is provided for in Section 101 of CA 141.
Considering the foregoing, the respondents is not the proper
party to file an action to recover possession of the land in
dispute. Further, they failed to timely avail of whatever remedy
available to them to protect whatever interest they had over the
land.
The decision of the Shari'a District Court is set aside and another
one is entered dismissing the said complaint.