Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    Lacbayan vs. Samoye

    Uploaded by

    Lilibeth Dee Gabutero
    Lacbayan and Samoy established a business together and acquired five parcels of land registered under their names while in an illicit relationship. They later agreed to partition the properties but disagreed on the terms, with Lacbayan wanting additional demands. Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition. Samoy denied Lacbayan's claim of cohabitation and contribution to acquiring the properties. The court ruled that an action for partition does not preclude settling the issue of ownership first, as the complaint relies on establishing co-ownership, which Samoy disputes. Determining co-ownership is necessary before partitioning can occur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lacbayan vs. Samoye

    Uploaded by

    Lilibeth Dee Gabutero
    177 views1 page
    Lacbayan and Samoy established a business together and acquired five parcels of land registered under their names while in an illicit relationship. They later agreed to partition the properties but disagreed on the terms, with Lacbayan wanting additional demands. Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition. Samoy denied Lacbayan's claim of cohabitation and contribution to acquiring the properties. The court ruled that an action for partition does not preclude settling the issue of ownership first, as the complaint relies on establishing co-ownership, which Samoy disputes. Determining co-ownership is necessary before partitioning can occur.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lacbayan and Samoy established a business together and acquired five parcels of land registered under their names while in an illicit relationship. They later agreed to partition the properties but disagreed on the terms, with Lacbayan wanting additional demands. Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition. Samoy denied Lacbayan's claim of cohabitation and contribution to acquiring the properties. The court ruled that an action for partition does not preclude settling the issue of ownership first, as the complaint relies on establishing co-ownership, which Samoy disputes. Determining co-ownership is necessary before partitioning can occur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    177 views1 page

    Lacbayan vs. Samoye

    Uploaded by

    Lilibeth Dee Gabutero
    Lacbayan and Samoy established a business together and acquired five parcels of land registered under their names while in an illicit relationship. They later agreed to partition the properties but disagreed on the terms, with Lacbayan wanting additional demands. Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition. Samoy denied Lacbayan's claim of cohabitation and contribution to acquiring the properties. The court ruled that an action for partition does not preclude settling the issue of ownership first, as the complaint relies on establishing co-ownership, which Samoy disputes. Determining co-ownership is necessary before partitioning can occur.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Lakbayan vs.

    Samoye
    G.R. 165427 March 21, 2011
    FACTS: During Betty Lacbayan and Bayani Samoys illicit relationship, they, together with three more incorporators,
    were able to establish a manpower services company, by which they acquired 5 parcels of land, registered in their
    names, ostensibly as husband and wife. Having parted ways eventually, both of them agreed to divide the said
    properties and terminate their business partnership by executing a Partition Agreement. Initially, Samoy agreed to
    Lacbayans 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 Lacbayan wanted additional demands,
    Samoy refused. Thus, Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition of the said properties . In his answer, however,
    Samoy denied Lacbayans claim of cohabitation and said that the properties were acquired out of his own personal
    funds without any contribution from her.
    ISSUES: Does an action for partition preclude a settlement on the issue of ownership
    RULING: No. While it is true that the complaint involved here is one for partition, the same is premised on the
    existence or non-existence co-ownership between the parties. Petitioner insists she is a co-owner pro indivisio of the
    five real estate properties based on the TCT covering the subject properties. Respondent 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

    You might also like