Butiong Vs Plazo 765SCRA227

G R 1 7 1 3 8 8 7 6 5SCR A 22 7
SP O U SES M A RI A B U TI O N G a n d FR A N CISCO
VILL AFRI A,
s u b s ti t u t e d b y D R. RU E L B. VILLA F RI A,
petitioners, vs. M A .
G R A C I A R IO Z A P L A Z O a n d M A . F E R I O Z A
A L A R A S,
respondents.
Peralta, J:
Facts:
Pedro L. Rioza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including his children with
his first wife, respondents Ma. Gracia R. Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, his second
wife Benita Tenorio and other children, as well as several properties including a
resort covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 51354 and No. 51355,
each with an area of 351 square meters, and a family home, the land on which it
stands is covered by TCT Nos. 40807 and 40808, both located in Nasugbu,
Batangas.
Respondents Plazo filed an action for Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title
and Recovery of Possession dated September 15, 1993, on the ground their co-
heirs, Pedro's second wife, Benita Tenorio and other children, had sold Pedros
resort and family home to petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria and Maria
Butiong, who are now deceased and substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel B.
Villafria, without their knowledge and consent. When confronted about the sale,
Benita acknowledged the same, showing respondents a document she believed
evidenced receipt of her share in the sale, which, however, did not refer to any
sort of sale but to a previous loan obtained by Pedro and Benita from a bank.
Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a notice of an extra-

judicial settlement of estate of their late father was published in a tabloid called
Balita. Because of this, they caused the annotation of their adverse claims over
the subject properties before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu and filed their
complaint praying, among others, for the annulment of all documents conveying
the subject properties to the petitioners and certificates of title issued pursuant
thereto.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents due to the irregularities irregularities in the
documents of conveyance offered by petitioners as well as the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the same. Specifically, the Extra-Judicial
Settlement was notarized by a notary public who was not duly
commissioned as such on the date it was executed. The Deed of Sale was
undated, the date of the acknowledgment therein was left blank, and the
1
typewritten name "Pedro Rioza, Husband" on the left side of the
document was not signed.
The CA affirmed RTCs decision.
Before the SC, petitioners contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction. According
to them, the allegations in the complaint filed by the respondents show that the
cause of action is actually one for settlement of estate of decedent Pedro.
Considering that settlement of estate is a special proceeding cognizable by
a probate court of limited jurisdiction, while judicial partition with
annulment of title and recovery of possession are ordinary civil actions
cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its
jurisdiction in entertaining the respondents complaint.
Issue: WON the RTC had no jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint filed is
for the settlement of the estate of Pedro and not of Partition.
Held: Yes. The RTC had jurisdiction.
Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action

pertaining to the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs,
and the nature and extent of their interests thereon, may fall under an action for
settlement of estate. However, a complete reading of the complaint would readily
show that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs
prayed for, the action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title
and recovery of possession.
Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides:

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 provided in this Rule,
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 other persons interested in the property.
Here, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro died intestate; (2) that respondents,
together with their co-heirs, are all of legal age, with the exception of one who is
represented by a judicial representative duly authorized for the purpose; (3) that
the heirs enumerated are the only known heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an
account and description of all real properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate
has no known indebtedness; and (6) that respondents, as rightful heirs to the
decedent's estate, pray for the partition of the same in accordance with the laws
of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that based on the allegations of the complaint,
the case is one for judicial partition. That the complaint alleged causes of
action identifying the heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, and
their rights thereto, does not perforce make it an action for settlement of
estate.

Butiong Vs Plazo 765SCRA227

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Butiong Vs Plazo 765SCRA227

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Butiong Vs Plazo 765SCRA227

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G R 1 7 1 3 8 8 7 6 5SCR A 22 7

Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a notice of an extra-

Held: Yes. The RTC had jurisdiction.

Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action

Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides:

You might also like