Butiong vs. Plazo G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015 Peralta, J.: Facts

BUTIONG vs.
PLAZO
G.R. No. 187524
August 5, 2015
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
On November 16, 1989, Pedro L. Riñoza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including
his children with his first wife, as well as several properties including a resort, and a
family home, both located in Nasugbu, Batangas. In their Amended Complaint for
Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession, respondents
alleged that their co-heirs, Pedro’s second wife, Benita Tenorio and other children, had
sold the subject properties 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 showed respondents a
document she believed evidenced receipt of her share in the sale. The document,
however, was actually an evidenced receipt from Banco Silangan of the amount of
P87,352.62 releasing her and her late husband’s indebtedness therefrom. Upon inquiry,
the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu informed respondents that he has no record of any
transaction involving the subject properties, giving them certified true copies of the titles
to the same. Moreover, respondents learned that a notice of an extra-judicial settlement
of estate of their late father was previously published. 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. In their Answer, petitioners denied the allegations of the
complaint on the ground of lack of personal knowledge and good faith in acquiring the
subject properties.
The trial court nullified the transfer of the subject properties to petitioners due to
irregularities in the documents of conveyance as well as the circumstances surrounding
the execution of the same. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial ‘court’s judgment.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction
stating that when the Complaint for Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and
Recovery of Possession was filed, there was yet no settlement of Pedro's estate,
determination as to the nature thereof, nor was there an identification of the number of
legitimate heirs and the trial court ruled on the settlement of the intestate estate of
Pedro in its ordinary· jurisdiction when the action filed was for Judicial Partition. The CA
dismissed the petition and affirmed the rulings of the trial court, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in not ruling that the regional trial
court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the special proceeding for the settlement
of estate of Pedro Riñoza and the civil action for annulment of title of the heirs and third
persons in one proceeding.
RULING:
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit an error in its ruling. The instant complaint is
one for judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession, filed within
the confines of applicable law and jurisprudence. Under Section 144 of Republic Act No.
7691 (RA 7691), 45 amending Batas Pambansa Big. 129, the RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Since the action herein was not merely for partition
and recovery of ownership but also for annulment of title and documents, the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC.
Hence, considering that the trial court clearly had jurisdiction in rendering its decision,
the instant petition for annulment of judgment must necessarily fail.
DOCTRINE:
The annulment of title and recovery of possession in the same proceeding does not
strip the court off of its jurisdiction for asking for the annulment of certain transfers of
property could very well be achieved in an action for partition.

Butiong vs. Plazo G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015 Peralta, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Butiong vs. Plazo G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015 Peralta, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015 Peralta, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUTIONG vs.

You might also like