This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In partition, the court must first determine the existence of co-ownership. The action will not lie if the plaintiff has no proprietary interest in the subject property. Indeed, the rules[16] require him to set forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title to the property. It would be premature to order partition until the question of ownership is first definitely resolved.[17] | |||||
|
2011-03-21 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| While it is true that the complaint involved here is one for partition, the same is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. Petitioner insists she is a co-owner pro indiviso of the five real estate properties based on the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) 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.[30] 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.[31] | |||||