This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The description "undivided ONE-FOURTH (1/4) portion (50 square meters, more or less, in the particular portion of the lot where the house of the VENDEE now stands)" shows that the portion sold is still undivided and not sufficiently identified. While the description provides a guide for identifying the location of the lot sold, there was no indication of its exact metes and bounds. This is the reason why petitioner was constrained to cause the survey of the property.[41] As a co-owner of the property, therefore, petitioner has the right to demand partition, a right which does not prescribe.[42] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the said provision, without the participation of all persons involved in the proceedings, the extrajudicial settlement is not binding on said persons.[20] In the case at bar, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof by the private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura Cristobal's estate. The partition of the subject property by the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners were excluded therefrom. Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of Partition executed by private respondents among themselves in 1948. Petitioner Elisa became aware of the transfer and registration of the subject property in the names of private respondents only in 1994 when she was offered by private respondent Eufrocina to choose between a portion of the subject property or money, as one of the children of private respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the subject property.[21] This led petitioner Elisa to inquire as to the status of the subject property. She learned afterwards that the title to the subject property had been transferred to the names of private respondents, her half brothers and sisters, to the exclusion of herself and her siblings from the first marriage of Buenaventura Cristobal. The Deed of Partition excluded four of the eight heirs of Buenaventura Cristobal who were also entitled to their respective shares in the subject property. Since petitioners were not able to participate in the execution of the Deed of Partition, which constitutes as an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the late Buenaventura Cristobal by private respondents, such settlement is not binding on them.[22] As the extrajudicial settlement executed by the private respondents in February 1948 did not affect the right of petitioners to also inherit from the estate of their deceased father, it was incorrect for the trial and appellate court to hold that petitioners' right to challenge the said settlement had prescribed. Respondents defense of prescription against an action for partition is a vain proposition. Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, "no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned." In Budlong v. Bondoc,[23] this Court has interpreted said provision of law to mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be barred by prescription. For Article 494 of the Civil Code explicitly declares: "No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership."[24] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction.[38] If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court's jurisdiction in the same case.[39] To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.[40] | |||||