Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA S. REYES-DE LEON v. VICENTE B. DEL ROSARIO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 114217 2009-10-13	HEIRS OF JOSE SY BANG v. ROLANDO SY NACHURA, J.
"In actions for partition, the court cannot properly issue an order to divide the property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of co-ownership. The court must initially settle the issue of ownership, the first stage in an action for partition. Needless to state, an action for partition will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest over the subject property. In fact, Section 1 of Rule 69 requires the party filing the action to state in his complaint the "nature and extent of his title" to the real estate. Until and unless the issue of ownership is definitely resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the properties x x x."[92]
	GR No. 156224 2008-02-19	HEIRS OF PANFILO F. ABALOS v. AURORA A. BUCAL AZCUNA, J.
Reyes-de Leon v. Del Rosario[51] held:The issue of ownership or co-ownership, to be more precise, must first be resolved in order to effect a partition of properties. This should be done in the action for partition itself. As held in the case of Catapusan v. Court of Appeals:
	GR NO. 169341 2006-11-22	CITY OF CEBU v. VICENTE B. DEL ROSARIO CALLEJO, SR.,J.
The heirs of Vicente S. del Rosario did not refile the complaint. Instead, Pantaleon U. del Rosario and his son, Vicente B. del Rosario, filed a Complaint on September 24, 1994, and Amended and Second Amended Complaints, against Ceferina Vda. del Rosario, Carlos U. del Rosario and Manuel U. del Rosario for partition of the estate of Vicente S. del Rosario, including the "Asinan properties."[15] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Ceb-17236 and raffled to Branch 5 of the court. On March 30, 1998, the court issued an Order placing the property under receivership, including the lots where the abattoir was to be constructed. On July 16, 1998, the RTC granted the motion of Carlos del Rosario to lease out the Asinan properties for one year.[16]
	GR No. 141880 2004-09-27	ZENAIDA F. DAPAR v. GLORIA LOZANO BIASCAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is clear that there is identity of subject matter between the two cases; that is, the parcel of land in Caloocan City covered by TCT No. 207197. Such property was adjudicated in favor of the petitioner and the respondent, as co-owners in equal shares. It must be stressed that in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.[34] As we ruled in a recent case:[35] To split the proceedings into declaration of nullity of the deed of sale and trial for the partition case, or to hold in abeyance the partition case pending resolution of the nullity case would result in the multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay, as the lower court observed. The conduct of separate trials of the parties' respective claims would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time not only of the parties but also of the courts concerned. On the other hand, it would be in the interest of justice of the partition court hears all the actions and incidents concerning the properties subject of the partition in a single and complete proceeding.