RULE 69 PARTition

RULE 69PARTITION

Prepared by: Aileen M. GaviolaJennifer Mae A. NovelaWhat is partition? It is the separation, division and assignment of a thing in common among those to whom it may belong (Article 1079. NCC)

NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR PARTITION - It is an action quasi in rem since it is not only directed against particular person, but it constitute a lien on the property subject matter of the action with the intention of excluding the interest of the defendant therein.Purpose of partitionThe purpose of partition is to separate, divide, and assign a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong (Gabila v. Perez, et.al G.R No. L-29542, January 27, 1989)Who may file complaint; who sould be made defendantsA person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may file an action for partition of real estate (Sec 1, Rule 69)

The plaintiff shall join as defendants all other persons interested in property

Matters to be alleged in the complaintThe complaint for partition must contain the following:The nature and extent of the plaintiffs titleAn adequate description of the real estate of wich partition is demandedJoin as defendants all other persons interested in the property (sec 1)A demand for the accounting of the rents. profits, and other income from the property for which he may be entitled (sec 8)When can partition be made?Each co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common as his share is concerned.(article 494 ncc)

Where to file an action for partition of real estate?In case the subject matter of the action is personal property;

Regional Trial Court----If the value of the personal property exceeds three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00) outside of metro manila or four hundred thousand pesos(400,000.00) within metro manila.

Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court----If the value of the personal property does not exceed three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00) outside of metro manila or four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00) within metro manila. In case the subject matter of the action is a real property;

Regional Trial Court---- if the assessed value of the real property exceeds twenty thousand pesos (20,000.00) outside of metro manila or fifity thousand pesos (50,000.00) within metro manila.Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court---- If the assessed value of the real property does not exceed twenty thousand pesos (20,000.00) outside of metro manila or fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) within metro manila.Order of partition; partition by agreement (sec 2, rule 69)Q: What shall the court do if it finds that the plaintiff is a co-owner and co-ownership exists between him and the defendants and that no legal impediment to a partition exists?A: The court, upon finding that the plaintiff has a right to the partition of the real estate, shall order the partition of the property (Sec 2)

What is the course of action of the court in case of a complaint for partition?If after the trial the court finds that thenplaintiff has the right thereto, it shall:Order the partition of the real estate among all the partes in interest;Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance; andThe court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by all the parties, and such partition, together with the order of the court confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated.Two stages in action for partitionThe following are the stages:The first stage is the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper and may be made voluntary agreement of all parties interested in the property.The second stage commences when it appears that the parties are unable to agree upon the partition directed by the court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners (Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R No. 172367, June 5, 2009)Heirs of Marasigan vs MarasiganG.R.NO.156078 March 14 2008FACTS:

Alicia owned in common with her siblings 13 parcels of land called Hacienda Sta. Rita in Pili and Minalabac, Camarines Sur. When Alicia died she left her shares with her siblings: Cesar, Apolonio, Lilia, and Benito; Marissa, a sister-in-law; and the children of her brothers who predeceased her, a complaint for Judicial Partition of the Estate of Alicia Marasigan was filed before the RTC by her heirs (private respondents) against Cesar. RTC decided in favor of the heirs and issued an order of partition of the estate of Alicia Marasigan. They ordered the partition into 1/7 each of the 2/21 shares of the 13 parcels of land. The parties could not agree on how they shall physically partition among themselves Alicias estate, privaterespondents filed a Motion to Appoint Commissioners following the procedure outlined in Sections 4, 5, 6,and 7 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The RTC granted the Motion and appointed two commissioners.Private respondents nominated Dacara as the second commissioner. Cesar failed to nominate a third commissioner despite due notice. Upon lapse of the period given, only two commissioners were appointed.

14Commissioners conducted an ocular inspection. Commissioners Report was released: Considering that the physical division of the 2/21 pro-indiviso share of the decedent, Alicia Marasigan cannot be done because of the different locations and conditions ofthe properties, undersigned Commissioners hereby recommend that the heirs may assign their 1/7 share to one of the parties willing to buy the same (Sec. 5, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court)provided he pays to the heir[s] willing to assign his/her 1/7 share such amounts the Commissioners have recommended and duly approved by the Honorable Court. RTC issued an Order approving the recommendations embodied in the Commissioners Report, particularly that the property be assigned to one of theheirs. Motion for Reconsideration by Cesar thatwas denied. In the meantime, Cesar died. He was substituted by his heirs and herein petitioners. The heirs of Cesar, petitioners ,elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 claiming grave abuse by the RTC judge in approving the Commissioners Report. CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the RTC acted within its authority.

Issue:W/N the CA erred in affirming the RTC Order adopting the Commissioners recommendation on the manner of partition of the estate of Alicia Marasigan

RULING: NO. The Commissioners found, after a viewing and examination of Alicias estate, that the same cannot be divided without causing prejudice to the interests of the parties. The impracticality of physically dividing Alicias estate becomes more apparent, considering that Hacienda Sta. Rita is composed of parcels and snippets of land located in two different municipalities, Pili and Minalabac, Camarines Sur. Cesar and his heirs are entitled only to his 1/7 share in the yet unidentified, unsegregated 2/21 pro-indiviso shares of Alicia in each of the 13 parcels of land that comprises Hacienda Sta. Rita. Dividing the parcels of land even further, each portion allotted to Alicias heirs, with a significantly reduced land area and widely scattered in two municipalities, would irrefragably diminish the value and use of each portion, as compared to keeping the entire estate intact. Hence, CA did not erred in affirming the RTC Order adopting the Commissioners recommendation on the manner of partition of the estate of Alicia.

Partition by commissioners; appointment of commissioners report; court action upon commissioners report(Sec 3, Rule69)Q: What shall the court do if the parties fail to agree upon a partition of the property?A: The court shall appoint not more than 3 competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to each party in interest such part and proportion of the property as the court shall direct (sec 3)Oath and duties of commisioners (sec 4, rule 69)What is the requirement before the commissioners can assume their function?Before making such partition, the commissioners shall:1. Take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners;2. Such oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case.

What are the duties of the commissioners?

1. View and examine the real estate, after due notice to the parties to attend at such view and examination;

2. Shall hear the parties as to their preference in the portion of the property to be set apart to them and the comparative value thereof; and

3. Shall set apart the same to the parties in lots or parcels as will be most advantageous and equiatable, having due regard to the improvements, situation and quality of the different parts thereof.Assigment of sale of real estate by commissioners (sec 5, rule 69)What is the recourse of the court in case the real property is indivisible?1. Order it assigned to one of the parties willing to take the same, provided he pays to the other parties such amounts as the commissioners deem equitable;

2. Unless one of the interested parties asks that the property be sold instead of being so assigned, in which case the court shall order the commisioners to sell the real estate at public sale under such conditions and within such time as the court may determine.Report of commissioners; proceedings not binding until confirmed (sec 6, rule69)Q: What is the duty of the commissioners about their proceedings in the partition?

A: The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report of the proceedings as to the partition or assignment of the real estate to one of the parties or the state of the same (Sec 6)1. The partition made;2. The assignment of real estate to one of the parties; or3. The sale of the real estate

What are the duties of the clerk of cort upon receipt of the report?- Upon filing of such report, the clerk of court shall serve copies thereof on all the interested parties with notice that they are allowed 10 days within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.What are the contents of the commissioners report?Action of the court upon commissioners report (sec 7, rule 69)What are the courses of action of the court on the report of the commissioner?1. Upon hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith;2. For cause shown, recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts;3. Set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or4. Accept the report in part and reject it in part; and5. May make such order and render such judgment as shall effectuate a fair and just partition of the real estate, or of its value, if assigned or sold as above provided, between the several owners thereof.Accounting for rent and profits in action for partition (sec 8, rule 69)What is the rule on the rents and profits earned by the property? In action for partition in accordance with this Rule, a party shall:1. Recover from another his just share of rents and profits received by such other party from the real estate in question; and

2. The judgment shall include an allowance or such rents and profits,Power of guardian in such proceedings (sec 9, rule 69)What are the powers of the guardian in action for partition?- The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the partition of real estate, which the minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in partition proceedings if he were of age or competent.Cost and expenses to be taxed and collected (sec 10, rule69)What are the actions of the court on the expenses and cost of the proceedings?1. Equitably tax and apportion between or among the parties the costs and expenses whic accrue in the action;2. Apportionment of the compensation of the commissioners, having regard to the interests of the parties, and execution may issue therefore as in other cases.Judgment and its effects (sec 11, rule 69)What is the nature of a judgment in partition?

- A judgment ordering partition with damages is final and duly appealable notwithstanding the fact, which petitioner seeks to capitalize on, that further proceedings will still have to take place in the trial court (Lim de Mesa v. CA, G.R No. 109387, april 25, 1994)Outline of the contents of a judgment in a partition and its effectsThe following are the contents and effects of a judment in a partition:

a. If actual partition of property is made, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequatedescription, the particular portion of the estate assigned to each party. The effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each party to the action in severally the portion of the estate assigned to him; b. If the whole property is assigned to one of the parties upon his paying to the others the sums or sums ordered by the court, the judgment shall state the fact of such payment, and the effect of of the judgment shall be to vest in the party making the payment the whole of the real estate free from any interest on the part of the other parties to the action;c. If the property is sold and the sale confirmed by the court, the judgment shall state the name of the purchaser or purchasers and a definite description of the parcels of real estate sold to each purchaser, and effect of the judgment shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser or purchasers making the payment or payments, free from the claims of the parties to the action (Sec 11)Neither paramount rights nor amicable partition affected by this rule (sec 12, rule 69)What are the effects in case other person has rights over the property?- Nothing in this Rule contained shall be construed so as to:

1. Prejudice, defeat, or destroy the right or title of any person claiming the real estate involved by title under any other person; or2. By title paramount to the title of the parties among whom the partition may have been made;3. Nor so as to restrict or prevent persons holding real estate jointly or in common from making an amicable partition thereof by agreement and suitable instruments of conveyance without recourse to an action.Partition of personal property (sec 13, rule 69)May partition of personal property be made?- YES. The provisions on the rule of partition shall apply to partition of estates composed of personal property, or of both real and personal property, in so far as the same may be applicable (Sec 13)Prescription of actionDoes the right to demand partion prescribe?- As a general rule, NO. The right of action to demand partition does not prescribe, except where one of the interested parties openly and adversely occupies the property without recognizing the co-ownership in which case acquisitive prescription may set in.Maria del Rosario Mariategui vs. CAG.R. No. 57062, Jan. 24, 1992

FACTS

Lupo Mariateguie died without a will on June 15, 1953. During his lifetime, Lupo contracted 3 marriages. He had 8 children all in all: 4 with his first wife, Eusebia; 1 daughter with his second wife, Flaviana; and 3 with his third wife, Felipe.

Lupo left four properties which he acquired while he was still unmarried. On December 2, 1967, Lupos descendants by his 1st and 2nd marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated one of the lots unto themselves. An OCT was issued in the names of these heirs. Subsequently, this lot was subdivided into two, for which separate TCTs were issued to the respective parties.

Lupos children with the third wife, who were claiming continuous enjoyment and possession of the land, protested. They went to court saying that when the court adjudicated one of the four lots to their co-heirs, they were deprived of their respective shares in the lot. They prayed for the partition of the entire estate (all 4 lots) and the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition.The defendants (other heirs) filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of action and prescription. The trial court dismissed the case while the CA declared that all the heirs were entitled to equal shares in the estate. CA directed the heirs who had acquired TCTs to execute deeds of reconveyance in favor of the heirs with the third wife.

Issue:Whether or not theactionfor partition has prescribed

Ruling:

No. Prescription does not run against private respondents wrt the filing of the action for partition so long as the heirs/co-owners for whose benefit the prescription is invoked have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership.

The registration was not a valid act of repudiation because it was not clearly made known to the other heirs. For prescription to run, the act of repudiation is subject to certain conditions:

1. a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership2. such act is clearly made known to the other co-owners3. the evidence is clear and conclusive4. OCEN possession of the property Assuming that it was an act of repudiation of the co-ownership, prescription had not yet set in when the respondents filed the action for partition. The reason is because there was fraud involved in obtaining registration. Earlier the respondent heirs were assured by the petitioner-heirs no to worry about their share in their inheritance; their existence as co-owners was recognized and in fact, they constructed a house on the registered lot without objection from the petitioner-heirs. In as much as petitioners registered the properties in their names in fraud of their co-heirs, prescription can only be deemed to have commenced from the time respondents discovered the fraud. In this case, respondents immediately commenced an action two months after they learned of the fraud.

PRESCRIPTION LIES IF THERE IS REPUDIATION OF CO-OWNERSHIP - Butwhile the action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not proscribed, a co-owner may acquire ownership thereof by prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership (Heirs of Restar v. Heirs of Cichin 475