Reillo v. San Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo were registered owners of a parcel of land. They had five children. After their deaths, some of their heirs (petitioners) executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights, claiming to be the sole heirs and adjudicating the subject land to Ma. Teresa F. Piñon. This led to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new title in Ma. Teresa's name. Procedural History: Other heirs (respondents) filed a complaint for annulment of title, annulment of the deed, partition, and damages, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Petitioners filed an Answer with Counter-Petition for Partition of other properties. Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss the counter-petition for non-payment of docket fees. The RTC granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, declared the deed and title void, and ordered partition. The RTC did not consider the counter-petition for non-payment of docket fees. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: Petitioners seek review, arguing that the CA erred in upholding the judgment on the pleadings, in not giving due course to their appeal, and in ordering partition without publication, violating due process and property rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the annulment of the deed and title. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's order dismissing the counter-petition for partition due to non-payment of docket fees. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's order for partition of the subject property without publication.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court's order is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of judgment on the pleadings: The Court held that a judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the complaint. In this case, while petitioners denied the falsity of the deed, they admitted that the deceased spouses had five children, including the respondents. This admission supported the respondents' claim that petitioners were not the sole heirs, thus negating a genuine issue of fact regarding the misrepresentation in the deed. Consequently, the RTC did not err in rendering judgment on the pleadings. A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without the knowledge and consent of all heirs is fraudulent and void, as it deprives other heirs of their rightful share. The annulment of the deed and the title issued pursuant thereto was therefore correct. On the dismissal of the counter-petition for partition: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the counter-petition for partition was a permissive counterclaim, not a compulsory one. The subject matter of the counter-petition (partition of 12 other parcels of land) was entirely different from the subject matter of the respondents' action (annulment of a deed and title concerning one specific parcel). As a permissive counterclaim, it was an independent claim requiring the payment of docket fees for the court to acquire jurisdiction. Petitioners failed to pay these fees and did not seek time to do so, nor did they raise the issue in their motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave error in dismissing the counter-petition. On the order of partition without publication: The Court found no merit in the contention that the partition order violated rules requiring publication. The RTC's order to partition the subject property in accordance with intestate succession was a logical consequence of nullifying the deed of extrajudicial settlement. The property reverted to the estate of the original owners, and since all parties were admitted heirs, they owned the property in common. The action for partition of the subject property, which was the subject of the annulled deed, falls under Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which does not require publication. The RTC could not order the collation and partition of other properties not included in the respondents' action, necessitating a separate proceeding.
Main Doctrine
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including all heirs who had no knowledge or consent is fraudulent and void. Failure to pay docket fees for a permissive counterclaim, such as a petition for partition of other properties not subject of the main action, results in the court not acquiring jurisdiction over the counterclaim.