Dadizon v. Bernadas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners and respondents are heirs of the late Diosdado Bernadas, Sr., who died intestate in 1977, leaving properties co-owned with his surviving spouse, Eustaquia Bernadas. Eustaquia died in 2000. Procedural History: Respondents filed a complaint for partition based on a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 24, 1996. Petitioners countered that this deed was revoked by a subsequent Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated February 10, 1999, and that certain properties were already disposed of or subject to annulment proceedings. During trial, parties indicated negotiations for a compromise agreement. A Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, was filed by respondents' counsel but was not signed by all heirs. The RTC, despite the lack of signatures from all parties and petitioners' failure to comment, approved this Project of Partition on July 23, 2001, and denied reconsideration on September 5, 2001. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's order. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the CA's decision, arguing that the RTC erred in approving the Project of Partition without the signatures of all parties and without following the mandated procedure under Rule 69.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's Order approving the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000. Whether the RTC correctly approved the Project of Partition despite it not being signed by all parties and despite the parties' inability to agree on the partition.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court with directions to immediately constitute and appoint commissioners to effect the partition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Order approving the Project of Partition: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court found that the RTC departed from the procedure mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. While the RTC noted that both parties filed the Project of Partition dated October 23, 2000, the records showed it was filed only by respondents' counsel and was not signed by all the parties. A partition requires agreement among all interested parties, which must be evidenced by their signatures on the partition document. The RTC's approval of a project not signed by all parties was therefore erroneous. The failure of petitioners to file a comment did not justify the RTC's non-observance of the mandated procedure. When parties are unable to agree on a partition, the RTC should have appointed commissioners as required by Section 3, Rule 69. The Court reiterated that reference to commissioners is a mandatory procedural step and not discretionary. The fact that petitioners insisted on a partition contrary to the approved project further demonstrated their inability to agree. Therefore, the RTC should have appointed commissioners to effect the partition, rather than approving a project that lacked the consensus of all heirs. On the issue of whether the RTC correctly approved the Project of Partition despite the parties' inability to agree: The Supreme Court held that the RTC did not correctly approve the Project of Partition. The Court emphasized that Rule 69 provides two ways for partition: by agreement under Section 2, or through commissioners when agreement cannot be reached under Section 3. In this case, the RTC noted that both parties manifested an agreement to partition, but the subsequent Project of Partition was not signed by all parties, indicating a failure to agree. The RTC's reliance on the parties' manifestation of agreement and petitioners' failure to comment was insufficient to bypass the procedural requirement of a signed agreement or the appointment of commissioners. The Court cited several cases, including De Mesa v. Court of Appeals, Patricio v. Dario III, Heirs of Zoilo Llido v. Marquez, and Honorio v. Dunuan, to underscore that when parties fail to agree on a partition, the court must appoint commissioners. The RTC's action of approving the Project of Partition without all signatures and without appointing commissioners was a procedural misstep. Consequently, the case was remanded to the RTC with a directive to appoint commissioners.
Main Doctrine
In an action for partition under Rule 69, if the parties are unable to agree upon the partition, the court must appoint commissioners to effect the partition as mandated by Section 3, Rule 69, and cannot approve a project of partition not signed by all parties.