Casilang v. Casilang-Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The late spouses Liborio and Francisca Casilang had eight children. Liborio died intestate in 1982, leaving three parcels of land. One of the children, Ireneo, died in 1992, survived by his four children, including respondent Rosario. Ireneo's children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim in 1997, adjudicating Lot No. 4618 to Rosario, who claimed it was owned by her father Ireneo. Rosario filed an unlawful detainer case against her uncle, Jose Casilang, Sr., who claimed ownership of Lot No. 4618 by intestate succession from his father Liborio. Jose failed to appear at the pre-trial, was declared in default, and an adverse judgment was rendered against him, leading to a writ of demolition. Procedural History: Petitioners (Jose and other siblings) filed a complaint for Annulment of Documents, Ownership and Peaceful Possession with Damages against respondents, seeking to annul the 1997 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, TD No. 555, and its derivatives. The RTC ruled in favor of Jose, declaring him the lawful owner and possessor of Lot No. 4618 based on a verbal partition. The CA reversed the RTC, relying on the MTC's findings in the unlawful detainer case and deeming Jose's subsequent action as an afterthought. The CA found Jose's claim of oral partition conjectural and his possession to be by mere tolerance. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA decision, arguing that it grossly violated Jose's substantive right as a compulsory heir by upholding the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated April 3, 1997.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's decision by relying on the findings of the Municipal Trial Court in an unlawful detainer case to determine ownership. Whether the oral partition among the heirs of Liborio Casilang is valid and binding. Whether Jose Casilang, Sr. is the lawful owner and possessor of Lot No. 4618 based on the alleged verbal partition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision, declaring Jose Z. Casilang, Sr. as the lawful owner and possessor of Lot No. 4618.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the CA's reliance on the MTC's findings in the unlawful detainer case: The Court reiterated the settled distinction between a summary action of ejectment and a plenary action for recovery of possession and/or ownership. While inferior courts are empowered to rule on ownership in ejectment suits, it is only to resolve the issue of possession, and such determination is not conclusive on the issue of ownership. The CA erred in adopting the MTC's findings, which were obtained through summary procedure after Jose was declared in default, and in ignoring the evidence presented in the plenary action for annulment of documents and ownership before the RTC. On the validity of the oral partition: The Court affirmed the validity of oral partitions, citing jurisprudence that such agreements are valid and enforceable, even if partly performed. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to partition agreements as they are not conveyances of property but segregations of co-owned portions. The Court found that the oral partition among the heirs of Liborio, which allocated Lot No. 4618 to Jose, was valid and had been consummated by the parties taking possession of their respective shares and exercising acts of ownership. On Jose Casilang, Sr.'s ownership of Lot No. 4618: The Court found a preponderance of evidence supporting Jose's claim of ownership over Lot No. 4618 based on the oral partition. Jose's testimony, corroborated by his sisters, indicated that he resided on the lot, cared for their parents there, and was verbally assigned the lot by their father. The Court noted the lack of proof that Ireneo inherited Lot No. 4618 from Liborio, and that the tax declaration in Ireneo's name was issued after his death. The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the respondents' testimonies and the fact that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition concerning Lot No. 4676 implicitly acknowledged Jose's prior receipt of his share (Lot No. 4618) by his renunciation of claims over Lot No. 4676.
Main Doctrine
The determination of ownership in an ejectment suit is only provisional and not conclusive on the issue of ownership, unlike in a plenary action for recovery of ownership and possession.