Deveza v. Balmeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eriberto Balmeo filed a suit for partition of the properties of the deceased Mateo Balmeo against his siblings Felix Balmeo and Maria Balmeo, and his sister-in-law, the widow Segunda Deveza. The defendants had previously executed a partition agreement without the plaintiff's participation. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance (CFI) initially upheld the partition agreement, absolving the widow. This Court reversed the decision, stating the appellant (Eriberto Balmeo) was entitled to a share and that the other half corresponded to the wife in usufruct. The Court ordered the parties to partition the properties within thirty days, or commissioners would be appointed. The CFI appointed commissioners who, without liquidating the conjugal partnership or determining the deceased's exclusive properties, partitioned all properties into two equal parts: one in naked ownership to the siblings and the other in usufruct to the widow. The widow's motion for a copy of the report was denied, and the report was approved by the CFI. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI's decision. This petition for certiorari followed. The Petition: Segunda Deveza sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging errors in denying her motion for a copy of the commissioners' report, failing to rule on the validity of the report, and allowing the partition without prior liquidation of the conjugal partnership and the deceased's estate.
Issue(s)
Whether the parties in an action for partition are entitled as a matter of right to be furnished with a copy of the report filed by the commissioners of partition. Whether the commissioners of partition acted within their legal authority by partitioning the properties without first liquidating the conjugal partnership and identifying the exclusive properties of the deceased.
Ruling
The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The commissioners of partition are ordered to make another partition pursuant to the decision of this Court, with costs to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the petitioner's request to be furnished with a copy of the commissioners' report had no support in law. Citing the precedent in Martinez and Vilar vs. Tolentino (43 Phil. 492), the Court explained that the procedural rules of the time did not mandate the service of the report upon the parties by the court. While the clerk of court must notify the parties that a report has been filed, it is the responsibility of the parties to examine the report in the court records if they wish to take exceptions. The ten-day period to file objections begins upon such notification, but the lack of a personal copy provided by the court does not constitute a violation of procedural rights. Consequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) did not err in upholding the denial of the motion for a copy. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the commissioners committed a fatal error by failing to liquidate the conjugal partnership as previously ordered. The properties of a deceased person consist of their exclusive assets and their share in the conjugal partnership, a mass that is only determinable after a formal liquidation. By partitioning the entirety of the properties set out in the complaint into two parts without this liquidation, the commissioners arbitrarily ignored the prior Supreme Court (SC) mandate in G.R. No. 37484. The commissioners’ duty was to first separate the exclusive properties of Mateo Balmeo and then divide only the decedent's portion among the heirs and the usufructuary. Furthermore, the commissioners failed to determine who was entitled to the usufruct of the portion adjudicated in naked ownership to the siblings. Because the partition process was fundamentally flawed from the outset, the resulting adjudication was invalid and a new partition was ordered.
Main Doctrine
Commissioners appointed to partition the properties of a deceased person must first liquidate the conjugal partnership and determine the exclusive properties of the deceased before proceeding with the partition of the inheritance, as mandated by a prior Supreme Court decision.