G.R. No. 165427 March 21, 2011 registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr.

"married to
Betty L. Samoy."8
BETTY B. LACBAYAN, Petitioner,
vs. 5. A 400-square meter real estate property located at Don
BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR., Respondent. Enrique Heights, Quezon City covered by TCT No. 90232 and
registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to
DECISION Betty L. Samoy."9
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Initially, petitioner lived with her parents in Mapagbigay St., V.
This settles the petition for review on certiorari filed by Luna, Quezon City. In 1983, petitioner left her parents and
petitioner Betty B. Lacbayan against respondent Bayani S. decided to reside in the property located in Malvar St. in
Samoy, Jr. assailing the September 14, 2004 Decision1 of the Project 4, Quezon City. Later, she and their son transferred to
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67596. The CA had Zobel St., also in Project 4, and finally to the 400-square
affirmed the February 10, 2000 Decision2 of the Regional meter property in Don Enrique Heights.10
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 224, of Quezon City declaring Eventually, however, their relationship turned sour and they
respondent as the sole owner of the properties involved in decided to part ways sometime in 1991. In 1998, both parties
this suit and awarding to himP100,000.00 as attorney’s fees. agreed to divide the said properties and terminate their
This suit stemmed from the following facts. business partnership by executing a Partition
Agreement.11 Initially, respondent agreed to petitioner’s
Petitioner and respondent met each other through a common proposal that the properties in Malvar St. and Don Enrique
friend sometime in 1978. Despite respondent being already Heights be assigned to the latter, while the ownership over
married, their relationship developed until petitioner gave birth the three other properties will go to respondent.12 However,
to respondent’s son on October 12, 1979.3 when petitioner wanted additional demands to be included in
the partition agreement, respondent refused.13 Feeling
During their illicit relationship, petitioner and respondent,
aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for judicial partition14 of
together with three more incorporators, were able to establish
the said properties before the RTC in Quezon City on May 31,
a manpower services company.4 Five parcels of land were
1999.
also acquired during the said period and were registered in
petitioner and respondent’s names, ostensibly as husband In her complaint, petitioner averred that she and respondent
and wife. The lands are briefly described as follows: started to live together as husband and wife in 1979 without
the benefit of marriage and worked together as business
1. A 255-square meter real estate property located at Malvar
partners, acquiring real properties amounting
St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 303224 and registered
toP15,500,000.00.15 Respondent, in his Answer,16 however,
in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to Betty
denied petitioner’s claim of cohabitation and said that the
Lacbayan."5
properties were acquired out of his own personal funds
2. A 296-square meter real estate property located at Main without any contribution from petitioner.17
Ave., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 23301 and registered
During the trial, petitioner admitted that although they were
in the name of "Spouses Bayani S. Samoy and Betty
together for almost 24 hours a day in 1983 until 1991,
Lacbayan."6
respondent would still go home to his wife usually in the wee
3. A 300-square meter real estate property located at Matatag hours of the morning.18 Petitioner likewise claimed that they
St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. RT-38264 and acquired the said real estate properties from the income of
registered in the name of Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. "married to the company which she and respondent established.19
Betty Lacbayan Samoy."7
Respondent, meanwhile, testified that the properties were
4. A 183.20-square meter real estate property located at purchased from his personal funds, salaries, dividends,
Zobel St., Quezon City covered by TCT No. 335193 and allowances and commissions.20 He countered that the said
properties were registered in his name together with petitioner
to exclude the same from the property regime of respondent
and his legal wife, and to prevent the possible dissipation of seen to present simultaneously two principal issues, i.e., first,
the said properties since his legal wife was then a heavy the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the
gambler.21 Respondent added that he also purchased the property sought to be partitioned and, second – assuming
said properties as investment, with the intention to sell them that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first – the issue of
later on for the purchase or construction of a new building.22 how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and
defendant(s). Otherwise stated, the court must initially settle
On February 10, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision the issue of ownership for the simple reason that it cannot
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.23 In resolving the properly issue an order to divide the property without first
issue on ownership, the RTC decided to give considerable making a determination as to the existence of co-ownership.
weight to petitioner’s own admission that the properties were Until and unless the issue of ownership is definitely resolved,
acquired not from her own personal funds but from the it would be premature to effect a partition of the properties.
income of the manpower services company over which she This is precisely what the trial court did when it discounted the
owns a measly 3.33% share.24 merit in appellant’s claim of co-ownership.26
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA asserting Hence, this petition premised on the following arguments:
that she is the pro indiviso owner of one-half of the properties
in dispute. Petitioner argued that the trial court’s decision I. Ownership cannot be passed upon in a partition case.
subjected the certificates of title over the said properties to
collateral attack contrary to law and jurisprudence. Petitioner II. The partition agreement duly signed by respondent
also contended that it is improper to thresh out the issue on contains an admission against respondent’s interest as to the
ownership in an action for partition.25 existence of co-ownership between the parties.

III. An action for partition cannot be defeated by the mere

Unimpressed with petitioner’s arguments, the appellate court
expedience of repudiating co-ownership based on self-
denied the appeal, explaining in the following manner:
serving claims of exclusive ownership of the properties in
Appellant’s harping on the indefeasibility of the certificates of dispute.
title covering the subject realties is, to say the least,
misplaced. Rather than the validity of said certificates which IV. A Torrens title is the best evidence of ownership which
was nowhere dealt with in the appealed decision, the record cannot be outweighed by respondent’s self-serving assertion
shows that what the trial court determined therein was the to the contrary.
ownership of the subject realties – itself an issue correlative V. The properties involved were acquired by both parties
to and a necessary adjunct of the claim of co-ownership upon through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or
which appellant anchored her cause of action for partition. It industry.27
bears emphasizing, moreover, that the rule on the
indefeasibility of a Torrens title applies only to original and not Noticeably, the last argument is essentially a question of fact,
to subsequent registration as that availed of by the parties in which we feel has been squarely threshed out in the
respect to the properties in litigation. To our mind, the decisions of both the trial and appellate courts. We deem it
inapplicability of said principle to the case at bench is even wise not to disturb the findings of the lower courts on the said
more underscored by the admitted falsity of the registration of matter absent any showing that the instant case falls under
the selfsame realties in the parties’ name as husband and the exceptions to the general rule that questions of fact are
wife. beyond the ambit of the Court’s jurisdiction in petitions under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The same dearth of merit permeates appellant’s imputation of The issues may be summarized into only three:
reversible error against the trial court for supposedly failing to
make the proper delineation between an action for partition I. Whether an action for partition precludes a settlement on
and an action involving ownership. Typically brought by a the issue of ownership;
person claiming to be co-owner of a specified property
II. Whether the Torrens title over the disputed properties was
against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff
collaterally attacked in the action for partition; and
recognizes to be co-owners, an action for partition may be
III. Whether respondent is estopped from repudiating co- Would a resolution on the issue of ownership subject the
ownership over the subject realties. Torrens title issued over the disputed realties to a collateral
attack? Most definitely, it would not.
We find the petition bereft of merit.
There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be
Our disquisition in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia28 is collaterally attacked,32 but that rule is not material to the case
definitive. There, we explained that the determination as to at bar. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate
the existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution of title and not the title itself.33 The certificate referred to is
of an action for partition. Thus: that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the
The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership
up with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in which is, more often than not, represented by that
fact exists, and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally document.34 Petitioner apparently confuses title with the
proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all certificate of title. Title as a concept of ownership should not
the parties interested in the property. This phase may end be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such
with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a ownership although both are interchangeably used.35
partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or Moreover, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the
partition is legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand, Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no
with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of
partition is proper in the premises and an accounting of rents title, the latter only serving as the best proof of ownership
and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in over a piece of land. The certificate cannot always be
question is in order. x x x considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.36 In fact,
The second phase commences when it appears that "the mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any
parties are unable to agree upon the partition" directed by the person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property
court. In that event[,] partition shall be done for the parties by may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the
the [c]ourt with the assistance of not more than three (3) certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that
commissioners. This second stage may well also deal with other parties may have acquired interest over the property
the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of
[c]ourt after the parties have been accorded opportunity to be title.37 Needless to say, registration does not vest ownership
heard thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or over a property, but may be the best evidence
parties thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and thereof.1avvphi1
profits of the real estate in question. x x x29 (Emphasis Finally, as to whether respondent’s assent to the initial
supplied.) partition agreement serves as an admission against interest,
While it is true that the complaint involved here is one for in that the respondent is deemed to have admitted the
partition, the same is premised on the existence or non- existence of co-ownership between him and petitioner, we
existence of co-ownership between the parties. Petitioner rule in the negative.
insists she is a co-owner pro indiviso of the five real estate An admission is any statement of fact made by a party
properties based on the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which
covering the subject properties. Respondent maintains he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by
otherwise. Indubitably, therefore, until and unless this issue of him.38 Admission against interest is governed by Section 26
co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
premature to effect a partition of the disputed
properties.30 More importantly, the complaint will not even lie Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or
if the claimant, or petitioner in this case, does not even have omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
any rightful interest over the subject properties.31 evidence against him.

To be admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters of

fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite; (c) be
knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the No costs.
admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and
inadmissible.39 SO ORDERED.

A careful perusal of the contents of the so-called Partition

Agreement indicates that the document involves matters G.R. No. 165427 : March 21, 2011.
which necessitate prior settlement of questions of law, basic
of which is a determination as to whether the parties have the BETTY B. LACBAYAN, Petitioner, v. BAYANI S. SAMOY,
right to freely divide among themselves the subject JR., Respondent.
properties. Moreover, to follow petitioner’s argument would be
to allow respondent not only to admit against his own interest VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
but that of his legal spouse as well, who may also be lawfully
entitled co-ownership over the said properties. Respondent is FACTS:
not allowed by law to waive whatever share his lawful spouse
may have on the disputed properties. Basic is the rule that Petitioner and respondent met each other through a common
rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, friend sometime in 1978. Despite respondent being already
public order, public policy, morals, good customs or married, their relationship developed. During their illicit
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.40 relationship, petitioner and respondent, together with three
Curiously, petitioner herself admitted that she did not assent more incorporators, were able to establish a manpower
to the Partition Agreement after seeing the need to amend the services company.Five parcels of land were also acquired
same to include other matters. Petitioner does not have any during the said period and were registered in petitioner and
right to insist on the contents of an agreement she respondents names, ostensibly as husband and wife.
intentionally refused to sign.
Eventually, however, their relationship turned sour and they
As to the award of damages to respondent, we do not decidedto part ways sometime in 1991.In 1998, both parties
subscribe to the trial court’s view that respondent is entitled to agreed to divide the said properties and terminate their
attorney’s fees. Unlike the trial court, we do not commiserate business partnership by executing a Partition Agreement.
with respondent’s predicament. The trial court ruled that Initially, respondent agreed to petitioners proposal that the
respondent was forced to litigate and engaged the services of properties in Malvar St. and Don Enrique Heights be assigned
his counsel to defend his interest as to entitle him an award to the latter, while the ownership over the three other
of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees. But we note that in the first properties will go to respondent.However, when petitioner
place, it was respondent himself who impressed upon wanted additional demands to be included in the partition
petitioner that she has a right over the involved properties. agreement, respondent refused. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner
Secondly, respondent’s act of representing himself and filed a complaint for judicial partition of the said properties
petitioner as husband and wife was a deliberate attempt to before the RTC in Quezon City on May 31, 1999.
skirt the law and escape his legal obligation to his lawful wife.
Respondent, therefore, has no one but himself to blame the On February 10, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision
consequences of his deceitful act which resulted in the filing dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Aggrieved,
of the complaint against him. petitioner elevated the matter to the CA asserting that she is
thepro indivisoowner of one-half of the properties in dispute.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 14, Petitioner argued that the trial courts decision subjected the
2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. certificates of title over the said properties to collateral attack
67596 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent contrary to law and jurisprudence. Petitioner also contended
Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. is hereby declared the sole owner of the that it is improper to thresh out the issue on ownership in an
disputed properties, without prejudice to any claim his legal action for partition. Her appeal was denied.
wife may have filed or may file against him. The award
of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees in respondent’s favor is ISSUES:
DELETED.
 him. To be admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters
1. Whether an action for partition precludes a settlement on of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite; (c) be
ownership; knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the
2. Whether the Torrens title over the disputed properties was admitters interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and
collaterally attacked in the action for partition inadmissible.
3. Whether respondent is estopped from contesting the
Partition Agreement A careful perusal of the contents of the so-called Partition
Agreement indicates that the document involves matters
HELD: which necessitate prior settlement of questions of law, basic
of which is a determination as to whether the parties have the
The petition is bereft of merit. right to freely divide among themselves the subject
properties. Moreover, to follow petitioners argument would be
CIVIL LAW: Existence of co-ownership in an action for to allow respondent not only to admit against his own interest
partition. but that of his legal spouse as well, who may also be lawfully
entitled co-ownership over the said properties. Respondent is
First issue: In Municipality of Bin v. Garcia, the Court not allowed by law to waive whatever share his lawful spouse
explained that the determination as to the existence of co- may have on the disputed properties.
ownership is necessary in the resolution of an action for
partition. While it is true that the complaint involved here is
one for partition, the same is premised on the existence or
non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. Petitioner
insists she is a co-owner pro indiviso of the five real estate
properties based on the transfer certificates of title (TCTs)
covering the subject properties. Respondent maintains
otherwise. Indubitably, therefore, until and unless this issue of
co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be
premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties.
More importantly, the complaint will not even lie if the
claimant, or petitioner in this case, does not even have any
rightful interest over the subject properties.

Second issue: There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of

title cannot be collaterally attacked, but that rule is not
material to the case at bar. What cannot be collaterally
attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. The
certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register
of Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the title referred to
by law means ownership which is, more often than not,
represented by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses
title with the certificate of title. Title as a concept of ownership
should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence
of such ownership although both are interchangeably used

REMEDIAL LAW: Admissions.

Third issue: An admission is any statement of fact made by a
party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by