Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

THIRD DIVISION

CRISTINA F. REILLO, LEONOR F. PUSO, G.R. No. 166393

ADELIA F. ROCAMORA, SOFRONIO S.J.
FERNANDO, EFREN S.J. FERNANDO,
ZOSIMO S.J. FERNANDO, JR., and MA.
TERESA F. PION,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Petitioners,
Chairperson,
- versus -
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GALICANO E.S. SAN JOSE,
represented by his Attorneys-in- VELASCO, JR.,
Fact, ANNALISA S.J. RUIZ and
RODELIO S. SAN JOSE, VICTORIA NACHURA, and
S.J. REDONGO, CATALINA S.J. DEL
ROSARIO and MARIBETH S.J. PERALTA, JJ.
CORTEZ, collectively known as the
HEIRS OF QUITERIO SAN JOSE and Promulgated:
ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO,
June 18, 2009
Respondents.
x - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

PERALTA,

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1[1] dated August 31, 2004 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69261 which affirmed the Order dated May 9, 2000
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, Branch 78, granting the motion for
judgment on the pleadings and the motion to dismiss counter petition for partition filed by
respondents in Civil Case No. 99-1148-M. Also questioned is the CA Resolution 2[2]dated
December 14, 2004 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1
2
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Spouses Quiterio San Jose (Quiterio) and Antonina Espiritu Santo (Antonina) were the original
registered owners of a parcel of land located in E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Teresa, Rizal covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 458396 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The said
parcel of land is now registered in the name of Ma. Teresa F. Pion (Teresa) under TCT No. M-
94400.

Quiterio and Antonina had five children, namely, Virginia, Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria and
Catalina. Antonina died on July 1, 1970, while Quiterio died on October 19, 1976. Virginia and
Virgilio are also now deceased. Virginia was survived by her husband Zosimo Fernando, Sr.
(Zosimo Sr.) and their seven children, while Virgilio was survived by his wife Julita Gonzales
and children, among whom is Maribeth S.J. Cortez (Maribeth).

On October 26, 1999, Galicano, represented by his children and attorneys-in-fact, Annalisa S.J.
Ruiz and Rodegelio San Jose, Victoria, Catalina, and Maribeth (respondents) filed with the RTC
a Complaint3[3] for annulment of title, annulment of deed of extra-judicial settlement, partition
and damages against Zosimo Sr. and his children Cristina F. Reillo, Leonor F. Puso, Adelia F.
Rocamora, Sofronio S.J. Fernando, Efren S.J. Fernando, Zosimo S.J. Fernando, Jr. and Ma.
Teresa (petitioners) and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal. The complaint alleged among
other things: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6. Under date of January 23, 1998, defendants FERNANDO et al, without

the knowledge and consent of all the other surviving heirs of the deceased
spouses QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO,
including herein plaintiffs, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights making it appear therein that
they are the legitimate descendants and sole heirs of QUITERIO SAN
JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO; and adjudicating among
themselves, the subject parcel of land.

6.1 In the same document, defendants ZOSIMO SR., CRISTINA,

LEONOR, ADELIA, SOFRONIO, EFREN and ZOSIMO JR., waived all
their rights, participation and interests over the subject parcel of land in
favor of their co-defendant MA. TERESA F. PION (a.k.a MA. TERESA
S.J. FERNANDO).

xxxx

3
 7. On the strength of the said falsified Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate, defendant MA. TERESA PION (a.k.a MA. TERESA S.J.
FERNANDO) succeeded in causing the cancellation of TCT No. 458396
in the name of SPS. QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU
SANTO and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in her
name only, to the extreme prejudice of all the other heirs of the deceased
SPS. QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO,
specifically, the herein plaintiffs who were deprived of their lawful
participation over the subject parcel of land.

7.1 Thus, on July 6, 1999, Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-94400 was
issued in the name of defendant MA. TERESA S.J. FERNANDO.

xxxx

8. As a result, the herein plaintiffs and the other surviving heirs of the
deceased spouses QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU
SANTO, who are legally entitled to inherit from the latters respective
estates, in accordance with the laws of intestate succession, have been
duly deprived of their respective rights, interests and participation over the
subject parcel of land.

8.1 Thus, there is sufficient ground to annul the subject Deed of

Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights
dated January 23, 1998, and all other documents issued on the strength
thereof, particularly Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-94400.4[4]

It was also alleged that respondents filed a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of their
Barangay which issued the required certification to file action for failure of the parties to settle
the matter amicably. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners filed their Answer with Counter-Petition and with Compulsory

5[5]
Counterclaim denying that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with
Waiver of Rights which was the basis of the issuance of TCT No. M-94400, was falsified and that
the settlement was made and implemented in accordance with law. They admitted that the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina had five children; that the subject property was not the
only property of spouses Quiterio and Antonina and submitted in their counter-petition for
partition the list of the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina
that petitioners alleged are in respondents possession and control.

4
5
On January 18, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 6[6]alleging that:
(1) the denials made by petitioners in their answer were in the form of negative pregnant; (2)
petitioners failed to state the basis that the questioned document was not falsified; (3) they failed
to specifically deny the allegations in the complaint that petitioners committed misrepresentations
by stating that they are the sole heirs and legitimate descendants of Quiterio and Antonina; and
(4) by making reference to their allegations in their counter-petition for partition to support their
denials, petitioners impliedly admitted that they are not the sole heirs of Quiterio and Antonina.

Respondents filed a Reply to Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim 7[7] with a motion to dismiss
the counter-petition for partition on the ground that petitioners failed to pay the required docket
fees for their counter-petition for partition. Petitioners filed their Rejoinder 8[8]without tackling the
issue of non-payment of docket fees.

On February 4, 2000, petitioners filed their Comment 9[9] to respondents motion for judgment on
the pleading and prayed that the instant action be decided on the basis of the pleadings with the
exception of respondents unverified Reply. Petitioners also filed an Opposition to the motion to
dismiss the counter-petition for partition.

On May 9, 2000, the RTC rendered its Order,10[10] the dispositive portion of which reads:

1.                  The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with

Waiver of Rights, dated January 23, 1998 and Transfer Certificate of Title
No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando are declared null
and void;

2.                  The Register of Deeds of Rizal, Morong Branch, is directed to

cancel TCT No. 94400; and

3.                  The Heirs of Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo is
(sic) directed to partition the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No.
M-458396 in accordance with the law of intestate succession.11[11]

SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9
10
11
The RTC found that, based on the allegations contained in the pleadings filed by the parties,
petitioners misrepresented themselves when they alleged in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that they are the sole heirs of the deceased spouses
Quiterio and Antonina; that petitioners prayed for a counter-petition for partition involving
several parcels of land left by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina which bolstered
respondents claim that petitioners falsified the Extrajudicial Settlement which became the basis
for the issuance of TCT No. M-94400 in Ma. Teresas name; thus, a ground to annul the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement and the title. The RTC did not consider as filed petitioners Counter-
Petition for Partition since they did not pay the corresponding docket fees. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order 12[12] dated
August 29, 2000.

Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. After the parties filed their respective briefs,
the case was submitted for decision.

On August 31, 2004, the CA rendered its assailed Decision affirming the May 9, 2000 Order of
the RTC. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA found that, while the subject matter of respondents complaint was the nullity of the Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that resulted in the
issuance of TCT No. M-94400 in Ma. Teresas name, petitioners included in their Answer a
Counter-Petition for Partition involving 12 other parcels of land of spouses Quiterio and Antonina
which was in the nature of a permissive counterclaim; that petitioners, being the plaintiffs in the
counter-petition for partition, must pay the docket fees otherwise the court will not acquire
jurisdiction over the case. The CA ruled that petitioners cannot pass the blame to the RTC for
their omission to pay the docket fees.

12
The CA affirmed the RTCs judgment on the pleadings since petitioners admitted that the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina had five children which included herein plaintiffs; thus,
petitioners misrepresented themselves when they stated in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
that they are the legitimate descendants and sole heirs of the deceased spouses Quiterio and
Antonina; that the deed is null and void on such ground since respondents were deprived of their
rightful share in the subject property and petitioners cannot transfer the property in favor of Ma.
Teresa without respondents consent; that TCT No. M-94400 must be cancelled for lack of basis.
The CA affirmed the RTCs Order of partition of the subject property in accordance with the rules
on intestate succession in the absence of a will.

Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari raising the following assignment of
errors, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE COURSE

TO THE APPEAL OF THE DEFENDANTS (HEREIN PETITIONERS)
AND IN EVENTUALLY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF ORIGIN, CONSIDERING THAT SUCH RULING WILL
RESULT TO MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW & PROPERTY AND
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT VACATING THE

ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN PARTITIONING THE ESTATE
WITHOUT PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 74 AND 76 OF
THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 13[13]

Petitioners contend that in their Comment to respondents motion for judgment on the
pleadings, they stated that they will not oppose the same provided that their Answer with
Counter-Petition for Partition and Rejoinder will be taken into consideration in deciding the case;
however, the RTC decided the case on the basis alone of respondents complaint; that the Answer
stated that the deed was not a falsified document and was made and implemented in accordance
with law, thus, it was sufficient enough to tender an issue and was very far from admitting the
material allegations of respondents complaint.

13
Petitioners also fault the RTC for disregarding their claim for partition of the other parcels of land
owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina for their failure to pay the court docket
fees when the RTC could have simply directed petitioners to pay the same; and that this error if
not corrected will result to multiplicity of suits. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in ordering the partition of the subject property as it violates
the basic law on intestate succession that the heirs should be named and qualified through a
formal petition for intestate succession whereby blood relationship should be established first by
the claiming heirs before they shall be entitled to receive from the estate of the deceased; that the
order of partition was rendered without jurisdiction for lack of publication as required under
Rules 74 and 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for testate or intestate succession.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We find no merit in the petition.

The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the
RTC.

Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

           SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.  Where an answer fails to

tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
partys pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
such pleading. x x x.

  chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are
issues generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue. 14[14] 
The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in

14
the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing
the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. 15[15]   chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In this case, respondents principal action was for the annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners and annulment
of title on the ground that petitioners stated in the said Deed that they are the legitimate
descendants and sole heirs of the spouses Quiterio and Antonina. Although petitioners denied in
their Answer that the Deed was falsified, they, however, admitted respondents allegation that
spouses Quiterio and Antonina had 5 children, thus, supporting respondents claim that petitioners
are not the sole heirs of the deceased spouses. Petitioners denial/admission in his Answer to the
complaint should be considered in its entirety and not truncated parts. Considering that petitioners
already admitted that respondents Galicano, Victoria, Catalina and Maribeth are the children and
grandchild, respectively, of the spouses Quiterio and Antonina, who were the original registered
owners of the subject property, and thus excluding respondents from the deed of settlement of the
subject property, there is no more genuine issue between the parties generated by the pleadings,
thus, the RTC committed no reversible error in rendering the judgment on the pleadings.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious. 16[16] The deed of settlement
made by petitioners was invalid because it excluded respondents who were entitled to equal
shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. 17[17]Thus, the RTC correctly
annulled the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights
dated January 23, 1998 and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando issued
pursuant to such deed. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners claim that had there been a trial, they could have presented testamentary and
documentary evidence that the subject land is the inheritance of their deceased mother from her
deceased parents, deserves scant consideration. A perusal of petitioners Answer, as well as their
Rejoinder, never raised such a defense. In fact, nowhere in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners was there a statement that the subject
property was inherited by petitioners mother Virginia from her deceased parents Quiterio and

15
16
17
Antonina. Notably, petitioners never opposed respondents motion for judgment on the pleadings.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We also find no merit in petitioners contention that the Counter-Petition for Partition in their
Answer was in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim which does not require the payment of
docket fees. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an

opposing party.18[18] It may either be permissive or compulsory.  It is
permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing partys claim.19[19] A permissive counterclaim is
essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another
case.

A counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing partys claim and does
not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction.20[20] Unlike permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set up in
the same action; otherwise, they would be barred forever. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Respondents action was for the annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, title and
partition of the property subject of the Deed. On the other hand, in the Counter-Petition filed by
petitioners in their Answer to respondents complaint, they were asking for the partition and
accounting of the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina, which
are entirely different from the subject matter of the respondents action. Petitioners claim does not
arise out of or is necessarily connected with the action for the Annulment of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of the property covered by TCT No. 458396. Thus, payment of docket
fees is necessary before the RTC could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners petition for partition.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners, however, argue that the RTC could have simply issued a directive ordering them to
pay the docket fees, for its non-payment should not result in the automatic dismissal of the case.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

18
19
20
We find apropos the disquisition of the CA on this matter, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The rule regarding the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the
initiatory pleading is not without exception. It has been held that if the
filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of docket
fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within reasonable time but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

It is apparent from the arguments of the defendants-appellants that they

are blaming the trial court for their omission to pay the docket fees. It is,
however, our opinion that the defendants-appellants cannot pass on to the
trial court the performance of a positive duty imposed upon them by the
law. It should be noted that their omission to file the docket fees was
raised as one of the grounds to dismiss the counter petition for partition.
The defendants-appellants opposed the said motion without, however,
offering an answer to the said ground raised by the plaintiffs-appellees. In
fact, during the period the motion was being heard by the trial court, the
defendantsappellants never paid the docket fees for their petition so that it
could have at least brought to the attention of the trial court their payment
of the docket fees although belatedly done. They did not even ask the trial
court for time within which to pay the docket fees for their petition. When
the trial court ruled to dismiss the petition of the defendants-appellants, the
latter did not, in their motion for reconsideration, ask the trial court to
reconsider the dismissal of their petition by paying the required docket
fees, neither did they ask for time within which to pay their docket fees. In
other words, the trial court could have issued an order allowing the
defendants-appellants a period to pay the docket fees for their petition if
the defendants-appellants made such manifestation. What is apparent from
the factual circumstances of the case is that the defendants-appellants have
been neglectful in complying with this positive duty imposed upon them
by law as plaintiffs of the counter petition for partition. Because of their
omission to comply with their duty, no grave error was committed by the
trial court in dismissing the defendants-appellants counter petition for
partition. 21[21]
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners argue that with the dismissal of their Counter-Petition for Partition, the partition of the
other parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina will result to
multiplicity of suits. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

21
We are not persuaded. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Significantly, in petitioners Answer with Counter-Petition for Partition, they enumerated 12 other
parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina. They alleged that some of
these properties had already been disposed of by respondents and some are still generating
income under the control and administration of respondents, and these properties should be
collated back by respondents to be partitioned by all the heirs of the deceased spouses. It bears
stressing that the action filed by respondents in the RTC was an ordinary civil action for
annulment of title, annulment of the deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition of a parcel of
land now covered by TCT No. M-94400; hence, the authority of the court is limited to the
property described in the pleading. The RTC cannot order the collation and partition of the other
properties which were not included in the partition that was the subject matter of the respondents
action for annulment. Thus, a separate proceeding is indeed proper for the partition of the estate
of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Finally, petitioners contend that the RTC erred when it ordered the heirs of Quiterio and Antonina
to partition the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. 458396 in accordance with the laws of
intestate succession; that the RTC violated the requirement of publication under Sections 1 and 2
of Rule 74 and Section 3 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We do not agree. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We find the ruling of the CA on the matter of the RTCs order of partition of land subject of the
annulled deed of extrajudicial settlement worth quoting, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Considering that the subject document and the corresponding title were
canceled, the logical consequence is that the property in dispute, which
was the subject of the extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to the estate
of its original owners, the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San
Jose. Since, it was admitted that all the parties to the instant suit are legal
 heirs of the deceased spouses, they owned the subject property in
common. It is a basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to
indivision among co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition.
Therefore, there was no reversible error committed by the trial court in
ordering the partition of the subject property. We find nothing wrong with
such ruling considering that the trial court ordered the partition of the
subject property in accordance with the rules on intestate succession. The
trial court found the property to be originally owned by the deceased
spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose and, in the absence of a will left
by the deceased spouses, it must be partitioned in accordance with the
rules on intestate succession.22[22]

As the RTC nullified the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of
Rights executed by petitioners and the title issued in accordance therewith, the order of partition
of the land subject of the settlement in accordance with the laws on intestate succession is proper
as respondents action filed in the RTC and respondents prayer in their complaint asked for the
partition of the subject property in accordance with intestate succession. The applicable law is
Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which deals with action for partition, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. A person

having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as
provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent
of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition
is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the
property.

And, under this law, there is no requirement for publication. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 31, 2004 and the
Resolution dated December 14, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69261, are
AFFIRMED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Associate Justice

22
 WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Associate Justice chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Chairperson chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOPRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
 CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Associate Justice chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Third Division, Chairperson chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Chief Justice chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary