7/25/2019 Vda de Daffon

1/2

9

G.R. No. 129017 August 20, 2002

CONCEPCION V. VDA, DE DAFFON, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES OSE!A VDA, DE DAFFON, AILEEN DAFFON, "OSELITO

DAFFON, "R., ANA VANESA DAFFON, LEILA DAFFON #$% SU&ETTE DAFFON, respondents.

'NARES(SANTIAGO,J.)

FACTS)

Petitioner was married to the late Amado Dafon and they had one son (Joselito)

Joselito married Respondent Lourdes Osmena and they bore si !hildren. Amado passed away on January"#, #$%" while his son Joselito died on O!tober "&, #$$'.

On January "#, #$$, respondents Lourdes Osmea *da. De Dafon, to+ether with her si minor !hildren,*$st*tut+% #$ #t*o$ -o /#t*t*o$ #g#*$st /+t*t*o$+ Co$+/*o$ V*#o V%#. %+ D#o$ , beorethe R- Danao ity /r "&. Respondents alle+ed that0

o Amado let several real and personal properties whi!h ormed part o his !on1u+al partnership withpetitioner.

o "os+*to 3+*$g # -o+% 4+* o- A#%o 5#s +$t*t+% to #t +#st o$+ 4#- o- A#%o6s+st#t+, !onsistin+ o his share in the said !on1u+al properties but the same were neverpartitioned.

o -hus, respondents prayed that t4+ o$ug# /o/+t*+s o- A#%o D#o$ #$% /+t*t*o$+ 3+/#t*t*o$+%and that the one2hal share o Amado be urther partitioned between petitioner, onone hand, and the respondents as heirs o Joselito Dafon, on the other hand.

P+t*t*o$+ 8+% # ot*o$ to D*s*ss on the +rounds o (#) la!3 o 1urisdi!tion over the sub1e!t matter othe !ase4 (") ailure o the !omplaint to state a !ause o a!tion4 and (5) waiver, abandonment andetin+uishment o the obli+ation."

o 6he ar+ued that t4+ t*# out #$$ot t#+ og$*:#$+ o- t4+ #t*o$ -o /#t*t*o$

o$s*%+*$g 4+ #* o- #3sout+ o5$+s4*/ o;+ t4+ /o/+t*+s< #$% t4#t +s/o$%+$tst4+s+;+s #%*tt+% t4#t /+t*t*o$+ 4#s +/u%*#t+% t4+ o(o5$+s4*/.

RTC)denied the 7otion to Dismiss. -hereater, Petitioner 8led an 7R whi!h was also denied. Petitioner8led a petition or !ertiorari with the A.

CA)rendered the assailed de!ision denyin+ due !ourse and dismissin+ the petition or !ertiorari. 9en!e,the present !ase. :

ISSUE)

;O< petitioner=s !ontention, that her repudiation o the !o2ownership deprived the - to ta3e !o+ni>an!eo the partition !ase, is meritorious.

HELD) No.

-here is no merit in the petition.

:t should be stressed that in the determination o whether a !omplaint ails to state a !ause o a!tion, onlythe statements in the !omplaint may be properly !onsidered.$

7oreover, a deendant who moves to dismiss the !omplaint on the +round o la!3 o !ause o a!tionhypotheti!ally admits all the averments thereo.

:n the !ase at bar, the !omplaint su?!iently alle+ed that @deendant ( i.e.,petitioner herein) was married toAmado uiros Dafon@ and that @they be+ot an only son in Joselito Dafon.@##-he !omplaint urther alle+ed

7/25/2019 Vda de Daffon

2/2

that @Joselito Dafon later +ot married to herein plaintif Lourdes Osmea and beore the ormer died onO!tober "&, #$$' he sired the si (B) !hildren who are now plaintifs with their mother.@#"

T4*s, to ou *$%, 5#s su=*+$t #+g#t*o$ t4#t "os+*to D#o$ 5#s # +g*t*#t+ so$ o- t4+s/ous+s A#%o #$% Co$+/*o$ D#o$< #$% t4#t /#*$t*s >i.e., +s/o$%+$ts 4++*$? 5++*+5*s+ +g*t*#t+ 4+*s o- "os+*to D#o$. A%*tt*$g t4+ tut4 o- t4+s+ #;++$ts, t4++ 5#s,t4++-o+, $o $++% to *$@u*+ 54+t4+ +s/o$%+$t *$o 4*%+$ 5++ %u #$o5+%g+% 3t4+ %++#s+% A#%o D#o$.

RE PARTITION0 ontrary to petitionerCs !ontention, t4+ -#t t4#t s4+ +/u%*#t+% t4+ o(o5$+s4*/ 3+t5++$ 4+ #$%

+s/o$%+$ts %*% $ot %+/*;+ t4+ t*# out o- u*s%*t*o$ to t#+ og$*:#$+ o- t4+ #t*o$ -o/#t*t*o$.

I$ # o/#*$t -o /#t*t*o$, t4+ /#*$t* s++s, 8st, # %+##t*o$ t4#t 4+ *s # o(o5$+ o- t4+su3+t /o/+t*+s< #$% s+o$%, t4+ o$;+#$+ o- 4*s #5-u s4#+s. #BAs t4+ Cout o- A//+#so+t 4+%, #$ #t*o$ -o /#t*t*o$ *s #t o$+ #$ #t*o$ -o %+##t*o$ o- o(o5$+s4*/ #$%-o s+g+g#t*o$ #$% o$;+#$+ o- # %+t+*$#t+ /ot*o$ o- t4+ /o/+t*+s *$;o;+%.

If the defendant asserts exclusive title over the property, the action for partition should not be dismissed.

Rather, the court should resolve the case and if the plainti is unable to sustain his claimed status as a co-owner, the court should dismiss the action, not because the wrong remedy was availed of, but because nobasis exists for requiring the defendant to submit to partition. If, on the other hand, the court after trialshould nd the existence of co-ownership among the parties, the court may and should order the partitionof the properties in the same action.#

NOTE) 2 PHASES OF PARTITION

An a!tion or partition is !omprised o two phases0 8st, #$ o%+ -o /#t*t*o$ 54*4 %+t+*$+s54+t4+ # o(o5$+s4*/ *$ -#t +*sts, #$% 54+t4+ /#t*t*o$ *s /o/+< #$%, s+o$%, #%+*s*o$ o$8*$g t4+ s+t4 o su3%*;*s*o$ su3*tt+% 3 t4+ /#t*+s o t4+o*ss*o$+s #//o*$t+% 3 t4+ out, #s t4+ #s+ # 3+.

-he 8st /4#s+ o- # /#t*t*o$ #$%o #ou$t*$g su*t *s t#+$ u/ 5*t4 t4+ %+t+*$#t*o$ o-54+t4+ o $ot # o(o5$+s4*/ *$ -#t +*sts, (i.e.,not otherwise le+ally pros!ribed) and may bemade by voluntary a+reement o all the parties interested in the property. -his phase may end with ade!laration that plaintif is not entitled to have a partition either be!ause a !o2ownership does noteist, or partition is le+ally prohibited. It # +$%, u/o$ t4+ ot4+ 4#$%, 5*t4 #$ #%u%g+$tt4#t # o(o5$+s4*/ %o+s *$ tut4 +*st, /#t*t*o$ *s /o/+ *$ t4+ /+*s+s #$% #$#ou$t*$g o- +$ts #$% /o8ts ++*;+% 3 t4+ %+-+$%#$t -o t4+ +# +st#t+ *$ @u+st*o$*s *$ o%+.

I$ t4+ #tt+ #s+, t4+ /#t*+s #, *- t4+ #+ #3+ to #g++, #+ /#t*t*o$ #o$g

t4+s+;+s 3 /o/+ *$stu+$ts o- o$;+#$+, #$% t4+ out s4# o$8 t4+ /#t*t*o$so #g++% u/o$.1

DISPOSITIVE) HEREFORE, in view o the ore+oin+, the instant petition is DENIED. -he de!ision othe ourt o Appeals in A2E.R. 6P