In the case of Concepcion v. Vda. de Daffon, the Supreme Court clarified the rights of heirs to pursue an action for partition even when the alleged co-owner denies the co-ownership. The Court ruled that the trial court has the jurisdiction to hear the partition case to determine whether a co-ownership exists, regardless of claims of exclusive ownership by one party. This decision reinforces the principle that a claim of exclusive ownership does not automatically defeat the right of other potential co-owners to have their claims judicially examined and resolved through a partition proceeding.

Navigating Inheritance: Can Grandchildren Demand Their Share Despite Grandmother’s Objections?

The case revolves around a dispute within the Daffon family concerning the estate of the late Amado Daffon. Amado was married to Concepcion Villamor and had a son, Joselito, who later died, leaving behind his wife Lourdes and six children. After Amado’s death, Lourdes and her children (the respondents) filed an action for partition against Concepcion, claiming that they were entitled to Joselito’s share of Amado’s estate. Concepcion, however, opposed the action, asserting absolute ownership over the properties and arguing that the respondents had no right to claim a share in the estate.

The central legal question was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the partition case, given Concepcion’s claim of exclusive ownership. Concepcion argued that since she claimed absolute ownership, the respondents first needed to establish their status as heirs in a separate proceeding before pursuing the partition. She also contended that an admission made by Lourdes in a separate case constituted a waiver of their right to claim other properties as part of Amado’s estate. The Court of Appeals, however, upheld the trial court’s decision to proceed with the partition case, a decision which was appealed by Concepcion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that in determining whether a complaint states a cause of action, the court must consider only the allegations in the complaint itself. According to the Supreme Court, in a Motion to Dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action, all the averments in the complaint are deemed to be true hypothetically. The Court reiterated the essential elements of a cause of action, referencing the case of Uy v. Hon. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140365, July 11, 2001:

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

The Supreme Court stated that the complaint sufficiently alleged the relationships of the parties, establishing the respondents’ right to inherit from Amado Daffon through their father, Joselito. The Court held that such allegations were sufficient to establish the respondents’ right to the estate of Amado Daffon. The Court further elucidated on the nature of an action for partition, citing Mallilin, Jr. v. Castillo, 333 SCRA 628, 640 (2000):

In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that an action for partition inherently involves a declaration of co-ownership. Even if the defendant claims exclusive ownership, the court is not deprived of jurisdiction. The Court must resolve the issue of co-ownership, and if it finds that co-ownership exists, it should order the partition of the properties. Conversely, if the plaintiff fails to prove co-ownership, the action should be dismissed.

The Supreme Court outlined the two distinct phases of an action for partition as well, citing Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 329 SCRA 78, 89-90 (2000):

An action for partition is comprised of two phases: first, an order for partition which determines whether a co-ownership in fact exists, and whether partition is proper; and, second, a decision confirming the sketch or subdivision submitted by the parties or the commissioners appointed by the court, as the case may be. The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, upon the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, the parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon.

The Court also dismissed Concepcion’s argument that Lourdes’ testimony in another case constituted a waiver of their right to claim other properties. The Court found that Lourdes’ statement did not exclude the possibility that Amado owned other properties during his lifetime, which could still be subject to partition. The resolution of this issue, like the others, was deemed best addressed during a full trial.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of certiorari, emphasizing that it is available only when the lower court has committed grave abuse of discretion. Citing Lim v. Hon. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, it held that grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying Concepcion’s Motion to Dismiss.

The Court was critical of the petitioner’s decision to elevate the denial of the Motion to Dismiss to higher courts, viewing it as a delaying tactic that prejudiced the respondents’ rights. The Court held that the petitioner’s tactics delayed the resolution of the case and the adjudication of the respective rights of the parties. The Court emphasized that frivolous appeals are not countenanced in this jurisdiction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear an action for partition despite the defendant’s claim of exclusive ownership over the properties in question.
What is an action for partition?	An action for partition is a legal proceeding where a co-owner seeks to divide common property among the co-owners. It essentially has two phases: determination of co-ownership and the actual partition.
What happens if the defendant claims exclusive ownership?	Even if the defendant claims exclusive ownership, the court still has the jurisdiction to determine whether co-ownership exists. If co-ownership is proven, the court will order partition.
What must a complaint for partition allege?	A complaint for partition must allege facts establishing the co-ownership of the parties and their rights to the property. The complaint must state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It is a ground for certiorari.
What is the significance of the two phases in a partition case?	The first phase determines the existence of co-ownership and the propriety of partition. The second phase involves the actual division of the property based on the established co-ownership.
Can a Motion to Dismiss be used to challenge a complaint for partition?	Yes, but only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The court will consider only the allegations in the complaint when ruling on a Motion to Dismiss.
What was the Court’s view on delaying tactics in this case?	The Court frowned upon the petitioner’s use of procedural maneuvers to delay the resolution of the case, viewing it as prejudicial to the respondents’ rights.

This case serves as a reminder that potential heirs cannot be blocked from seeking a judicial determination of their rights through a partition proceeding simply because another party asserts exclusive ownership. It underscores the importance of allowing courts to examine the factual and legal basis for claims of co-ownership and inheritance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Concepcion V. Vda. de Daffon, G.R. No. 129017, August 20, 2002