050 SEPULVEDA v.

PELAEZ AUTHOR: Jade

G.R. No. 152195. JANUARY 31, 2005 NOTES: (if applicable)
TOPIC: Partition
PONENTE: Callejo, Sr., J. Petition for Review under Rule 45
FACTS:
 6 December 1972 – Atty. Pacifico Pelaez filed a complaint against his granduncle, Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. with the
CFI of Cebu for the recovery of possession and ownership of his
o ½ undivided share of several parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 28199, 18193 and 28316
o 1/3 undivided share in several lots covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 28304. 35090, 18228, 28310, 26308, 28714,
28211, 28312 and 2822
 All lots are located in Danao, Cebu.
 The case also involved partition of such lots among the co-owners, payment of the purchase price paid by the City
of Danao to Pedro, Sr. and award of damages and attorney’s fees.
 The 11 lots were among the 25 parcels of land which Dulce Sepulveda, mother of Pelaez, inherited from from her
grandmother, Dionisia Sepulveda under a Project of Partition submitted by Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. as administrator
of Dionisia’s estate.
 Under the said project of partition –
o Pedro, Sr. is the owner of an undivided portion of Lot No, 28199
o Pedro’s brother, Santiago Sepulveda is the undivided owner of ½ of the parcels of land covered by TD Nos. 1818797,
18193 and 28316.
o Dulce and her uncles Pedro and Santiago were also indicated as co-owners of 11 other parcels of land, each with an
undivided 1/3 share thereof.
 Pelaez alleged the following in his complaint:
o His mother, Dulce died intestate on 2 March 1944. She was survived by Pelaez (P), by her husband, Rodolfo Pelaez
and her mother Carlota Sepulveda.
o Vicente Sepulveda, Dulce’s grandfather, died intestate on 25 October 1930, when Dulce was only about 4 years old.
o Carlota Sepulveda repeatedly demanded Dulce’s share in the 11 parcels of land but Pedro, Sr. who was then Mayor
of the Municipality of Tudela, refused to do so.
o Dulce later on demanded the delivery of her share in 11 parcels of land but Pedro, Sr. still refused.
o Pedro, Sr. claimed that he needed to continue his possession of said property to reap the produce therefrom which
he used to pay the realty taxes on the subject properties.
o Pelaez also demanded the delivery of his mother’s share on so many occasions, to no avail.
o Pelaez also narrated that Pedro, Sr. executed an affidavit on 28 November 1961, stating that he was the sole heir of
Dionisia when she died intestate on 5 June 1921. (But the truth is Dionisia was survived by her 3 sons – Santiago,
Pedro and Vicente.
o Pedro, Sr. also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on 24 July 1968 over the property covered by TD No. 19804 in favor
of the City of Danao for P7,492. Such amount was received by Pedro, Sr. without his knowledge.
 In his answer, Pedro, Sr. admitted the execution of a deed of sale over the property sold to Danao City but averred
that the city failed to pay the purchase price. He claimed that Pelaez had no right to share in the proceeds of the
said share. Pedro, Sr. denied having received any demand for the delivery of Dulce’s share from Carlota or from
Pelaez.
 Pedro, Sr. died intestate during the trial.
 Pedro’s daughter, Socorro Sepulveda Lawas was appointed administratrix of his estate.
 In compliance with the Court’s decision in Lawas v. CA (GR # L-45809. December 12, 1986), Pedro, Sr. was
substituted by Socorro (as petitioner in this case).
 To prove the delivery of Dulce’s share under the project of partition, Socorro presented the following:
o Affidavit of Consolidation she executed in October 1940 covering 13 of the 25 parcels of land whose deeds were put
under her due to the Project of Partition.
o The CFI’s Order denying Carlota’s motion for reconstitution of the records of SpecPro No 778-R and for the delivery
of Dulce’s share in the 11 parcels of land.
o The same Order declaring that Dulce, through her grandchildren and her mother Carlota, had already received her
share of the estate from Pedro, Sr. as early as 10 January 1938.
 According to Socorro, Dulce and Pedro had a verbal agreement that the 11 parcels of land would serve as Pedro’s
compensation for his services as administrator of Dionisia’s estate. Pedro became the sole owner of Dulce’s shares
upon the termination of SpecPro No 778-0 and subsequent distribution of the shares of Dionisia’s heirs.
 Socorro adduced evidence that Santiago Sepulveda died intestate and was survived by his wife, Paz and their then
minor children but Pelaez failed to implead them as parties-defendants in the complaint.
 Socorro further claimed that Pedro declared the property covered by TD No. 18199 under his name for taxation
purposes since 1948; that the 11 parcels under Dulce in the Project of Partition had been declared for taxation
purposes also under Pedro since 1974; that he and his heirs paid the realty taxes thereon.
 The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pelaez, ruling that his action based on constructive trust had not
yet prescribed when the complaint was filed and that he was entitled to a share in the proceeds of the share in
the proceeds of the sale to Danao City and that the partition of the subject properties was in order.
 The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not Pelaez has right to claim ownership over the properties in question
HELD
The petition is granted for the sole reason that Pelaez failed to implead all the indispensable parties as parties in his
complaint. The trial court is ordered to dismiss the case.
RATIO:
 It is clear from the material averments of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for therein, Pelaez sought recovery
of the ownership and possession of the 10 parcels of land and their partition and the payment of his share in the
proceeds of the sale to Danao City worth P7,492.00, which was claimed to be unpaid.
 It appears also that when Pelaez filed the complaint, his father, Rodolfo Pelaez was still alive. Under Article 996
of the New Civil Code, Rodolfo, as surviving spouse, is entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that corresponding
by way of legitime to each of the legitimate children who has not received any share in the 1/3 share destined for
betterment. The right of the surviving spouse cannot be deprived and cannot be ignored. The spouse may waive
it but it must be express (Gamis v. CA)
 Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides that in an action for partition, all persons interested in the
property shall be joined as defendants.
 All co-heirs and persons having an interest in the property are indispensable parties. An action for partition will
not lie without the jointer of the said parties.
 The mere fact that Pedro, Sr. has repudiated the co-ownership between him and Pelaez does not deprive the trial
court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action for partition because in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff
seeks first a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject property and second, the conveyance of his lawful
shares.
 Ruling in De Mesa v. CA:
o The 1st stage in an action for judicial partition and/or accounting is concerned with the determination of whether or
not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper. This stage may end in a declaration that plaintiff is not
entitled to the desired partition either because ownership does not exist or a partition is legally prohibited. It may
also end with a judgment that there is co-ownership and that partition is proper. If the parties agree, they make
partition among themselves by proper instruments on conveyance and the court shall confirm the partition. The
court’s action is final and may be appealed by any aggrieved party in the case.
o The 2nd stage commences when the parties are unable to agree upon the partition ordered by the court. In that event,
the partition shall be effected for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners. This
stage may also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the court after the parties have
been given opportunity to be heard, and an award for the party/parties entitled to their just shares in the rents and
profits of the real estate in question.
 In the present case, Pelaez failed to implead the following: his father, Rodolfo; the heirs of his granduncle, Santiago
Sepulveda; and Danao City.His father, Rodolfo, is entitled to a share in usufruct, equal to the share of Pelaez in the
subject properties. There is no showing that Rodolfo waived his right to usufruct.
 The presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power, otherwise
the action should be dismissed. The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the indispensable parties, considering
that the absence of one such party renders all subsequent action of the court null and void for want to authority
to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
 The failure of Pelaez to implead the other heirs as parties-plaintiffs constituted a legal obstacle to the trial court
and the appellate court to exercise judicial power over the case, thus any orders or judgment rendered therein a
nullity.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):