PETRA FABRICA, EUGENIO BAS, PETRONA BAS, ANTONIO BAS, VICENTE BAS, FLAVIANA BAS, JOSEFINA BAS, NUMERIANA BAS, PASCUAL ZAFRA, MARCIAL BAS, RUFINA LAREGO, FAUSTA OBEJERO, TEOFILO …

Fabrica versus Fabrica

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Petra Fabrica and the other heirs of Pedro Bas against the heirs of the late spouses Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres. The private respondents filed an action for partition of two parcels of land in Talisay, Cebu, known as Lots 2464 and 2467, claiming that these properties remain owned in common by the heirs of the deceased spouses. The petitioners, on the other hand, insist that the lots were orally partitioned and allotted exclusively to Pedro Bas as early as 1929. The case matters because it settles a procedural question of great practical importance: when a trial court, in a partition suit, first resolves the question of ownership and declares the lots to be co-owned property, is that judgment final and appealable, or is it merely interlocutory and subject to change by the trial court?

Procedural History

The private respondents filed a complaint for partition before the Court of First Instance. The parties submitted an agreed stipulation of facts, and the trial court framed the sole issue as whether the two lots were still owned in common by the heirs of Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres, or belonged exclusively to Pedro Bas and his heirs. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment declaring the lots to be properties still owned in common by the heirs and ordering their partition among the children of the deceased spouses and their heirs, and further ordering the petitioners to pay attorney's fees and costs.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that the judgment of the trial court in the partition case was not appealable because it was merely interlocutory, and it ordered the records remanded to the lower court. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, assigning as errors the trial court's findings on the alleged partition and its judgment in favor of the private respondents.

Facts

The spouses Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres owned eight parcels of land in Talisay, Cebu, part of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate. They died in 1916 and 1930, respectively, leaving six children: Alberto, Andres, Deogracias, Miguel, Pedro, and Restituta, all surnamed Bas, all now deceased. They left no last will and testament. The plaintiffs and most of the defendants are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of these spouses.

Two of the lots, Lots 2464 and 2467, were originally sold on installments by the Friar Lands Estate to the spouses. Patents were later issued in the name of the legal heirs of Catalino Bas, and the lots were registered under transfer certificates of title in that same name. Restituta Bas died single and without issue in 1966.

The private respondents alleged that after the death of Restituta, the widow and children of Pedro Bas took possession of the two lots and claimed ownership of them, refusing repeated demands for partition. The petitioners countered that in 1929 Cristeta Niebres and her children orally and extrajudicially partitioned the estate, that Lots 2464 and 2467 were given to Pedro Bas, and that since then they had possessed the lots exclusively, declaring them for taxation, paying the taxes, and planting them to corn and coconuts.

Issues

• Whether or not the judgment of the trial court, in a partition case, declaring the lots to be owned in common and ordering their partition, is a final and appealable judgment rather than a merely interlocutory one.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal and remanding the records to the trial court instead of giving due course to the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the settled doctrine distinguishing final from interlocutory judgments, as enunciated in the cases of Miranda versus Court of Appeals and Valdez versus Bagaso, which the Court expressly reiterates and applies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the judgment of the trial court was final and appealable, not interlocutory. The Court reasoned that although the complaint is one for partition, its main purpose is to determine who between the parties are the true owners and entitled to the exclusive use of the disputed properties. The partition is premised on the resolution of the issue of the validity of the alleged oral partition in favor of the petitioners and of the deeds of conveyance executed in the names of the heirs of the deceased spouses. Unless the issue of ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition. Thus, when the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents, rejecting the petitioners' claim of exclusive ownership, it rendered a final judgment on the merits from which the party adversely affected can appeal.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Valdez versus Bagaso, where it held that a judgment granting recovery of ownership and possession of property in favor of one party against the adverse claim of title of the other is in effect a final judgment which is appealable. The Court quoted that ruling with approval:

Contrary to the holding of the Appellate Court, the decision of the trial court declaring null the aforesaid conveyances and granting recovery of the properties for the purpose of ordering their partition is a definitive judgment because it decided the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted. It was not, therefore, an interlocutory order.

The Court also stressed that if such a judgment were considered merely interlocutory, subject to the control of the judge, there would be as many decisions to be taken up on appeal as there were successor judges inclined to review or reverse a predecessor's judgment, with none of the parties adversely affected able to appeal from any of the fluctuating decisions. Such unbridled power would do violence to the very purpose for which courts are organized, which is to put an end to controversy. Imperative considerations of public policy and the constitutional mandate of simplified, just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action call for considering such judgments for recovery of property as final judgments which are duly appealable.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. It would be more conducive to the speedy and inexpensive determination of the case if the issue of the validity of the two deeds of sale were first finally resolved by the appellate court before the question of partition can be taken up by the trial court.

Doctrine

A judgment in a partition case which first resolves the question of ownership, granting recovery of ownership and possession of property in favor of one party against the adverse claim of title of the other, is a final and definitive judgment on the merits, not a merely interlocutory order, and is therefore appealable. The order for partition is merely incidental to that judgment. The test is whether the judgment decides the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted; if it does, it is final regardless of the label of the action. This rule rests on public policy and on the constitutional mandate of simplified, just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, and it prevents the mischief of fluctuating judgments that no party can ever appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordered that court to give due course to the petitioners' appeal and to decide it on the merits, and remanded the records to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judgment that settles who owns the property, though rendered in a partition suit, is a final and appealable judgment, with the partition merely incidental. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between final and interlocutory judgments, and to ask whether an order for partition may be appealed before the partition is actually carried out.