View full case

HEIRS OF ERNESTO MORALES v. ASTRID MORALES AGUSTIN

FACTS:

The respondent, Astrid Morales Agustin, initiated a complaint for partition of a parcel of land owned by her grandfather, Jayme Morales. She claimed that she, along with the petitioners and their other cousins, were co-owners of the property by virtue of their successional rights as heirs of Jayme.

The heirs of Jose Morales admitted the allegations in the complaint and did not object to the partition, as long as their positions on the property were respected.

Ernesto Morales, as one of the heirs of Vicente Morales, filed an answer with a motion to dismiss and counter-claims, arguing that the proper remedy should be a settlement of the intestate estate and that the respondent has no right of participation over the property since it had already been conveyed to Ernesto Morales by the respondent's parents.

Martina Morales-Enriquez's heirs were also involved in the case, with one of them, Emeterio Enriquez, filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was not furnished with a copy of the amended complaint.

After a lengthy hearing, the Regional Trial Court rendered a summary judgment in favor of the respondent, granting the partition of the property among the heirs.

The case involves a partition dispute over a property (Lot No. 9217-A) among the heirs of the late Simeon Morales. The trial court rendered a Decision on November 22, 2013, adjudicating the shares of the parties and ordering them to submit a common project of partition.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the trial court’s decision on August 13, 2015. The CA held that the settlement of the estate of the late spouses Jayme and Telesfora is irrelevant to the partition because the respondent asserts her right as a co-owner through her succession from her deceased father, Simeon Morales.

The CA also ruled that an action for partition is quasi in rem, so jurisdiction over the impleaded defendants-heirs is not required. The CA further ruled that summary judgment is proper even without a motion from any party. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA upheld its decision through a Resolution dated April 21, 2016.

Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, raising various issues surrounding the partition, the application of summary judgment, and the validity of the trial court's decision in the absence of proper service of summons.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was proper service of summons in the instant case.

  2. Whether summary judgment is applicable in this case.

  3. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in determining the disposition of the property without conducting a partition proceeding.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in applying the rules on summary judgment without any motion from the parties.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment without any motion calling for its application.

  6. Whether an administration proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased is a condition that must be met before any partition of the estate and distribution to heirs can be made.

  7. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider the issue of partition of another property besides the one submitted by the respondent.

  8. Whether there is a genuine issue concerning the partition of the subject property.

  9. Whether a summary judgment is appropriate to resolve the case.

RULING:

  1. The Court rules that there was proper service of summons. The partition of real estate is an action quasi in rem. While jurisdiction over the parties is required to satisfy due process, jurisdiction over the res is sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction. In this case, the subject property was effectively placed under the power of the court when the complaint for partition was filed. Additionally, the defendants were duly served with summons and actively participated in the trial. The Court affirms the jurisdiction of the RTC and CA.

  2. The Court rules that summary judgment is not applicable in this case. Summary judgment is granted to settle expeditiously a case if there are no important issues of fact involved, except the amount of damages. However, if there is a genuine issue of fact joined by the parties, summary judgment cannot be granted. In this case, the affirmative defenses raised by the petitioners constitute genuine issues of fact that require a full-blown trial. Therefore, summary judgment is not applicable.

  3. The trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in determining the disposition of the property without conducting a partition proceeding. The question of who shall inherit which part of the property and in what proportion is within the province of the partition of the estate of a deceased. An heir to an inheritance can dispose of his/her hereditary rights to whomever he/she chooses, and this alienation is recognized by the Civil Code. The genuine issue of whether the respondent's parents conveyed their undivided inchoate share of their inheritance to the petitioner's father can only be ascertained through the presentation of evidence during trial.

  4. The trial court erred in applying the rules on summary judgment without any motion from the parties. None of the parties prayed for the issuance of a summary judgment, and the trial court's declaration that the resolution on the pending motions/incidents will also be considered as the resolution of the partition case cannot take the place of a required motion and hearing.

  5. The trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment without any motion calling for its application. The court found that the trial court committed reversible error by rendering a summary judgment despite the absence of any motion, which is in clear contravention of the procedural guidelines for the rendition of summary judgments.

  6. An administration proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased is not a condition that must be met before any partition of the estate and distribution to heirs can be made. The court did not agree with the petitioners' assertion that an administration proceeding is necessary before partition. However, the court did agree that the trial court should have collated the deceased's other properties prior to the judgment of partition in accordance with the laws on succession.

  7. The Court finds error in the trial court's refusal to consider the genuine issue concerning the partition of the subject property besides the one submitted by the respondent. The law does not prohibit partial partition, but it should be exercised sparingly. In this case, there is no cogent reason to render the partition of one property and totally ignore the others, if any. The prudent remedy is to settle the entirety of the estate in the partition proceedings in the trial court. It is unnecessary to require the plaintiff to file another action for partition separately. Therefore, the trial court should have delved into the issue presented by the petitioner and not limited itself only to the singular property submitted by the respondent for partition.

  8. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and ordered the remand of the case to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. The trial court judge is also ordered to hear the case with dispatch.

PRINCIPLES:

  • For the court to acquire jurisdiction in actions quasi in rem, it is necessary that it has jurisdiction over the res. Proper service of summons to the parties is also required to satisfy due process. (Macasaet vs. Co, Jr., De Pedro v. Romansan Development Corporation)

  • Jurisdiction over the property may result from a seizure of the property under legal process or from the institution of legal proceedings where the court's power over the property is recognized and made effective. (El Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca)

  • Summary judgment is granted to expedite the settlement of cases where there are no genuine issues of fact, except the amount of damages. Genuine issues of fact require a full-blown trial and summary judgment is not applicable. (Wood Technology Corporation, et al. vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, Viajar vs. Judge Estenzo, Evangelista vs. Mercator Finance Corp., Spouses Pascual vs. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc.)

  • Summary judgment cannot be rendered if there is a genuine issue that necessitates the presentation of evidence.

  • The procedural requirements for the rendition of summary judgment must be observed, including the filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing.

  • The non-observance of the procedural requirements warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment.

  • Even during the pre-trial stage, a motion for the application of summary judgment is necessary.

  • The adverse party is entitled to counter the motion for summary judgment.

  • Issues of fact that definitively call for the presentation of evidence should foreclose the rendition of a summary judgment.

  • The disposition of the property in an inheritance is determined in the partition of the estate of a deceased.

  • An heir can dispose of his/her hereditary rights to whomever he/she chooses.

  • The alienation of the hereditary share is recognized by the Civil Code.

  • Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition, even if it purports to be a sale, exchange, compromise, or any other transaction.

  • The rules on summary judgment cannot be applied without any motion from the parties.

  • Summary judgment can only be rendered upon motion and if there are no genuine issues on material facts or if the defenses are sham or mere general denial, as mandated by procedural guidelines. (Caridao, Viajar, Calubaquib, and Pascual cases)

  • An action for partition may involve two issues - whether the plaintiff is a co-owner and how the property is to be divided between the co-owners. (Civil Code)

  • Partition of inheritance may be done by the heirs extrajudicially, through an ordinary action for partition, or in the course of administration proceedings. (Civil Code)

  • An ordinary action for partition takes the place of the special proceeding on the settlement of the estate if the deceased left no will, no debts, and the heirs are all of age or represented by authorized representatives. (Rule 74, Rules of Court)

  • An action for partition with regard to the inheritance of heirs should conform to the law governing the partition and distribution of the estate, and not only to the law governing ordinary partition. (Civil Code)

  • A full-blown trial on the merits is necessary when there is a genuine issue concerning the partition of a property.

  • Summary judgment may not be appropriate in cases where a full-blown trial is necessary to completely resolve the issues involved.