REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW Special Civil Actions, Partition

Atty Brondial
Lecture 7 Case Digests

1
CELESTINO BALUS vs. SATURNINO BALUS (2010)
Peralta, J.

DOCTRINE
Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the property
owned in common. It seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-owner,
vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific property and giving each one a right to
enjoy his estate without supervision or interference from the other. In other words, the
purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership, an objective which negates
petitioners claims in the present case.


FACTS
Herein petitioner and respondents are the children of the spouses Rufo and Sebastiana
Balus. Sebastiana died on September 6, 1978, while Rufo died on July 6, 1984.

On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land, which he owns, as security for a loan
he obtained from the Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del Norte (Bank). Rufo failed to pay his
loan. As a result, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and was subsequently sold to the
Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that purpose. On November 20, 1981, a
Certificate of Salewas executed by the sheriff in favor of the Bank. The property was not
redeemed within the period allowed by law. More than two years after the auction, or on
January 25, 1984, the sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale in the Banks favor.
Thereafter, a new title was issued in the name of the Bank. On October 10, 1989, herein
petitioner and respondents executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating to
each of them a specific one-third portion of the subject property and also contained
provisions wherein the parties admitted knowledge of the fact that their father mortgaged
the subject property to the Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the soonest
possible time.

Three years after the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement, herein respondents bought
the subject property from the Bank. Meanwhile, petitioner continued possession of the
subject lot. Respondents filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages
against petitioner and RTC rendered a decision ordering the plaintiffs to execute a Deed of
Sale in favor of the defendant, the one-third share of the property in question, presently
possessed by him. The RTC held that the right of petitioner to purchase from the
respondents his share in the disputed property was recognized by the provisions of the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, which the parties had executed before the respondents
bought the subject lot from the Bank. Respondents appealed to the CA. CA reversed
decision of RTC.

ISSUE
Whether co-ownership between petitioner and respondents persisted even after the lot
was purchased by the Bank and even after it was eventually bought by the Respondents
from the Bank.

HELD
NO. It bears to emphasize that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the subject
property was exclusively owned by petitioner and respondents father, Rufo, at the time
that it was mortgaged in 1979.

In the present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his
lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land
no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated
differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject
lot from their father.

There is nothing in the subject Extrajudicial Settlement to indicate any
express stipulation for petitioner and respondents to continue with their
supposed co-ownership of the contested lot.

On the contrary, a plain reading of the provisions of the Extrajudicial Settlement
would not, in any way, support petitioners contention that it was his and his
siblings intention to buy the subject property from the Bank and continue what
they believed to be co-ownership thereof. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation
of contracts that the intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial
consideration. There is no co-ownership to talk about and no property to
partition, as the disputed lot never formed part of the estate of their deceased
father.

Furthermore, petitioners contention that he and his siblings intended to continue their
supposed co-ownership of the subject property contradicts the provisions of the subject
Extrajudicial Settlement where they clearly manifested their intention of having the
subject property divided or partitioned by assigning to each of the petitioner and
respondents a specific 1/3 portion of the same.

Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the property
owned in common. It seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-owner,
vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific property and giving each one a right to
enjoy his estate without supervision or interference from the other. In other words, the
purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership, an objective which negates
petitioners claims in the present case.