A person having the right to compel the

partition of real estate may do so as in this

rule prescribed, setting forth in his complaint
the nature and extent of his title and an
adequate description of the real estate of
which partition is demanded and joining as
defendants all the other persons interested in
the property.1 (Emphasis Supplied)
It is clear that the presence of indispensable
parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear
and determine a cause of action, the right to
act in a case. We stress that the absence of
indispensable parties renders all subsequent
actuations of the court null and void, because
of that courts want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present.2
Clearly, it was the trial courts duty to order
petitioners inclusion as a party to Civil Case
No. 4930-V-96. This was not done. Neither the
court nor private respondents bothered to
implead petitioner as a party to the case. In
the absence of petitioner, an indispensable
party, the trial court had no authority to act on
the case. Its judgment therein was null and
void due to lack of jurisdiction over an
indispensable party.3 (Underscored Supplied)
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any
right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts
performed pursuant to it and all claims
emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence,
Section (1) Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Hon. Floro T. Alejo, et.al. GR
No. 141970, September 10, 2001, Panganiban, J.
3
Metrobank vs. Alejo, et.al., Ibid.
1

it can never become final and any writ of

execution based on it is void: x x x it may be
said to be a lawless thing which can be
treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its
head.4
An action for partition does not lie
where co-ownership is repudiated by coowner. 5
While the action for the partition of the
thing owned in common (actio communi
dividendo or action familiae erciscundae)
does not prescribe, the co-ownership does
not last forever since it may be repudiated by
a co-owner. In such a case, the action for
partition does not lie. What may be brought
by the aggrieved co-owner is an accion
reivindicatoria or action for recovery of title
and possession. That action may be barred by
prescription.6
An action for partition among co-heirs
ceases to be such and becomes a question of
title where the defendants allege exclusive
ownership.7
From the moment one of the co-owners
claim that he is the absolute and exclusive
owner of the properties and denies the others
any share therein, the question involved is no
longer one of partition but of ownership.8

Leonor vs. Court of Appeals and Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals, 256
SCRA 69; Metrobank vs. Alejo, et.al., IBID.
5
Jardin vs. Hallasco, 117 SCRA 532.
6
Delos Santos vs. Santa Teresa, 44 Phil. 811.
7
Vda. De Espina vs. Abaya, 196 SCRA 312.
8

Delima vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 641 (1991).