EMILIA FIGURACION.docx

7/23/2019 EMILIA FIGURACION.docx

1/4

EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner,

vs.

CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION,*ELENA FIGURACION-ANCHETA,* HILARIA

A. FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION and

MARY FIGURACION-GINEZ, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA,J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari,1petitioner Emilia Fi!racion"#erilla challenes the

decision$and resol!tion%of the Co!rt of &ppeals 'C&( affirmin the decision of the Reional

)rial Co!rt 'R)C( of *rdaneta Cit+, Panasinan, ranch -, which dismissed her complaint for

partition. )he properties involved are two parcels of land which /eloned to her late father,

0eandro Fi!racion.

)he facts of the case follow.-

Spo!ses 0eandro and respondent Carolina Fi!racion 'now /oth deceased( had si children2

petitioner and respondents Elena Fi!racion"&ncheta 'now deceased(, 3ilaria Fi!racion, Felipa

Fi!racion"4an!el, 5!intin Fi!racion and 4ar+ Fi!racion"#ine6.

On &!!st $%, 177, 0eandro eec!ted a deed of 8!itclaim over his real properties in favor of his

si children. 9hen he died in 17:, he left /ehind two parcels of land2 '1( 0ot $$ of the

Cadastral S!rve+ of *rdaneta consistin of ;,7-; s8!are meters with )ransfer Certificate of )itle

')C)( No. -$$1"P in the name of ;%1 and 1>>1=, respectivel+, iss!ed /+ the Reister of Deeds of the Province of Panasinan.

0eandro sold a portion of 0ot $$ to 0a6aro &dviento, as a res!lt of which )C) No. -$$1"P

was cancelled and )C) No. 1=1%%1 was iss!ed to $ s8. m. and 1> for the +ear 1:7.

9hat ave rise to the complaint for partition, however, was a disp!te /etween petitioner and her

sister, respondent 4ar+, over the eastern half of 0ot ;=; of the Cadastral S!rve+ of *rdaneta

with an area of %,1>- s8. m.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt1


2/4

0ot ;=; /eloned to E!lalio &dviento, as evidenced /+ OC) No. 17:>; iss!ed on Fe/r!ar+ ,

11>. 9hen &dviento died, his two da!hters, &ripina &dviento 'his da!hter /+ his first wife(

and respondent Carolina 'his da!hter /+ his second wife(, s!cceeded him to it. On Novem/er

$:, 1>1, &ripina eec!ted a 8!itclaim in favor of petitioner over the one"half eastern portion of

0ot ;=;. &ripina died on ?!l+ $:, 1>%, sinle and witho!t an+ iss!e. efore her half"sister@s

death, however, respondent Carolina adA!dicated !nto herself, via affidavit !nder R!le ;- of the

R!les of Co!rt, the entire 0ot ;=; which she later sold to respondents Felipa and 3ilaria. )he

latter two immediatel+ had OC) No. 17:>; cancelled, on Decem/er 11, 1>$. & new title, )C)

No. -$$--, was then iss!ed in the names of Felipa and 3ilaria for 0ot ;=;.

In Fe/r!ar+ 1;1, petitioner and her famil+ went to the *nited States where the+ sta+ed for ten

+ears. Ret!rnin in 1:1,>she /!ilt a ho!se made of stron materials on the eastern half"portion

of 0ot ;=;. She contin!ed pa+in her share of the realt+ taes thereon.

It was sometime later that this disp!te er!pted. Petitioner so!ht the etraA!dicial partition of all

properties held in common /+ her and respondents. On 4a+ $%, 1-, petitioner filed a

complaint in the R)C of *rdaneta Cit+, ranch -, for partition, ann!lment of doc!ments,

reconve+ance, 8!ietin of title and damaes aainst respondents, pra+in, amon others, for2 '1(

the partition of 0ots $$ and ;=7B '$( the n!llification of the affidavit of self"adA!dication

eec!ted /+ respondent Carolina over 0ot ;=;, the deed of a/sol!te sale in favor of respondents

Felipa and 3ilaria, and )C) No. -$$--B '%( a declaration that petitioner was the owner of one"

half of 0ot ;=; and '-( damaes. )he case was doceted as Civil Case No. *"7:$>.

On the other hand, respondents too the position that 0eandro@s estate sho!ld first !ndero

settlement proceedins /efore partition amon the heirs co!ld tae place. &nd the+ claimed thatan acco!ntin of epenses charea/le to the estate was necessar+ for s!ch settlement.

On ?!ne $>, 1;,;the R)C:rendered A!dment n!llif+in Carolina@s affidavit of self"

adA!dication and deed of a/sol!te sale of 0ot ;=;. It also declared 0ots $$ and ;=7 as

ecl!sive properties of 0eandro Fi!racion and therefore part of his estate. )he R)C, however,

dismissed the complaint for partition, reconve+ance and damaes on the ro!nd that it co!ld not

rant the reliefs pra+ed for /+ petitioner witho!t an+ 'prior( settlement proceedins wherein the

transfer of title of the properties sho!ld first /e effected.

On appeal, the C& !pheld the dismissal of petitioner@s action for partition for /ein premat!re.)he C& reversed the decision, however, with respect to the n!llification of the self"adA!dication

and the deed of sale. *pholdin the validit+ of the affidavit of self"adA!dication and deed of sale

as to Carolina@s one"halfpro-indivisoshare, it instead partitioned 0ot ;=;. Dissatisfied,

respondents elevated the C& decision to this Co!rt in #.R. No. 171%%-, entitled Carolina vda. de

Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt9


3/4

)he iss!e for o!r consideration is whether or not there needs to /e a prior settlement of

0eandro@s intestate estate 'that is, an acco!ntin of the income of 0ots $$ and ;=7, the

pa+ment of epenses, lia/ilities and taes, pl!s compliance with other leal re8!irements, etc.(

/efore the properties can /e partitioned or distri/!ted.

Respondents claim that2 '1( the properties constit!tin 0eandro@s estate cannot /e partitioned

/efore his estate is settled and '$( there sho!ld /e an acco!ntin /efore an+thin else,

considerin that the+ 'respondents( had to spend for the maintenance of the deceased 0eandro

Fi!racion and his wife in their final +ears, which s!pport was s!pposed to come from the

income of the properties. &mon other thins, respondents apparentl+ wanted petitioner to share

in the epenses inc!rred for the care of their parents d!rin the ten +ears she sta+ed in the *nited

States, /efore she co!ld et her part of the estate while petitioner apparentl+ wanted her ross

share, witho!t first contri/!tin to the epenses.

In an+ event, there appears to /e a complication with respect to the partition of 0ot ;=7. )he

records refer to a case entitledFiguracion, et al. v. Alejo c!rrentl+ pendin in the C&. )he

records, however, ive no cl!e or information reardin what eactl+ this case is all a/o!t.

9hatever the iss!es ma+ /e, s!ffice it to sa+ that partition is premat!re when ownership of the

lot is still in disp!te.1=

Petitioner faces a different pro/lem with respect to 0ot $$. Section 1, R!le > of the R!les of

Co!rt provides2

SEC)ION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. & person havin the riht to

compel the partition of real estate ma+ do so as provided in this R!le, settin forth in hiscomplaint the nat!re and etent of his title and an ade8!ate description of the real estate of which

partition is demanded and Aoinin as defendants all other persons interested in the propert+.

)he riht to an inheritance is transmitted immediatel+ to the heirs /+ operation of law, at the

moment of death of the decedent. )here is no do!/t that, as one of the heirs of 0eandro

Fi!racion, petitioner has a leal interest in 0ot $$. !t can she compel partition at this stae

)here are two wa+s /+ which partition can tae place !nder R!le >2 /+ areement !nder Section

$11and thro!h commissioners when s!ch areement cannot /e reached, !nder Sections % to >.1$

Neither method specifies a proced!re for determinin epenses charea/le to the decedent@s

estate. 9hile Section : of R!le > provides that there shall /e an acco!ntin of the real

propert+@s income 'rentals and profits( in the co!rse of an action for partition,1%there is no

provision for the acco!ntin of epenses for which propert+ /elonin to the decedent@s estate

ma+ /e answera/le, s!ch as f!neral epenses, inheritance taes and similar epenses en!merated

!nder Section 1, R!le = of the R!les of Co!rt.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/#fnt13


4/4

In a sit!ation where there remains an iss!e as to the epenses charea/le to the estate, partition is

inappropriate. 9hile petitioner points o!t that the estate is alleedl+ witho!t an+ de/t and she

and respondents are 0eandro Fi!racion@s onl+ leal heirs, she does not disp!te the findin of the

C& that

Documents

EMILIA FIGURACION.docx