TOPICS: Action quasi in rem; extraterritorial service (proper service of summons to defendants who are non-resident/not found in the Philippines and where the action involves property within the Philippines in which the defendants have claims); summary judgment; partition
FACTS:
The parties are the grandchildren of the late Jayme Morales who died intestate and left a parcel of land. Jayme Morales has four children namely, Vicente, Simeon, Jose, and Martina.
Respondent Astrid Morales, son of Simeon, initiated a complaint for partition over Jayme’s property. He alleged that, together with his other cousins, they are co-owners with the petitioner of a subject property by virtue of their successional rights as heirs of the late Jayme Morales.
The heirs of Jose Morales filed an answer which admitted the allegations in the complaint and interposed no objection.
Petitioner, heirs of Ernesto Morales, son of Vicente, filed an answer with Motion to Dismiss and compulsory counterclaims. He alleged that the Respondent has no cause of action because the 1) the proper remedy should not be a complaint for partition but an action for the settlement of the intestate estate of their grandparents (Jayme Morales and his wife) and 2) the respondent has no more right of participation over the property because the same has long been conveyed to them by the parents of the respondents.
Per order of the RTC, summons to the heirs of Martina who were at the time residing abroad were served in person.
The heirs of Martina Morales-Enriquez were subsequently declared to be in default. Her heirs filed a Motion to Dismiss and alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons because they were not furnished with the Amended Complaint.
The RTC rendered a decision via summary judgment in favor of the respondents. A decree of partition was issued and a proportion of ¼ share was allotted to each direct heirs by right of representation to their respective parents, Vicente, Simeon, Jose, and Martina.
The petitioners filed an appeal but the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that: [1] the action of partition is an action quasi in rem, thus jurisdiction over the Defendant-heirs is not required since the court has jurisdiction over the res or the subject property and that [2] the summary judgment is proper despite the absence of any motion from the parties.
ISSUES:
I. Whether the RTC validly rendered a decision in the absence of proof of proper service of summons to some of the real parties in interest in a quasi in rem proceeding.
II. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the res.
III. Whether the RTC could motu propio apply the rule on summary judgment
IV. Whether the partition is proper despite the absence of the settlement of the estate of the deceased
RULING:
I.
Yes, the RTC validly entered a decision in the action of partition.
Under the Rules of Court, a partition of real estate is an action quasi in rem. For the court to acquire jurisdiction in actions quasi in rem, it is necessary only that it has jurisdiction over the res or subject. The jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required. However, regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is required to satisfy the requirements of due process. Otherwise, the decision rendered suffers a defect in jurisdiction.
In this case, the respondent filed an action of partition. Being an action quasi in rem, it is only necessary that it has jurisdiction over the res. In satisfaction of due process, and contrary to the claim of the Defendant-heirs abroad, they were served with summons and copy of the complaint based on the Affidavit of Service of summons as proof of service presented before the Court, setting forth the manner, place, date of service, and the name of the person who received the same.
Therefore, the RTC validly entered a decision in the action of partition.
II.
Yes, the RTC acquired the jurisdiction over the res.
Under the Rules of Court, the court may acquire jurisdiction over the thing in action quasi in rem by actually or constructively seizing or placing it under the court’s custody or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective.
In this case, the filing of complaint before the RTC which sought the partition of the subject property effectively placed it under the power of the court. None of the parties challenged the RTC’s jurisdiction and proper service of summons to the defendants were complied.
Therefore, the RTC acquired the jurisdiction over the res.
III.
No, the RTC could not motu propio apply the rule on summary judgment.
Under the Rules of Court, a motion for the application of summary judgment is necessary. The filing of a motion for summary judgment and the conduct of a hearing on the said motion are important. The pre-trial may be the occasion in which the court considers the propriety of rendering summary judgment. If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may indicate to the proper party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion.
In this case, there is no motion for a summary judgment filed by the private respondent. Consequently, no notice or hearing was ever conducted by the court. Hence, the court failed to comply with the procedural guidelines for the rendition of the summary judgment.
Therefore, the Court could not motu propio apply the rule on summary judgment.
IV.
No, the partition is not proper.
Under the law, a partial distribution of the decedent’s estate pending the final determination of the testate or intestate proceedings should as much as possible be discourage by the courts.
In this case, when the petitioners alleged in their answer that there is yet another property that needs to be partitioned among the parties, they were actually invoking the Civil Code provisions, not on Co-ownership, but on Succession, which necessarily includes Article 1061 of the Civil Code — the provision on collation. It is therefore proper for the trial court to have delved into this issue presented by the petitioner instead of disregarding the same and limiting itself only to that singular property submitted by the respondent for partition.
Therefore, RTC should have delved into the provision on collation.
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS:
ACTION QUASI IN REM
It is necessary only that court has jurisdiction over the res or subject. Proper service of summons to the defendants is required to satisfy the requirements of due process, otherwise, the decision rendered suffers a defect in jurisdiction.
Court acquires jurisdiction over the res:
1. by actually or constructively seizing or placing it under the court’s custody or
2. by instituting legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective.
PURPOSE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WHEN IS IT AVAILED
Summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, dispositions, admissions, and affidavits. An issue which is fictitious or contrived, set up in bad faith, and patently unsubstantial does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. It is availed through a motion of the party.
WHEN IS A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL REQUIRED
If genuine issues of fact are raised, then the case requires a full-blown trial or presentation of evidence as the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested.
THE GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT THAT WARRANTS A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL
The petitioners from the beginning of the proceeding submitted an issue of facts that calls for the presentation of evidence when they asserted that respondents have no more right of participation as the property was already conveyed to them by the parents of the respondents. Ultimately, the case was remanded to the lower court.
PARTITION
Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. Thus, every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.
ISSUES IN AN ACTION FOR PARTITION
There are two issues in an action for partition: First is the issue whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned; and second is on how the property is to be divided between the plaintiffs and defendants, i.e. what portion should go to which co-owner.
HOW IS THE PARTITION OF THE INHERITANCE EFFECTED
Under the law, the partition of the inheritance may only be effected by [1] the heirs themselves extrajudicially, (2) by the court in an ordinary action for partition, or in the course of administration proceedings, (3) by the testator himself, and (4) by the third person designated by the testator.
The appointment of executor or administrator is dispensed with in extrajudicial partition and in ordinary action of partition. An ordinary action of partition may be resorted to if the parties disagree as to the exact division of the estate and only if the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose