10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

G.R. No. 166393. June 18, 2009.*

CRISTINA F. REILLO, LEONOR F. PUSO, ADELIA F.

ROCAMORA, SOFRONIO S.J. FERNANDO, EFREN S.J.
FERNANDO, ZOSIMO S.J. FERNANDO, JR., and MA. TERESA
F. PIÑON, petitioners, vs. GALICANO E.S. SAN JOSE, represented
by his Attorneys-in-Fact, ANNALISA S.J. RUIZ and RODELIO S.
SAN JOSE, VICTORIA S.J. REDONGO, CATALINA S.J. DEL
ROSARIO and MARIBETH S.J. CORTEZ, collectively known as
the HEIRS OF QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU
SANTO, respondents.

Judgments; Pleadings and Practice; In a proper case for judgment on

the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the
defending party’s answer to raise an issue.—Where a motion for judgment
on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues
generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings,
there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending
party’s answer to raise an issue. The answer would fail to tender an issue, of
course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits
said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.
Property; Partition; A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
including some of the heirs, who has no knowledge and consent to the same,
is fraudulent and vicious.—A deed of extrajudicial partition executed
without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent
to the same, is fraudulent and vicious. The deed of settlement made by
petitioners was invalid because it excluded respondents who were entitled to
equal shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial
settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein
or had no notice thereof. Thus, the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated
January 23, 1998 and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J.
Fernando issued pursuant to such deed.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

459

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 459

Reillo vs. San Jose

Civil Procedure; Counterclaims; A counterclaim is compulsory when

its object arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.—A counterclaim is any claim which a
defending party may have against an opposing party. It may either be
permissive or compulsory. It is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not
necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.
A permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent claim that may be
filed separately in another case. A counterclaim is compulsory when its
object arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Unlike permissive counterclaims,
compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action; otherwise,
they would be barred forever.
Same; Partition; Payment of docket fees is necessary before the RTC
could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners’ petition for partition.—
Respondents’ action was for the annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement, title and partition of the property subject of the Deed. On the
other hand, in the Counter-Petition filed by petitioners in their Answer to
respondents’ complaint, they were asking for the partition and accounting of
the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina,
which are entirely different from the subject matter of the respondents’
action. Petitioners’ claim does not arise out of or is necessarily connected
with the action for the Annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
the property covered by TCT No. 458396. Thus, payment of docket fees is
necessary before the RTC could acquire jurisdiction over petitioners’
petition for partition.
Same; Same; The RTC cannot order the collation and partition of the
other properties which were not included in the partition that was the
subject matter of the respondent’s action for annulment.—In petitioners’
Answer with Counter-Petition for Partition, they enumerated 12 other
parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina. They
alleged that some of these properties had already been disposed of by
respondents and some are still

460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

generating income under the control and administration of respondents, and

these properties should be collated back by respondents to be partitioned by
all the heirs of the deceased spouses. It bears stressing that the action filed
by respondents in the RTC was an ordinary civil action for annulment of
title, annulment of the deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition of a
parcel of land now covered by TCT No. M-94400; hence, the authority of
the court is limited to the property described in the pleading. The RTC
cannot order the collation and partition of the other properties which were
not included in the partition that was the subject matter of the respondents’
action for annulment. Thus, a separate proceeding is indeed proper for the
partition of the estate of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina.
Partition; It is a basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end
to indivision among co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition.—
Considering that the subject document and the corresponding title were
canceled, the logical consequence is that the property in dispute, which was
the subject of the extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to the estate of its
original owners, the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose.
Since, it was admitted that all the parties to the instant suit are legal heirs of
the deceased spouses, they owned the subject property in common. It is a
basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to indivision among
co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition. Therefore, there was no
reversible error committed by the trial court in ordering the partition of the
subject property. We find nothing wrong with such ruling considering that
the trial court ordered the partition of the subject property in accordance
with the rules on intestate succession. The trial court found the property to
be originally owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San
Jose and, in the absence of a will left by the deceased spouses, it must be
partitioned in accordance with the rules on intestate succession.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Felix T. De Ramos for petitioners.
  Lyn G. Bautista for respondents.

461

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 461

Reillo vs. San Jose

PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1
dated August 31, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 69261 which affirmed the Order dated May 9, 2000 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, Branch 78, granting
the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the motion to dismiss
counter petition for partition filed by respondents in Civil Case No.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

99-1148-M. Also questioned is the CA Resolution2 dated December

14, 2004 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Spouses Quiterio San Jose (Quiterio) and Antonina Espiritu
Santo (Antonina) were the original registered owners of a parcel of
land located in E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Teresa, Rizal covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 458396 of the Register of
Deeds of Rizal. The said parcel of land is now registered in the name
of Ma. Teresa F. Piñon (Teresa) under TCT No. M-94400.
Quiterio and Antonina had five children, namely, Virginia,
Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria and Catalina. Antonina died on July 1,
1970, while Quiterio died on October 19, 1976. Virginia and Virgilio
are also now deceased. Virginia was survived by her husband
Zosimo Fernando, Sr. (Zosimo Sr.) and their seven children, while
Virgilio was survived by his wife Julita Gonzales and children,
among whom is Maribeth S.J. Cortez (Maribeth).
On October 26, 1999, Galicano, represented by his children and
attorneys-in-fact, Annalisa S.J. Ruiz and Rodegelio San Jose,
Victoria, Catalina, and Maribeth (respondents) filed with the RTC a
Complaint3 for annulment of title, annulment of deed of extrajudicial
settlement, partition and damages

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona, with Associate Justices Ruben
T. Reyes (Retired Justice of this Court) and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp.
8-17
2 Id., at pp. 20-22.
3 Records, pp. 2-10.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

against Zosimo Sr. and his children Cristina F. Reillo, Leonor F.

Puso, Adelia F. Rocamora, Sofronio S.J. Fernando, Efren S.J.
Fernando, Zosimo S.J. Fernando, Jr. and Ma. Teresa (petitioners)
and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal. The complaint alleged
among other things:

“6. Under date of January 23, 1998, defendants FERNANDO et al,

without the knowledge and consent of all the other surviving heirs of the
deceased spouses QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU
SANTO, including herein plaintiffs, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights making it appear
therein that they are the “legitimate descendants and sole heirs of
QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO”; and
adjudicating among themselves, the subject parcel of land.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

6.1 In the same document, defendants ZOSIMO SR., CRISTINA,

LEONOR, ADELIA, SOFRONIO, EFREN and ZOSIMO JR., waived all
their rights, participation and interests over the subject parcel of land in
favor of their co-defendant MA. TERESA F. PIÑON (a.k.a MA. TERESA
S.J. FERNANDO).
xxxx
7.  On the strength of the said falsified Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate, defendant MA. TERESA PIÑON (a.k.a MA. TERESA
S.J. FERNANDO) succeeded in causing the cancellation of TCT No.
458396 in the name of SPS. QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA
ESPIRITU SANTO and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in
her name only, to the extreme prejudice of all the other heirs of the deceased
SPS. QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO,
specifically, the herein plaintiffs who were deprived of their lawful
participation over the subject parcel of land.
7.1 Thus, on July 6, 1999, Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-94400
was issued in the name of defendant MA. TERESA S.J. FERNANDO.
xxxx
8. As a result, the herein plaintiffs and the other surviving heirs of the
deceased spouses QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU
SANTO, who are legally entitled to inherit from the latter’s respective
estates, in accordance with the laws of intestate

463

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 463

Reillo vs. San Jose

succession, have been duly deprived of their respective rights, interests and
participation over the subject parcel of land.
8.1  Thus, there is sufficient ground to annul the subject Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated
January 23, 1998, and all other documents issued on the strength thereof,
particularly Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-94400.”4

It was also alleged that respondents filed a complaint before the

Lupong Tagapamayapa of their Barangay
which issued the required certification to file action for failure of
the parties to settle the matter amicably.
Petitioners filed their Answer with Counter-Petition and with
Compulsory Counterclaim5 denying that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights which was
the basis of the issuance of TCT No. M-94400, was falsified and that
the settlement was made and implemented in accordance with law.
They admitted that the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina had
five children; that the subject property was not the only property of
spouses Quiterio and Antonina and submitted in their counter-
petition for partition the list of the other 12 parcels of land of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina that petitioners alleged are

in respondents’ possession and control.
On January 18, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings6 alleging that: (1) the denials made by petitioners in
their answer were in the form of negative pregnant; (2) petitioners
failed to state the basis that the questioned document was not
falsified; (3) they failed to specifically deny the allegations in the
complaint that petitioners committed misrepresentations by stating
that they are the sole heirs and legitimate descendants of Quiterio
and Antonina; and (4) by making reference to their allegations in
their

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 4-6.

5 Id., at pp. 21-27.
6 Id., at pp. 40-44.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

counter-petition for partition to support their denials, petitioners

impliedly admitted that they are not the sole heirs of Quiterio and
Antonina.
Respondents filed a Reply to Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim7 with a motion to dismiss the counter-petition for
partition on the ground that petitioners failed to pay the required
docket fees for their counter-petition for partition. Petitioners filed
their Rejoinder8 without tackling the issue of non-payment of docket
fees.
On February 4, 2000, petitioners filed their Comment9 to
respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleading and prayed that
the instant action be decided on the basis of the pleadings with the
exception of respondents’ unverified Reply. Petitioners also filed an
Opposition to the motion to dismiss the counter-petition for
partition.
On May 9, 2000, the RTC rendered its Order,10 the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“1. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of

Rights, dated January 23, 1998 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-
94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa S.J. Fernando are declared null and void;
2. The Register of Deeds of Rizal, Morong Branch, is directed to
cancel TCT No. 94400; and
3. The Heirs of Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo is (sic)
directed to partition the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. M-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

458396 in accordance with the law of intestate succession.11

SO ORDERED.”

_______________

7  Id., at 56-59.
8  Id. at 73-74
9  Id. at 81-82.
10 Penned by Judge Adelina Calderon-Bargas; id., at pp. 94-97.
11 Records, p. 97.

465

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 465

Reillo vs. San Jose

The RTC found that, based on the allegations contained in the

pleadings filed by the parties, petitioners misrepresented themselves
when they alleged in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that they are the sole heirs of
the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina; that petitioners prayed
for a counter-petition for partition involving several parcels of land
left by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina which bolstered
respondents’ claim that petitioners falsified the Extrajudicial
Settlement which became the basis for the issuance of TCT No. M-
94400 in Ma. Teresa’s name; thus, a ground to annul the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement and the title. The RTC did not consider as
filed petitioners’ Counter-Petition for Partition since they did not pay
the corresponding docket fees.
Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC
denied in an Order12 dated August 29, 2000.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. After the
parties filed their respective briefs, the case was submitted for
decision.
On August 31, 2004, the CA rendered its assailed Decision
affirming the May 9, 2000 Order of the RTC.
The CA found that, while the subject matter of respondents’
complaint was the nullity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate among Heirs with Waiver of Rights that resulted in the
issuance of TCT No. M-94400 in Ma. Teresa’s name, petitioners
included in their Answer a Counter-Petition for Partition involving
12 other parcels of land of spouses Quiterio and Antonina which
was in the nature of a permissive counterclaim; that petitioners,
being the plaintiffs in the counter-petition for partition, must pay the
docket fees otherwise the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the
case. The CA ruled that petitioners cannot pass the blame to the
RTC for their omission to pay the docket fees.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

_______________

12 Id., at pp. 110-111.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

The CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment on the pleadings since

petitioners admitted that the deceased spouses Quiterio and
Antonina had five children which included herein plaintiffs; thus,
petitioners misrepresented themselves when they stated in the Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement that they are the legitimate descendants
and sole heirs of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina; that
the deed is null and void on such ground since respondents were
deprived of their rightful share in the subject property and
petitioners cannot transfer the property in favor of Ma. Teresa
without respondents’ consent; that TCT No. M-94400 must be
cancelled for lack of basis. The CA affirmed the RTC’s Order of
partition of the subject property in accordance with the rules on
intestate succession in the absence of a will.
Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
raising the following assignment of errors, to wit:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE COURSE

TO THE APPEAL OF THE DEFENDANTS (HEREIN PETITIONERS)
AND IN EVENTUALLY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF ORIGIN, CONSIDERING THAT SUCH RULING WILL
RESULT TO MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW & PROPERTY AND
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT VACATING THE
ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN PARTITIONING THE ESTATE
WITHOUT PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 74 AND 76 OF
THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.13

Petitioners contend that in their Comment to respondents’ motion

for judgment on the pleadings, they stated that they will not oppose
the same provided that their Answer with Counter-Petition for
Partition and Rejoinder will be taken into consideration in deciding
the case; however, the RTC decided the case on the basis alone of
respondents’ complaint;

_______________

13 Rollo, p. 29.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

467

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 467

Reillo vs. San Jose

that the Answer stated that the deed was not a falsified document
and was made and implemented in accordance with law, thus, it was
sufficient enough to tender an issue and was very far from admitting
the material allegations of respondents’ complaint.
Petitioners also fault the RTC for disregarding their claim for
partition of the other parcels of land owned by the deceased spouses
Quiterio and Antonina for their failure to pay the court docket fees
when the RTC could have simply directed petitioners to pay the
same; and that this error if not corrected will result to multiplicity of
suits.
Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in ordering the partition of
the subject property as it violates the basic law on intestate
succession that the heirs should be named and qualified through a
formal petition for intestate succession whereby blood relationship
should be established first by the claiming heirs before they shall be
entitled to receive from the estate of the deceased; that the order of
partition was rendered without jurisdiction for lack of publication as
required under Rules 74 and 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for
testate or intestate succession.
We find no merit in the petition.
The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the judgment
on the pleadings rendered by the RTC.
Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, states:

“SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.—Where an answer fails to

tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
such pleading. x x x.”

Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the

essential question is whether there are issues generated by the
pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

defending party’s answer to raise an issue.14 The answer would fail

to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material
allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof

and/or omitting to deal with them at all.15
In this case, respondents’ principal action was for the annulment
of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with
Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners and annulment of title on
the ground that petitioners stated in the said Deed that they are the
legitimate descendants and sole heirs of the spouses Quiterio and
Antonina. Although petitioners denied in their Answer that the Deed
was falsified, they, however, admitted respondents’ allegation that
spouses Quiterio and Antonina had 5 children, thus, supporting
respondents’ claim that petitioners are not the sole heirs of the
deceased spouses. Petitioners’ denial/admission in his Answer to the
complaint should be considered in its entirety and not truncated
parts. Considering that petitioners already admitted that respondents
Galicano, Victoria, Catalina and Maribeth are the children and
grandchild, respectively, of the spouses Quiterio and Antonina, who
were the original registered owners of the subject property, and thus
excluding respondents from the deed of settlement of the subject
property, there is no more genuine issue between the parties
generated by the pleadings, thus, the RTC committed no reversible
error in rendering the judgment on the pleadings.
A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some
of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is
fraudulent and vicious.16 The deed of settlement made by petitioners
was invalid because it excluded respon-

_______________

14 Tan v. De la Vega, G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 538, 545,
citing Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 451 SCRA
724, 731 (2005).
15 Id.
16 Pedrosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118680, March 5, 2001, 353 SCRA 620,
citing Villaruz v. Neme, 1 SCRA 27, 30 (1963).

469

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 469

Reillo vs. San Jose

dents who were entitled to equal shares in the subject property.

Under the rule, no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any
person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.17
Thus, the RTC correctly annulled the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights dated
January 23, 1998 and TCT No. M-94400 in the name of Ma. Teresa
S.J. Fernando issued pursuant to such deed.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

Petitioners’ claim that had there been a trial, they could have
presented testamentary and documentary evidence that the subject
land is the inheritance of their deceased mother from her deceased
parents, deserves scant consideration. A perusal of petitioners’
Answer, as well as their Rejoinder, never raised such a defense. In
fact, nowhere in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs
with Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners was there a statement
that the subject property was inherited by petitioners’ mother
Virginia from her deceased parents Quiterio and Antonina. Notably,
petitioners never opposed respondents’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
We also find no merit in petitioners’ contention that the Counter-
Petition for Partition in their Answer was in the nature of a
compulsory counterclaim which does not require the payment of
docket fees.
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party.18 It may either be permissive or
compulsory. It is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not
necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim.19 A permissive counterclaim is essen-

_______________

17 Rules of Court, Rule 74, Sec. 1.

18 Rules of Court, Rule 6, Sec. 6.
19 Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corporation, G.R. No.
155173, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 522, 533-534, citing Lopez v. Gloria, 40
Phil. 26 (1919), per Torres, J.

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

tially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another

case.
A counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting
the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction.20 Unlike permissive counterclaims,
compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action;
otherwise, they would be barred forever.
Respondents’ action was for the annulment of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, title and partition of the property subject of
the Deed. On the other hand, in the Counter-Petition filed by
petitioners in their Answer to respondents’ complaint, they were
asking for the partition and accounting of the other 12 parcels of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

land of the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina, which are

entirely different from the subject matter of the respondents’ action.
Petitioners’ claim does not arise out of or is necessarily connected
with the action for the Annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of the property covered by TCT No. 458396. Thus,
payment of docket fees is necessary before the RTC could acquire
jurisdiction over petitioners’ petition for partition.
Petitioners, however, argue that the RTC could have simply
issued a directive ordering them to pay the docket fees, for its non-
payment should not result in the automatic dismissal of the case.
We find apropos the disquisition of the CA on this matter, thus:

“The rule regarding the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the
initiatory pleading is not without exception. It has been held that if the filing
of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of docket fees, the
court may allow payment of the fee

_______________

20 Rules of Court, Rule 6, Sec. 7.

471

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 471

Reillo vs. San Jose

within reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or

reglementary period.
It is apparent from the arguments of the defendants-appellants that they
are blaming the trial court for their omission to pay the docket fees. It is,
however, our opinion that the defendants-appellants cannot pass on to the
trial court the performance of a positive duty imposed upon them by the law.
It should be noted that their omission to file the docket fees was raised as
one of the grounds to dismiss the counter petition for partition. The
defendants-appellants opposed the said motion without, however, offering
an answer to the said ground raised by the plaintiffs-appellees. In fact,
during the period the motion was being heard by the trial court, the
defendants-appellants never paid the docket fees for their petition so that it
could have at least brought to the attention of the trial court their payment of
the docket fees although belatedly done. They did not even ask the trial
court for time within which to pay the docket fees for their petition. When
the trial court ruled to dismiss the petition of the defendants-appellants, the
latter did not, in their motion for reconsideration, ask the trial court to
reconsider the dismissal of their petition by paying the required docket fees,
neither did they ask for time within which to pay their docket fees. In other
words, the trial court could have issued an order allowing the defendants-
appellants a period to pay the docket fees for their petition if the defendants-
appellants made such manifestation. What is apparent from the factual
circumstances of the case is that the defendants-appellants have been

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

neglectful in complying with this positive duty imposed upon them by law
as plaintiffs of the counter petition for partition. Because of their omission
to comply with their duty, no grave error was committed by the trial court in
dismissing the defendants-appellants’ counter petition for partition.”21

Petitioners argue that with the dismissal of their Counter-Petition

for Partition, the partition of the other parcels of land owned by the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina will result to multiplicity of
suits.
We are not persuaded.

_______________

21 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reillo vs. San Jose

Significantly, in petitioners’ Answer with Counter-Petition for

Partition, they enumerated 12 other parcels of land owned by the
deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina. They alleged that some of
these properties had already been disposed of by respondents and
some are still generating income under the control and
administration of respondents, and these properties should be
collated back by respondents to be partitioned by all the heirs of the
deceased spouses. It bears stressing that the action filed by
respondents in the RTC was an ordinary civil action for annulment
of title, annulment of the deed of extrajudicial settlement and
partition of a parcel of land now covered by TCT No. M-94400;
hence, the authority of the court is limited to the property described
in the pleading. The RTC cannot order the collation and partition of
the other properties which were not included in the partition that was
the subject matter of the respondents’ action for annulment. Thus, a
separate proceeding is indeed proper for the partition of the estate of
the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina.
Finally, petitioners contend that the RTC erred when it ordered
the heirs of Quiterio and Antonina to partition the subject parcel of
land covered by TCT No. 458396 in accordance with the laws of
intestate succession; that the RTC violated the requirement of
publication under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 74 and Section 3 of Rule
76 of the Rules of Court.
We do not agree.
We find the ruling of the CA on the matter of the RTC’s order of
partition of land subject of the annulled deed of extrajudicial
settlement worth quoting, thus:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

“Considering that the subject document and the corresponding title were
canceled, the logical consequence is that the property in dispute, which was
the subject of the extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to the estate of its
original owners, the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose.
Since, it was admitted that all the parties to the instant suit are legal heirs of
the deceased spouses, they owned the subject property in common. It is a
basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to indivision among
co-heirs

473

VOL. 589, JUNE 18, 2009 473

Reillo vs. San Jose

or co-owners is deemed to be a partition. Therefore, there was no reversible

error committed by the trial court in ordering the partition of the subject
property. We find nothing wrong with such ruling considering that the trial
court ordered the partition of the subject property in accordance with the
rules on intestate succession. The trial court found the property to be
originally owned by the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose
and, in the absence of a will left by the deceased spouses, it must be
partitioned in accordance with the rules on intestate succession.”22

As the RTC nullified the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of

Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights executed by petitioners
and the title issued in accordance therewith, the order of partition of
the land subject of the settlement in accordance with the laws on
intestate succession is proper as respondents’ action filed in the RTC
and respondents’ prayer in their complaint asked for the partition of
the subject property in accordance with intestate succession. The
applicable law is Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which
deals with action for partition, to wit:

“SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate.—A

person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as
provided in this Rule, 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 other persons interested in the
property.”

And, under this law, there is no requirement for publication.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated August 31, 2004 and the Resolution dated December 14, 2004,
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69261, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.

and Nachura JJ., concur.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

_______________

22 Id., at p. 17.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016696c7de85fc081fee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15