[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
153 views2 pages

Lacbayan Vs Samoy

Betty Lacbayan and Bayani Samoy had an illicit relationship and established a manpower company together, acquiring 5 parcels of land registered under both their names. They later parted ways and agreed to divide the properties in a Partition Agreement. However, when Lacbayan demanded more, Samoy refused. Lacbayan then filed for judicial partition. Samoy denied cohabitation and claimed the properties were from his own funds. The court held that determining ownership must be resolved before partition can occur, as Lacbayan's claim to be a co-owner depends on establishing this. The Partition Agreement also involved legal questions that needed prior settlement.

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
153 views2 pages

Lacbayan Vs Samoy

Betty Lacbayan and Bayani Samoy had an illicit relationship and established a manpower company together, acquiring 5 parcels of land registered under both their names. They later parted ways and agreed to divide the properties in a Partition Agreement. However, when Lacbayan demanded more, Samoy refused. Lacbayan then filed for judicial partition. Samoy denied cohabitation and claimed the properties were from his own funds. The court held that determining ownership must be resolved before partition can occur, as Lacbayan's claim to be a co-owner depends on establishing this. The Partition Agreement also involved legal questions that needed prior settlement.

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BETTY B. LACBAYAN VS. BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR.

G.R. No. 165427.  March 21, 2011


THIRD DIVISION. VILLARAMA Jr, J.:

FACTS:

During Betty Lacbayan and Bayani Samoy’s illicit relationship, they,


together with three more incorporators, were able to establish a manpower
services company, by which they acquired 5 parcels of land, registered in
their names, ostensibly as husband and wife.
Having parted ways eventually, both of them agreed to divide the said
properties and terminate their business partnership by executing a Partition
Agreement. Initially, Samoy agreed to Lacbayan's proposal that the
properties in Malvar St. and Don Enrique Heights be assigned to the latter,
while the ownership over the three other properties will go to
Samoy. However, when Lacbayan wanted additional demands, Samoy
refused. 
Thus, Lacbayan filed a complaint for judicial partition of the said
properties before the Quezon City RTC. In his Answer, however, Samoy
denied Lacbayan's claim of cohabitation and said that the properties were
acquired out of his own personal funds without any contribution from her.

ISSUES:

Does an action for partition preclude a settlement on the issue of


ownership?

HELD:

No. While it is true that the complaint involved here is one for
partition, the same is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-
ownership between the parties. Petitioner insists she is a co-owner pro
indiviso of the five real estate properties based on the TCTs covering the
subject properties. Respondent maintains otherwise. Indubitably, therefore,
until and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved,
it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties. More
importantly, the complaint will not even lie if the claimant, or petitioner in
this case, does not even have any rightful interest over the subject
properties.
A careful perusal of the contents of the so-called Partition Agreement
indicates that the document involves matters which necessitate prior
settlement of questions of law, basic of which is a determination as to
whether the parties have the right to freely divide among themselves the
subject properties. Moreover, to follow petitioner's argument would be to
allow respondent not only to admit against his own interest but that of his
legal spouse as well, who may also be lawfully entitled co-ownership over
the said properties. Respondent is not allowed by law to waive whatever
share his lawful spouse may have on the disputed properties. Petitioner
herself admitted that she did not assent to the Partition Agreement after
seeing the need to amend the same to include other matters. Petitioner does
not have any right to insist on the contents of an agreement she
intentionally refused to sign.

You might also like