Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

154322 August 22, 2006 EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner, vs. CAROLINA !A. !E FIGURACION," ELENA FIGURACION-ANC#ETA," #ILARIA A. FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, $UINTIN FIGURACION %&' MAR( FIGURACION-GINE), Respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.* In this petition for revie on certiorari, ! petitioner E"ilia #i$uracion%&erilla challen$es the decision' and resolution( of the Court of )ppeals *C)+ affir"in$ the decision of the Re$ional ,rial Court *R,C+ of -rdaneta Cit., Pan$asinan, /ranch 01, hich dis"issed her co"plaint for partition. ,he properties involved are t o parcels of land hich belon$ed to her late father, 2eandro #i$uracion. ,he facts of the case follo .0 Spouses 2eandro and respondent Carolina #i$uracion *no both deceased+ had si3 children4 petitioner and respondents Elena #i$uracion%)ncheta *no deceased+, 5ilaria #i$uracion, #elipa #i$uracion%Manuel, 6uintin #i$uracion and Mar. #i$uracion%&ine7. On )u$ust '(, !188, 2eandro e3ecuted a deed of 9uitclai" over his real properties in favor of his si3 children. :hen he died in !18;, he left behind t o parcels of land4 *!+ 2ot ''11 of the Cadastral Surve. of -rdaneta consistin$ of <,80< s9uare "eters ith ,ransfer Certificate of ,itle *,C,+ No. 0''!%P in the na"e of =2eandro #i$uracion, "arried to Carolina )dviento= and *'+ 2ot <>8 of the Cadastral Surve. of -rdaneta ith an area of ',1>> s9. ". ith ,C, No. 0''>%P also in the na"e of =2eandro #i$uracion, "arried to Carolina )dviento.= 2eandro had inherited both lots fro" his deceased parents,8 as evidenced b. Ori$inal Certificate of ,itle *OC,+ Nos. !?<(! and !??!>, respectivel., issued b. the Re$ister of Deeds of the Province of Pan$asinan. 2eandro sold a portion of 2ot ''11 to 2a7aro )dviento, as a result of hich ,C, No. 0''!%P as cancelled and ,C, No. !>!((! as issued to =2a7aro )dviento, "arried to Rosenda Sa$ueped= as o ner of the !?' s9. ". and =2eandro #i$uracion, "arried to Carolina )dviento= as o ner of <,(;8 s9. ". ,his lot continued to be in the na"e of 2eandro in ,a3 Declaration No. ?!? for the .ear !1;8. :hat $ave rise to the co"plaint for partition, ho ever, as a dispute bet een petitioner and her sister, respondent Mar., over the eastern half of 2ot <>< of the Cadastral Surve. of -rdaneta ith an area of (,!?0 s9. ". 2ot <>< belon$ed to Eulalio )dviento, as evidenced b. OC, No. !8;?< issued on #ebruar. 1, !1!?. :hen )dviento died, his t o dau$hters, )$ripina )dviento *his dau$hter b. his first ife+ and respondent Carolina *his dau$hter b. his second ife+, succeeded hi" to it. On Nove"ber ';, !1?!,

)$ripina e3ecuted a 9uitclai" in favor of petitioner over the one%half eastern portion of 2ot <><. )$ripina died on @ul. ';, !1?(, sin$le and ithout an. issue. /efore her half%sisterAs death, ho ever, respondent Carolina adBudicated unto herself, via affidavit under Rule <0 of the Rules of Court, the entire 2ot <>< hich she later sold to respondents #elipa and 5ilaria. ,he latter t o i""ediatel. had OC, No. !8;?< cancelled, on Dece"ber !!, !1?'. ) ne title, ,C, No. 0''00, as then issued in the na"es of #elipa and 5ilaria for 2ot <><. In #ebruar. !1<!, petitioner and her fa"il. ent to the -nited States here the. sta.ed for ten .ears. Returnin$ in !1;!,? she built a house "ade of stron$ "aterials on the eastern half%portion of 2ot <><. She continued pa.in$ her share of the realt. ta3es thereon. It as so"eti"e later that this dispute erupted. Petitioner sou$ht the e3traBudicial partition of all properties held in co""on b. her and respondents. On Ma. '(, !110, petitioner filed a co"plaint in the R,C of -rdaneta Cit., /ranch 01, for partition, annul"ent of docu"ents, reconve.ance, 9uietin$ of title and da"a$es a$ainst respondents, pra.in$, a"on$ others, for4 *!+ the partition of 2ots ''11 and <>8C *'+ the nullification of the affidavit of self%adBudication e3ecuted b. respondent Carolina over 2ot <><, the deed of absolute sale in favor of respondents #elipa and 5ilaria, and ,C, No. 0''00C *(+ a declaration that petitioner as the o ner of one%half of 2ot <>< and *0+ da"a$es. ,he case as docDeted as Civil Case No. -%8;'?. On the other hand, respondents tooD the position that 2eandroAs estate should first under$o settle"ent proceedin$s before partition a"on$ the heirs could taDe place. )nd the. clai"ed that an accountin$ of e3penses char$eable to the estate as necessar. for such settle"ent. On @une '?, !11<,< the R,C; rendered Bud$"ent nullif.in$ CarolinaAs affidavit of self%adBudication and deed of absolute sale of 2ot <><. It also declared 2ots ''11 and <>8 as e3clusive properties of 2eandro #i$uracion and therefore part of his estate. ,he R,C, ho ever, dis"issed the co"plaint for partition, reconve.ance and da"a$es on the $round that it could not $rant the reliefs pra.ed for b. petitioner ithout an. *prior+ settle"ent proceedin$s herein the transfer of title of the properties should first be effected. On appeal, the C) upheld the dis"issal of petitionerAs action for partition for bein$ pre"ature. ,he C) reversed the decision, ho ever, ith respect to the nullification of the self%adBudication and the deed of sale. -pholdin$ the validit. of the affidavit of self%adBudication and deed of sale as to CarolinaAs one%half pro-indiviso share, it instead partitioned 2ot <><. Dissatisfied, respondents elevated the C) decision to this Court in &.R. No. !8!((0, entitled Carolina vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla.1 ,he issue for our consideration is hether or not there needs to be a prior settle"ent of 2eandroAs intestate estate *that is, an accountin$ of the inco"e of 2ots ''11 and <>8, the pa."ent of e3penses, liabilities and ta3es, plus co"pliance ith other le$al re9uire"ents, etc.+ before the properties can be partitioned or distributed. Respondents clai" that4 *!+ the properties constitutin$ 2eandroAs estate cannot be partitioned before his estate is settled and *'+ there should be an accountin$ before an.thin$ else, considerin$ that the. *respondents+ had to spend for the "aintenance of the deceased 2eandro #i$uracion and his ife in their final .ears, hich support as supposed to co"e fro" the inco"e of the properties. )"on$ other thin$s, respondents apparentl. anted petitioner to share in the e3penses incurred for the care of their parents durin$ the ten .ears she sta.ed in the -nited States, before she could $et her part of the estate hile petitioner apparentl. anted her $ross share, ithout first contributin$ to the e3penses.

In an. event, there appears to be a co"plication ith respect to the partition of 2ot <>8. ,he records refer to a case entitled Figuracion, et al. v. Alejo currentl. pendin$ in the C). ,he records, ho ever, $ive no clue or infor"ation re$ardin$ hat e3actl. this case is all about. :hatever the issues "a. be, suffice it to sa. that partition is pre"ature hen o nership of the lot is still in dispute. !> Petitioner faces a different proble" ith respect to 2ot ''11. Section !, Rule ?1 of the Rules of Court provides4 SEC,ION !. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. E ) person havin$ the ri$ht to co"pel the partition of real estate "a. do so as provided in this Rule, settin$ forth in his co"plaint the nature and e3tent of his title and an ade9uate description of the real estate of hich partition is de"anded and Boinin$ as defendants all other persons interested in the propert.. ,he ri$ht to an inheritance is trans"itted i""ediatel. to the heirs b. operation of la , at the "o"ent of death of the decedent. ,here is no doubt that, as one of the heirs of 2eandro #i$uracion, petitioner has a le$al interest in 2ot ''11. /ut can she co"pel partition at this sta$eF ,here are t o a.s b. hich partition can taDe place under Rule ?14 b. a$ree"ent under Section '!! and throu$h co""issioners hen such a$ree"ent cannot be reached, under Sections ( to ?. !' Neither "ethod specifies a procedure for deter"inin$ e3penses char$eable to the decedentAs estate. :hile Section ; of Rule ?1 provides that there shall be an accountin$ of the real propert.As inco"e *rentals and profits+ in the course of an action for partition, !( there is no provision for the accountin$ of e3penses for hich propert. belon$in$ to the decedentAs estate "a. be ans erable, such as funeral e3penses, inheritance ta3es and si"ilar e3penses enu"erated under Section !, Rule 1> of the Rules of Court. In a situation here there re"ains an issue as to the e3penses char$eable to the estate, partition is inappropriate. :hile petitioner points out that the estate is alle$edl. ithout an. debt and she and respondents are 2eandro #i$uracionAs onl. le$al heirs, she does not dispute the findin$ of the C) that =certain e3penses= includin$ those related to her fatherAs final illness and burial have not been properl. settled.!0 ,hus, the heirs *petitioner and respondents+ have to sub"it their fatherAs estate to settle"ent because the deter"ination of these e3penses cannot be done in an action for partition. In estate settle"ent proceedin$s, there is a proper procedure for the accountin$ of all e3penses for hich the estate "ust ans er. If it is an. consolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties "a. taDe possession thereof even before the settle"ent of accounts, as lon$ as the. first file a bond conditioned on the pa."ent of the estateAs obli$ations. !8 +#EREFORE, the petition is hereb. !ENIE!. ,he Court of )ppealsA decision and resolution in C)% &.R. CV No. 8;'1> are AFFIRME! in so far as the issue of the partition of 2ots ''11 and <>8 is concerned. /ut ith respect to 2ot <><, e "aDe no rulin$ on the validit. of Carolina vda. de #i$uracionAs affidavit of self%adBudication and deed of sale in favor of #elipa and 5ilaria #i$uracion in vie of the fact that Carolina vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla *&.R. No. !8!((0+ is still pendin$ in this Division. Costs a$ainst petitioner. SO OR!ERE!.

RENATO C. CORONA )ssociate @ustice :E CONC-R4 RE(NATO S. PUNO )ssociate @ustice Chairperson ANGELINA SAN!O AL-GUTIERRE), A!OLFO S. A)CUNA )ssociate @ustice )ssociate @ustice CANCIO C. GARCIA )ssociate @ustice ),,ES,),ION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case as assi$ned to the riter of the opinion of the CourtAs Division. RE(NATO S. PUNO )ssociate @ustice Chairperson, Second Division CER,I#IC),ION Pursuant to Section !(, )rticle VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonAs )ttestation, I certif. that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case as assi$ned to the riter of the opinion of the CourtAs Division. ARTEMIO . PANGANI,AN Chief @ustice

Foot&ot-s G Deceased.
!

-nder Rule 08.

Dated Dece"ber !!, '>>! and penned b. )ssociate @ustice Martin S. Villara"a, @r. and concurred in b. )ssociate @ustices Conchita Carpio%Morales *no )ssociate @ustice of the Supre"e Court+ and Ser$io 2. PestaHo *retired+ of the Ninth Division of the Court of )ppealsC rollo, pp. ;'%;;.
'

Dated @une !0, '>>' *affir"in$ the Dece"ber !!, '>>! C) Decision+ and penned b. )ssociate @ustice Martin S. Villara"a, @r. and concurred in b. )ssociate @ustices Conchita
(

Carpio%Morales *no )ssociate @ustice of the Supre"e Court+ and Mario 2. &uariHa III of the Ninth Division of the Court of )ppealsC rollo, p. !>!.
0

Rollo, pp. ;'%;0, e3cept

here other ise noted.

Mariano #i$uracion and Petra de la Cru7. Rollo, p. 0;. Id., pp. '<%(?. Presided b. @ud$e Ilu"inado C. Menese. Currentl. pendin$ ith the Second Division.

<

Ocampo v. Ocampo, &.R. No. !8><><, !0 )pril '>>0, 0'< SCR) 80(C Heirs of Velas ue! v. CA, (;' Phil. 0(; *'>>>+C Viloria v. CA, (?; Phil. ;8! *!111+C Catapusan v. CA, ((' Phil. 8;? *!11?+C Fa"rica v. CA, '(> Phil. ((0 *!1;?+.
!>

:here the parties prepare a proBect of partition and sub"it the sa"e for the courtAs confir"ation.
!!

In such a case, the court appoints co""issioners partition.

!' !(

ho shall prepare and sub"it a report of

SEC. ;. Accounting for rent and profits in action for partition. EIn an action for partition, in accordance ith this Rule, a part. shall recover fro" another his Bust share of rents and profits received b. such other part. fro" the real estate in 9uestion, and the Bud$"ent shall include an allo ance for such rents and profits.
!0

Rollo, p. ;<.

SEC. !. 333 No distribution shall be allo ed until the pa."ent of the obli$ations above% "entioned has been "ade or provided for, unless the distributees, or an. of the", $ive a bond, in a su" to be fi3ed b. the court, conditioned for the pa."ent of said obli$ations ithin such ti"e as the court directs.
!8