Rule 69: Partition

In an action for partition, all other persons interested in the property shall be joined as defendants. Not only the co-heirs but also all persons claiming interests or rights in the property subject of partition are indispensable parties. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to implead all indispensable parties, that is, not only X and Y but also respondents in their capacity as vendees and donees of the subject fishponds. Without their presence in the suit the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality against them. Being strangers to the first case, they are not bound by the decision rendered therein; otherwise, they would be deprived of their constitutional right to due process.

In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.

Partition is the proper remedy for compulsory or legal heirs to get their legitime or share of the inheritance from the decedent. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. Being a compulsory heir of Don Fabian, Tirso has the right to compel partition of the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don Fabian as a measure to get his hereditary share. His right as an heir to a share of the inheritance covers all the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don Fabian at the moment of his death. Before partition and eventual distribution of Don Fabian’s intestate estate, a regime of co-ownership among the compulsory heirs existed over the undivided estate of Don Fabian. Being a co-owner of that intestate estate, Tirso’s right over a share thereof is imprescriptible. Contrary to petitioners’ stance, reconveyance is not the proper remedy available to Tirso. Tirso is not asserting total ownership rights over the subject properties, but only insofar as his legitime from the intestate estate of his father, Don Fabian, is concerned.
An action for partition implies that the property is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived their shares in favor of respondent, the properties are no longer under a state of co-ownership; there is nothing more to be partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one person.

Read more about partition:

[1] Abalos vs. Bucal, G.R. No. 156224, February 19, 2008
[2] Monteroso vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105608, April 30, 2008
[3] Mangahas vs. Brobio, G.R. No. 183852, October 20, 2010