Rodriguez vs. Ravilan Facts: Jorgia Barte and Donato Mendoza, in representation representation of their their son, Nicolas Mendoza, led a written amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against a gainst uisa !a"ilan, the guardian of their daughters Ma#imina, $aulina, $elagia, and Ma#ima, all surnamed Barte% &he complaint recites, recites, among other things, that man' 'ears 'ears ago Ja"ier Barte and (ulalia )eno died in the pueblo of Mandaue, lea"ing propert' and, as heirs, (spiridion, Feliciana, &elesfora, &elesfora, Juana, Carmelo, Casimira, Jorgia, Matea, and $edro, $edro, surnamed surnamed Barte, and that, although "e of them di"ided among themsel"es the said propert', consisting of lands situated in the said pueblo and se"eral carabaos, the legal portions which pertained to four of them, (piridion, Jorgia, Matea, and $edro, remained undi"ided, and these latter continued to possess, in common, the propert' that fell to their shares, and were also associated in business separatel' from their other coheirs% &he said propert', as aforesaid, aforesaid, was administered administered b' (spiridion Barte, in common accord with the others, and, he ha"ing died without lea"ing heirs, b' force of law the part that pertained to him passed to his brother $edro $edro and his sisters Jorgia and Matea, as the heirs nearest of *in of the said (spiridion, and, b' common agreement, the said brother and sisters continued their partnership organization and appointed the brother $edro $edro as administrator+ that during the latters administration, Matea Barte also died, lea"ing as her heir Nicolas Mendoza, represented represented b' his father Donato, one of the plainti-s+ that at the death of $edro Barte, Jorgia Barte and Donato Mendoza, in the name of their son Nicolas decided upon the distribution of the propert' mentioned and so stated, in Februar', Februar', ./01, to uisa !a"ilan, the guardian of the heirs of $edro $edro Barte, but that !a"ilan would not agree to the partition, on the prete#t that, as the administrati# of that propert', she had to pa' debts of the deceased% &hat three 'ears 'ears ha"ing elapsed, up to the time of the complaint, complaint, and the debts ha"ing been settled, as admitted b' the defendant herself, the latter was re2uested to present the accounts, which she absolutel' refused to do, and that she continued in the possession and to en3o' the usufruct of the said propert', without the consent or inter"ention of the plainti-s+ that Jorgia Barte, Nicolas Mendoza, the heir of Matea Barte, and the heirs of $edro $edro Barte, named Ma#imina, $aulina, $elagia, $elagia, and Ma#ima Barte, were then entitled to the propert' in 2uestion, which should be di"ided among them in three e2ual parts, one to be allotted to Jorgia Barte, another to Nicolas Mendoza, and the other to the heirs of $edro Barte%
Issue: 4hether or not partition should be granted% Ruling: No% )ection .5. of the Code of Ci"il $rocedure reads6 78 person ha"ing or holding real estate with others, in an' form of 3oint tenanc' or tenanc' in common, ma' compel partition thereof in the manner hereinafter prescribed%7 )ection .59 of the same code also prescribes6 7&he complaint in an action for partition shall set forth the nature and e#tent of the plainti-s title and contain an ade2uate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded, and name each tenant in common, coparcener, or other person interested therein, as defendants%7 )o that he who demands or claims a partition of the propert' must ha"e the status of a coproprietor or coowner of the propert' the partition of which is as*ed for+ and notwithstanding the fact that Jorgia Barte and the son of Matea Barte, through his representati"e, a"er that the' are the coowners of the said Mandaue lands of others situated in the municipalities of Bogo and &abogon, the' ha"e not pro"ed their a"erment b' titles which establish the common ownership alleged% 8 mere a:rmation without proofs is insu:cient, since the defendant part', representing the four daughters of the deceased $edro Barte, absolutel' denied all the allegations of the complaint% In actions for the partition of propert' held in common it is assumed that the parties are all coowners or coproprietors of the undi"ided propert' to be partitioned% &he 2uestion of common ownership need not be gone into at the time of the trial, but onl' how, in what manner, and in what proportion the said propert' of common ownership shall be distributed among the interested parties b' order of court% Moreo"er, for the purposes of the partition demanded, it must be remembered that the hereditar' succession of the deceased (spiridion Barte, who it is said left no legitimate descendants at his death, should be di"ided among his eight brothers and sisters who ma' ha"e sur"i"ed him, and in case an' of these ha"e died, the children of his deceased brother or sister, that is, his nephews and nieces per stirpes, are entitled to share in his inheritance, according to the pro"isions of articles /;<, /;=, and /;5 of the Ci"il Code, the last cited of which prescribes6 7)hould brothers sur"i"e with nephews, children of brothers of the whole blood, the former shall inherit per capita and the latter per stirpes,7 representing their respecti"e fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters of the deceased%
&he record does not show whether Jorgia Barte left an' legitimate heir at her death, and if she did not, her collateral relati"es succeed her in the manner pro"ided b' law% It is to be noted that the partnership contract entered into b' the four brothers and sisters can not a-ect the hereditar' rights which belong to the relati"es of the deceased predecessor in interest successions% For the foregoing reasons, it is proper, in our opinion, with a re"ersal of the 3udgment appealed from, to declare and we do hereb' declare, that the partition pra'ed for be denied
