Cristina Reillo vs Galicano San Jose

FACTS:
Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo are husband and wife. Both died intestate in 1970
and 1976 respectively. They have five children, to wit: Virginia, Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria, and
Catalina.
In 1998, Virginia with the help of her husband (Zosimo Fernando, Sr.) and her children (Cristina
Reillo et al) executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate where they made it appear that
Virginia was the only heir of the spouses Quiterio and Antonina. They adjudicated among
themselves the estate and then later sold it to Ma. Teresa Pion.
Later, the other siblings found out about what Virginia did and so in October 1999, they filed a
complaint in RTC-Rizal for the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial settlement as well as the
subsequent deed of sale.
In their answer, Reillo et al (children of the now deceased Virginia) admitted that their
grandparents (Quiterio and Antonina) indeed had five children and that their mom isnt the only
heir. However, they alleged that what their mom adjudicated to herself is her inheritance; that
other than the parcel of land their mom adjudicated to herself, their grandparents have 12 other
parcels of land which are under the possession of Galicano et al; that as such, they are filing a
compulsory counterclaim for the partition of the other 12 parcels of land.
Galicano et al then filed a motion for the court to render judgment on the pleadings. The trial court
granted the motion. The RTC ruled that the admission of Reillo et al that there are 4 other heirs
is proof that the extrajudicial settlement is void because the other heirs were excluded. The RTC
also ruled that Reillo et als counterclaim is not compulsory but rather it is a permissive
counterclaim. As such, Reillo et al should have paid docket fees therefor but they failed to do so
hence their counterclaim is dismissed. The RTC then ordered the heirs to partition the estate
according to the laws of intestate succession. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Reillo et al appealed the decision of the CA on the ground that the judgment on the pleading is
void; that it is the RTCs fault why they failed to pay the docket fees for its failure to direct them;
and that the order for partition is void because it does not come with an order of publication
pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the order for partition issued by the trial court is void because there was no
corresponding order for publication pursuant to the provisions of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.

HELD:
No. The applicable rule is Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. Since the extrajudicial settlement is void,
the property is reverted back to its previous state which is: that it is part of the estate of Quiterio
and Antonina. As such, the estate is deemed undivided among the heirs. And every action to end
an in division among heirs is deemed an action for partition. Therefore Rule 69 applies and under
this rule, there is no need to publish the partition in a newspaper of general circulation.
Anent the issue of the judgment on the pleadings, the same is valid because Reillo et al failed to
raise an issue when they already admitted that there are other heirs which were excluded in the
deed of extrajudicial settlement. Their allegation that the parcel of land adjudicated by their mother
is her inheritance is not tenable because the same was not indicated in the deed of extrajudicial
settlement. In fact, what was stated was that she was the sole heir.
Anent the issue of the counterclaim, Reillo et als counterclaim is permissive in nature and not a
compulsory one because their claim is not necessarily connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. Their counterclaim
consists of a claim that there are 12 other parcels of land owned by Quiterio and Antonina. Such
allegation is already entirely different from the action brought by Galicano et al., hence it is
permissive and it can even be brought in a separate proceeding. As a permissive pleading, it
requires the payment of docket fees and the RTC cannot be faulted for not directing Reillo et al
to do so. The payment is incumbent upon Reillo et al and the obligation cannot be shifted to the
RTC.

MARISSA ADOVAS-AGDEPPA