[ G.R. No. 6311. October 24, 1911 ] 21 Phil. 619
[ G.R. No. 6311. October 24, 1911 ]
IRENE GREGORIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ELENA COSIO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
On the 6th of November, 1906, the plaintiff and appellant commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Laguna against the defendants for the purpose of securing the partition of two parcels of land described in the first paragraph of the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff as well as the defendants were heirs of Celedonio Cosio.
Upon the 10th of December, 1906, the attorney for the defendants presented a motion in which it was stated that there were some other heirs of Celedonio Cosio who were not made parties to the action, and prayed that the said other persons should be made parties to the present action; which motion, upon due consideration, was granted. Some of the additional parties answered, alleging that they had no interest whatever in the partition of the lands in question. Other defendants answered, alleging that all of the property of Celedonio Cosio had been divided among his heirs soon after his death, which occurred in 1866.
On the 25th of November, 1908, the plaintiff presented an amended complaint including Ruperto Salva, Juana Salva, Silvestre Gregorio and Constancia Calacas, as plaintiffs, and Antonio Cosio and Jesus Cosio, as additional defendants, alleging that they were all heirs of the said Celedonio Cosio, and asked for a partition of six parcels of land which were particularly described in paragraph one of the said amended complaint.
Upon the 19th of January, 1909, Mr. Crispin Oben, attorney for the nine defendants, filed an amended answer, in which he alleged that all of the lands in question had been divided among the heirs of Celedonio Cosio, deceased, at the time of his death, and prayed that the defendants be absolved from any liability under the complaint presented in said cause.
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Hon. Vicente Jocson, judge, found that the lands in question had been divided in accordance with the contention of the defendants and absolved them from any liability under the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.
From that judgment the plaintiff appealed and made two assignments of error in this court.
The plaintiff and appellant in his brief in this court admitted that at the time of the death of the said Celedonio Cosio in 1866, or soon thereafter, his property had been divided among his heirs. (See brief of appellant, pp. 3 and 5). There was an attempt made to show that some of the heirs of Celedonio Cosio, or at least one of the said heirs, at the time said partition of the property in question was made, was a minor and that, therefore, said partition was illegal. Even granting that one of the heirs was a minor at the time said partition took place, that minor is the only person who can avail himself of the right to have said partition declared illegal. It is not alleged that the ancestors of the present plaintiff were minors at the time said partition was made.
There was also an attempt made during the trial of the cause to show that some of the persons who shared in the partition of the property of Celedonio Cosio in 1866 were natural children and had never been legitimized. That contention may or may not be true. It is true, however, that all of the persons who shared in the partition of the estate, were treated as brothers and sisters, children of the said Celedonio Cosio. It is also shown that the heirs at the time of the partition of the said estate in 1866, took possession of their respective shares and that they and their descendants have been in possession thereof ever since. This action was commenced in 1906. It seems to us that after the expiration of forty years it is pretty late for common heirs to ask for the partition of an estate, which they themselves admit was divided among the heirs, upon the ground that at the time the partition took place some of them were either minors or were illegitimate, especially when no complaint is made by such minor or his descendants. Upon a full consideration of all of the facts contained in the record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ,, concur.