#109 Vda. de Daffon Vs CA

#109 Vda.
De Daffon vs CA
Parties
Petitioner – Concepcion V. Vda. De Daffon

Respondents – CA, Lourdes Osmena Vda. De Daffon, Aileen Daffon, Joselito Daffon, Jr., Ana Vanessa
Daffon, Leila Daffon and Suzette Daffon
Facts
1. Petitioner Concepcion V. Vda. De Daffon (Concepcion) was married to the late Amado Daffon
(Amado), with whom she begot one son, Joselito Daffon. Joselito married Lourdes Osmeña (Lourdes),
and they bore six children namely, Aileen, Joselito Jr., Ana Vanesa, Leila, Julius and Suzette.
2. Amado passed away in 1982. His son, Joselito died in 1990.
3. Respondent Lourdes, together with her six minor children, instituted an action for partition against
petitioner over the properties left by Amado which formed part of his conjugal partnership with
petitioner Concepcion of the RTC of Danao City.
4. Respondents alleged that Amado left several real and personal properties which formed part of his
conjugal partnership with petitioner. Joselito being a forced heir of Amado, was entitled to at least one
half of Amado's estate, consisting of his share in the said conjugal properties. However, the said
properties were never partitioned between petitioner and Joselito.
5. After Joselito's death, petitioner's behavior towards respondents, her daughter-in-law and
grandchildren, changed. She claimed absolute ownership over all the properties and deprived them of
the fruits thereof.
6. Respondents prayed that the conjugal properties of Amado and petitioner be partitioned and that
the one-half share of Amado be further partitioned between petitioner, on one hand, and the
respondents as heirs of Joselito, on the other hand.
7. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of:

(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case - trial court cannot take cognizance of
the action for partition considering her claim of absolute ownership over the properties
(b) failure of the complaint to state a cause of action - respondents themselves admitted that
petitioner has repudiated the co-ownership
(c) waiver, abandonment and extinguishment of the obligation - Joselito filed a complaint
against Milagros Marin, who was likewise married to Amado, for recovery of a parcel of land in
Mandaluyong. In said complaint, respondent Lourdes allegedly admitted that the land sought
was the only property of the deceased Amado.
1
RTC
The RTC of Danao City denied the motion to dismiss of Petitioner Concepcion. Concepcion filed a
motion for reconsideration which was also denied.
CA
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA dismissed the petition.
Issues (Kindly focus on the first 2 issues for purposes of recitation)
1. W/N private respondents should be acknowledged as heirs of deceased Amado.

2. W/N private respondents have a claim on the properties in the action for partition.
3. W/N RTC is not required to take judicial notice of another case pending in another court.
4. W/N the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause
of action is reviewable by the special civil action of certiorari.
Ruling
There is no merit on the petition.
1. Yes. The complaint sufficiently alleged that Concepcion was married to decedent Amado and that
they begot an only son in Joselito. The complaint further alleged that Joselito got married to respondent
Lourdes and had six children. This was sufficient allegation that Joselito was a legitimate son of Amado
and Concepcion and that respondents are legitimate heirs of Joselito. There was no need to inquire
whether respondent minor children were duly acknowledged by the deceased Joselito.
2. Yes. There is no need for the complaint to specifically allege respondents' claim of co-ownership of
the properties. The complaint needs only to allege the ultimate facts or the essential facts on which the
plaintiffs rely for their claim. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement
of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three
indispensable elements, namely:
(a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
(b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(c) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages.
The allegations contained therein are sufficient to establish the respondents’ rights to the estate of
Amado. By stating their relationship to the deceased, they established their line of succession which
were transmitted from the moment of the death of Amado.
3. No. Petitioner insists that in her testimony given in Civil Case No. 56336, respondent Lourdes
admitted that the land in Mandaluyong was the only property left by the deceased Amado to the
respondents. The SC did not agree. This does not exclude the possibility that Amado owned other land
and personal belongings during his lifetime, which he may not have left to his son. This does not deprive
2
Joselito or his successors-in-interest of the right to share in those other properties. As a matter of fact,
respondents' complaint contains a long list of properties allegedly owned by Amado. The resolution of
whether or not these belonged to Amado and formed part of his estate is a matter best taken up during
trial and after an evaluation of the evidence to be presented by the contending parties.
4. No. For certiorari to lie, it must be convincingly proved that the lower court committed grave abuse
of discretion, or an act too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law; or that the trial court exercised its
power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility. The RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court of Appeals
was correct in dismissing the petition.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is denied. The decision of the CA is affirmed.

#109 Vda. de Daffon Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#109 Vda. de Daffon Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#109 Vda. de Daffon Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#109 Vda.

Petitioner – Concepcion V. Vda. De Daffon

2. Amado passed away in 1982. His son, Joselito died in 1990.

7. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of:

Issues (Kindly focus on the first 2 issues for purposes of recitation)

1. W/N private respondents should be acknowledged as heirs of deceased Amado.

There is no merit on the petition.

You might also like