G.R. No. 182435 Ada v BaylonFacts:On July 3, 1996, the petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint4for partition, accounting and damages against Florante, Rita and Panfila. They alleged therein that Spouses Baylon, during their lifetime, owned 43 parcels of land5all situated in Negros Oriental. After the death of Spouses Baylon, they claimed that Rita took possession of the said parcels of land and appropriated for herself the income from the same. Using the income produced by the said parcels of land, Rita allegedly purchased two parcels of land, Lot No. 47096and half of Lot No. 4706,7situated in Canda-uay, Dumaguete City. The petitioners averred that Rita refused to effect a partition of the said parcels of land.In their Answer,8Florante, Rita and Panfila asserted that they and the petitioners co-owned 229out of the43 parcels of land mentioned in the latter’s complaint, whereas Rita actually owned 10 parcels of land10out of the 43 parcels which the petitioners sought to partition, while the remaining 11 parcels of land are separately owned by Petra Cafino Adanza,11Florante,12Meliton Adalia,13Consorcia Adanza,14Lilia15and Santiago Mendez.16Further, they claimed that Lot No. 4709 and half of Lot No. 4706 were acquired by Rita using her own money. They denied that Rita appropriated solely for herself the income of the estate of Spouses Baylon, and expressed no objection to the partition of the estate of Spouses Baylon, but only with respect to the co-owned parcels of land.During the pendency of the case, Rita, through a Deed of Donation dated July 6, 1997, conveyed Lot No. 4709 and half of Lot No. 4706 to Florante. On July 16, 2000, Rita died intestate and without any issue. Thereafter, learning of the said donation inter vivos in favor of Florante, the petitioners filed a Supplemental Pleading17dated February 6, 2002, praying that the said donation in favor of the respondent be rescinded in accordance with Article 1381(4) of the Civil Code. They further alleged that Rita was already sick and very weak when the said Deed of Donation was supposedly executed and, thus,could not have validly given her consent thereto.Florante and Panfila opposed the rescission of the said donation, asserting that Article 1381(4) of the Civil Code applies only when there is already a prior judicial decree on who between the contending parties actually owned the properties under litigation.18Issue:The lone issue to be resolved by this Court is whether the CA erred in ruling that the donation inter vivosof Lot No. 4709 and half of Lot No. 4706 in favor of Florante may only be rescinded if there is already a judicial determination that the same actually belonged to the estate of Spouses Baylon.Held:The actions of partition andrescission cannot be joined in asingle action.
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of which could be made the basis