Pauline and Regine had a dispute over a 500-square meter parcel of land that they inherited from their deceased parents, Milcah and James. During the barangay conciliation proceedings, both Pauline and Regine agreed to partition the lot in equal shares. As a result, the title to the property was cancelled and new titles were issued in favor of Pauline and Regine as to their respective lots. However, Regine discovered that the lot covered by her title was on the eastern portion rather than the northern portion, contrary to their agreement. Hence, Regine filed a “Petition for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and Barangay Partition, with Prayer for Judicial Partition of the Intestate Estate of the Spouses Milcah and James” against Pauline.

After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Regine. Pauline then consulted a newly-minted lawyer, Atty. Terry, who explained to her that there was a misjoinder of causes of action when Regine included both annulment of TCT and the barangay partition, as well as judicial partition in the petition. Hence, the trial court erred when it ruled on both causes of action instead of dismissing the petition of Regine. Is Atty. Terry correct? Explain. (2023 BAR)