Miciano v. Watiwat
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominga Miciano was the legal wife of Jorge Watiwat. Upon Jorge's death, his heirs were his widow Dominga, his brother Emiliano, and his sisters Veronica and Faustina Watiwat. The collateral relatives filed an action for the liquidation and distribution of conjugal properties. The court declared some properties as conjugal and others as exclusive to the widow, ordering the parties to submit a project of partition within 30 days, failing which commissioners would be appointed. Procedural History: Due to the war, no action was taken until 1946 when commissioners were appointed. Their report, submitted in 1949, was approved by the court, adjudicating half the land to the plaintiffs and the other half to the widow, with the residential house adjudicated to the widow on condition she pay P700. A writ of execution was issued in December 1949, placing the properties in the possession of the plaintiffs. The Petition: Dominga Miciano filed the present action to recover possession of the properties, alleging that the proceedings in the partition case were null and void because the decision dated May 17, 1941, had become final and could no longer be executed after 5 years without a new action, citing Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision rendered on May 17, 1941, in Civil Case No. 716 had become final and executory such that the writ of execution issued on December 6, 1949, was null and void. Whether the proceedings had in Civil Case No. 716 for the implementation of the decision were legal and valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the proceedings had in Civil Case No. 716 were legal and valid, and thus dismissed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality and executory nature of the May 17, 1941 decision: The Court held that the judgment rendered on May 17, 1941, in Civil Case No. 716 had not acquired such finality as to make it executory. The decision itself provided for subsequent steps: either the parties would submit a project of partition within 30 days, or the court would appoint commissioners to make the partition. These provisions indicated that the judgment was not final and immediately enforceable. The period for execution under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows execution by motion within five years from entry, only begins to run when a judgment becomes final. In cases of partition, the judgment becomes final and executory only upon the approval of the commissioners' report by the court. Therefore, the five-year period for execution by motion had not yet expired when the commissioners' report was approved on August 27, 1949. The Court cited Carrascoso, Jr. vs. Fuentebella, Ignacio vs. Hilario, and Ron et al. vs. Mojica to support the principle that judgments leaving matters to be settled in subsequent proceedings are not considered final until those matters are resolved. On the legality and validity of the proceedings: Based on the determination that the May 17, 1941 decision was not yet final and executory, the subsequent proceedings, including the appointment of commissioners, the submission and approval of their report on August 27, 1949, and the issuance of the writ of execution on December 6, 1949, were deemed legal and valid. The judgment only became final when the court approved the report of the commissioners, which was on August 27, 1949. Consequently, the execution of the judgment was within the allowable period. The action filed by Dominga Miciano to recover possession was therefore correctly dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A judgment becomes final and executory only upon the approval of the commissioners' report in partition cases, not upon the initial decision ordering the partition.