Daracan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the inheritance of properties left by the late Tomas Daracan. The plaintiffs, claiming to be descendants of Reginaldo Daracan (a son of Tomas), sought partition of the estate and an accounting of its produce. The defendants, who are descendants of Liborio Daracan (another son of Tomas), asserted ownership over the properties, particularly a homestead and a residential lot, through an extra-judicial partition and subsequent sale to Victorio Daracan. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the lower court where the plaintiffs filed an action for partition and accounting. The trial court ordered the partition of specific properties and awarded one-half to the plaintiffs, also directing Victorio Daracan to execute a reconveyance and ordering the cancellation of an extra-judicial partition deed. The defendants appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's judgment, affirming the plaintiffs' inheritance rights but also ordering the defendants to pay P2,050.00 annually as their share in the produce of a specific parcel from 1951 onwards. The plaintiffs, who had not appealed the trial court's decision regarding accounting, were found by the Court of Appeals to be entitled to this accounting, despite not having appealed themselves. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to review the Court of Appeals' judgment. The petitioners argue that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion by awarding P2,850.00 (corrected to P2,050.00) which was not awarded by the trial court, as the respondents had not appealed the trial court's judgment on this matter, rendering that portion final. Additionally, the petitioners question whether the respondents' surname is conclusive proof of their descent from Reginaldo Daracan.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in awarding P2,050.00 for fruits, which was not awarded by the trial court, when the respondents did not appeal. Whether the surname Daracan is conclusive proof of descent from Reginaldo Daracan. Whether parcel No. 2 was part of the estate of Tomas Daracan. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting of the fruits of parcel No. 1.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It struck from the judgment the order for the petitioners to pay P2,050.00 as their share in the produce of parcel No. 1, per year, starting from 1951 until partition and delivery of possession. The Court affirmed the findings regarding heirship and the partition of parcels 1 and 3. The Court also affirmed the trial court's finding that there was no conclusive evidence that parcel No. 2 was part of Tomas Daracan's estate and that Victorio Daracan possessed it as owner since 1921. However, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs that an accounting of the fruits of parcel No. 1 was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the award of P2,050.00 for fruits and the finality of judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioners to pay P2,050.00 as their share in the produce of parcel No. 1. This was because the respondents, who were the plaintiffs and appellees in the Court of Appeals, did not appeal from the trial court's judgment which did not grant their prayer for an accounting of the products of the land. Consequently, that part of the judgment became final with respect to the respondents. The Court reiterated the principle that a party who has not appealed cannot seek affirmative relief in the appellate court. The cited case of Relativo vs. Castro et al. and Lucero vs. De Guzman were discussed, emphasizing that while an appellee may point out errors against himself, he cannot seek affirmative relief without filing an appeal. Therefore, the award of P2,050.00 was stricken from the judgment. On the issue of heirship and descent from Reginaldo Daracan: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that the plaintiffs-appellees were the legitimate children of Domingo Daracan, who was the only child of the spouses Reginaldo Daracan and Maria Malabug. The Court found sufficient evidence, including baptismal certificates and witness testimonies, to establish this lineage. The Court noted that the defendants' evidence attempting to disprove the marriage of Reginaldo Daracan and Maria Malabug, and the legitimacy of Domingo Daracan, was not as convincing. Therefore, the plaintiffs were declared entitled to inherit one-half of the estate of Tomas Daracan. On the partition of properties: The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to partition parcels 1 and 3, awarding one-half to the plaintiffs and one-half to the defendants. Parcel 1 refers to the homestead covered by T.C.T. No. 3168, and parcel 3 refers to the residential lot. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no conclusive evidence that parcel No. 2 was part of Tomas Daracan's estate. The Court noted that Victorio Daracan had been in possession of parcel No. 2 since 1921, cultivating it and declaring it for taxation purposes, indicating possession in the concept of owner. On the accounting of fruits for parcel No. 1: The Supreme Court agreed with the counsel for the appellees that the trial court erred in not ordering the appellants to render an accounting of the products of parcel No. 1. Since parcel No. 1 was found to be common property of the plaintiffs and defendants, it followed that they were entitled to the products of their corresponding shares. Therefore, the defendants were ordered to account to the plaintiffs for the products of parcel No. 1, but the specific monetary award made by the Court of Appeals was vacated due to the lack of appeal by the plaintiffs on this matter.
Main Doctrine
A party who has not appealed from the judgment of the trial court, and from which the other party has appealed, cannot seek affirmative relief in the appellate court, as that portion of the judgment has become final with respect to the non-appealing party. Furthermore, an award of damages or fruits not granted by the trial court cannot be granted by the appellate court if the party seeking such award did not appeal.