Zaldarriaga v. Enriquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action filed by Basilia F. Vda. de Zaldarriaga in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The suit sought the partition of four specific parcels of land, an accounting related to sugar quotas assigned to these properties, and the annulment of an ex-parte partition previously made by other parties. The court ultimately declared the ex-parte partition null and void, canceled certain sugar quotas, declared a sale of a portion of the land and its sugar quota null and void, and ordered an accounting and payment of rentals and profits. The court also adjudicated the partition of the land and its sugar quota among the parties and appointed commissioners to delineate and separate the respective shares. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision on April 16, 1957, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied on July 24, 1957. Defendant Pedro Zaldarriaga died on May 29, 1957, and petitioner Consuelo Tan Vda. de Zaldarriaga was appointed Special Administratrix ad litem on August 7, 1957. She filed a motion for substitution, which was approved on October 5, 1957. Meanwhile, other defendants filed their notice of appeal and record on appeal, which were approved on October 9, 1957. Petitioner, within an extension granted to perfect her appeal, filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal. However, due to an opposition, the lower court ordered her to file a separate record on appeal within 20 days. She filed this separate record on appeal, but respondent Basilia F. Vda. de Zaldarriaga moved to dismiss the appeal of Pedro Zaldarriaga's estate, arguing it was not perfected within the reglementary period or extensions. The lower court granted this motion, declaring the decision final as to the estate, and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent court to give due course to her appeal on behalf of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Pedro Zaldarriaga. She contends that the respondent court erred in not allowing her to adopt the appeal bond and record on appeal filed by the other defendants and in sustaining the motion to dismiss. She argues that the appeal filed by the co-defendants was sufficient and that she filed her separate record on appeal within the extended period granted by the court. However, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging potential errors by the lower court, denied the petition, ruling that the decision being appealed was interlocutory, not final, as it left further proceedings to be conducted by commissioners for the complete disposition of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal and refusing to allow her to adopt the co-defendants' record on appeal. Whether an order directing partition and appointing commissioners is a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.
Ruling
The petition is denied, but with instructions to the respondent court to proceed in Civil Case No. 2705 in accordance with the decision and the procedure provided in Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the respondent court indeed erred procedurally. The petitioner had filed her separate record on appeal within the 20-day extension granted by the lower court itself. Furthermore, the court should have allowed the petitioner to adopt the appeal bond and record on appeal filed by the other defendants, as these were sufficient for the purposes of the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time was factually incorrect based on the court's own extensions. On Issue 2: Despite the lower court's procedural error, the Supreme Court held that Mandamus cannot be issued because the decision the petitioner sought to appeal was interlocutory, not final. Relying on Fuentebella v. Carrascoso, the Court ruled that an order directing partition is interlocutory because it leaves something more to be done—specifically, the appointment of commissioners, the filing of their report, and a hearing on said report. The Court explicitly reversed the earlier doctrine in Africa v. Africa, which had suggested that partition orders involving claims of exclusive ownership were final. Under Rule 71, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, a final judgment is only rendered after the hearing on the commissioners' report, and it is only then that the aggrieved party may appeal.
Main Doctrine
A decision or order directing partition is not final but interlocutory because it leaves something more to be done in the trial court for the complete disposition of the case, such as the appointment of commissioners, the proceedings before them, and the submission of their report, which requires a hearing before a final judgment can be rendered.