Baliong v. Martinez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Rodolfo Pajo drafted and ratified an "EXTRA-JUDICIAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION" between spouses Felix Cuyos and Andresa Cuyos. The spouses agreed to divide their conjugal partnership properties extra-judicially, waived their rights to file criminal cases or damages against each other, and ceded 70% of their conjugal properties to Victor Baliong for his mediation services. Baliong took possession of his share. Subsequently, Felix Cuyos and his sons harvested coconuts from land claimed by Baliong, leading Baliong to file a complaint for qualified theft. The fiscal recommended dismissal, deeming the extra-judicial partition null and void. Procedural History: Felix Cuyos filed a complaint for damages against Victor Baliong. The Court of First Instance of Davao, presided by respondent Judge Antonio M. Martinez, declared the "EXTRA-JUDICIAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION" void and illegal and ordered Victor Baliong to pay Felix Cuyos P12,295.00 as damages. Victor Baliong filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Before the record on appeal could be acted upon, Felix Cuyos filed a motion for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal. The respondent Judge issued an order for execution pending appeal, and a writ of execution was issued. The Petition: Victor Baliong filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the order of execution pending appeal and to restrain the respondent Judge from enforcing it. He claimed the order was issued without justifying circumstances and that the respondent Judge abused his discretion. A temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge abused his discretion in issuing the order for execution pending appeal. Whether the reasons stated for execution pending appeal were sufficient.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The temporary restraining order is lifted and set aside. The order of execution pending appeal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of discretion in issuing the order for execution pending appeal: The Court reiterated that Section 2, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court grants the court discretion to order execution pending appeal upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. Appellate courts may not interfere with this discretion unless there is an abuse or excess of authority. While the rule requires good reasons to be stated in the special order, it has been held that stating the reasons by reference to a motion for execution is sufficient. In this case, the order of March 31, 1975, referred to three special reasons for immediate execution: (1) that the defendant has no valid and legal defense; (2) that the appeal is manifestly intended to delay the execution; and (3) that the defendant is claiming ownership of his share by virtue of the void extra-judicial partition agreement and asserting said right to the great damage and prejudice of the plaintiff. On the sufficiency of the reasons for execution pending appeal: The Court noted that whether the petitioner has a valid defense or that his appeal is intended to delay the execution are controversial issues based on findings of fact that should be left to the appellate court. However, the Court found that the fact that the petitioner is in possession of a bigger portion of the conjugal partnership property by virtue of the void and inexistent contract of partition, and is seriously asserting ownership over said portion to the detriment of its lawful owners, is sufficient reason to grant execution pending appeal. This is to restore the possession of the property to its rightful owners, thereby mitigating the damage and prejudice being suffered by the plaintiff.
Main Doctrine
The fact that a party is in possession of a bigger portion of conjugal partnership property by virtue of a void and inexistent contract of partition, and is seriously asserting ownership over said portion to the detriment of its lawful owners, is sufficient reason to grant execution pending appeal, if only to restore the possession thereof to its rightful owners.