Lim de Mesa v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an action for partition filed by private respondents against their elder brother, petitioner Leonardo Lim de Mesa, and their sister Leticia. The private respondents sought the division of properties left by their parents, Manuel de Mesa and Lucia Lim, which included a house and lot and a funeral parlor. They also requested an accounting of the funeral parlor's income from petitioner, who allegedly managed it, and sought to be declared owners of a significant portion of the estate, as other heirs had assigned their interests to them. Petitioner admitted the existence of the house and lot but claimed sole ownership of the funeral parlor, also alleging that other properties and businesses were in the possession of other plaintiffs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Laguna, Branch 24, initially ordered the partition of the estate, specifying the shares of each heir in the property and the proceeds from the funeral business after an accounting by Leonardo. It also ordered the execution of deeds for extra-judicial partition and reformation of instruments, and for Leonardo to render an accounting. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment with modifications, deleting the orders for deed execution and the awards for moral damages and attorney's fees. This Court denied petitioner's subsequent appeal, making the lower court's judgment, as modified, final and executory. A writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied due to petitioner's non-compliance, leading to a motion to enforce judgment, which was granted. Petitioner's subsequent motions and the trial court's orders regarding furnishing of pleadings, enforcement of judgment, writ of possession, and contempt proceedings were then challenged via a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioner is before this Court challenging the resolution of the Court of Appeals which denied due course to his petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals had dismissed his challenge to three orders of the Regional Trial Court concerning the execution of a final and executory judgment in a partition case. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in concluding that the judgment was final and executory, and in holding that the assailed orders, issued ex-parte, were valid despite the execution being a matter of right. He contends that the writ of execution was issued without prior notice and hearing, and that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a writ of possession and compelling him to sign a deed of partition without the appointment of commissioners as required by law when parties cannot agree on the actual division of the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and concluding that the judgment in the partition case became final and executory. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the assailed RTC orders were issued consequent to the execution of a final and executory judgment and whether the ex parte nature of the orders was consequential. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering Atty. Luzod, Jr. to sign the deed of partition for petitioner and in issuing a writ of possession based on an extrajudicial partition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals. The orders of the trial court dated October 14, 1992, and November 25, 1992, directing a lawyer to sign the deed of partition for petitioner and granting a writ of possession, were set aside for having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction. The Court directed the trial court to immediately appoint commissioners to effect the partition of the subject property in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality and executory nature of the judgment: The Court reiterated the jurisprudential rule that a judgment ordering partition with damages is final and appealable, even if further proceedings are required. The two stages of judicial partition and accounting were explained: the first stage determines co-ownership and propriety of partition, and the second stage involves actual partition by parties or commissioners and accounting. Orders in both stages are final and appealable. The decision in Civil Case No. B-1942, ordering partition and accounting, had become final and executory. Therefore, execution was a matter of right, and the prevailing party was entitled to it without prior notice or hearing to the judgment debtor. On the validity of the ex parte orders and the execution of a final judgment: The Court affirmed that the failure to serve a copy of the motion for execution on petitioner was not a fatal defect, as execution of a final and executory judgment is a matter of right. The prevailing party can have the judgment executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor need not be given advance notice or prior hearings on the application for execution. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the issuance of the writ of execution was a ministerial duty of the court. On the excess of jurisdiction regarding the deed of partition and writ of possession: Despite affirming the executory nature of the judgment, the Court found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering Atty. Luzod, Jr. to sign the deed of partition for petitioner and in issuing a writ of possession based on an extrajudicial partition. The Court emphasized that after a judgment declaring partition, if parties cannot agree, the court must appoint commissioners to effect the partition, as provided by Section 3 of Rule 69. The trial court cannot compel a party to sign a deed of partition prepared solely by the other party, nor can it issue a writ of possession based on such an extrajudicial partition. Actual partition by metes and bounds requires court-appointed commissioners when parties disagree.
Main Doctrine
A judgment ordering partition and accounting becomes final and executory, and the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right, without the need for prior notice or hearing to the judgment debtor. However, the actual partition of real estate, if parties cannot agree, must be effected by court-appointed commissioners.