Batugan v. Balindong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Hadji Abubakar Pandapatan Batugan died intestate, leaving properties acquired during his first marriage. The instant case involves the Coloi Farmland, a portion of which was subject to expropriation proceedings by the National Power Corporation (NPC), resulting in a judgment ordering NPC to pay Hadji Php766,580.00. Respondent Tominoray allegedly received Php600,580.00 from NPC in March 2003. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a special civil action for partition before the Shari'a District Court. The court approved the partition applying Article 123(b) of PD 1083, ordering partition among petitioner and his full siblings. Petitioner submitted a second project plan of partition, which was approved by the Shari'a Court on May 6, 2005, partitioning the Coloi Farmland, with petitioner to receive two and a half (2½) hectares or its purchase price, and one half (1/2) to their sisters. A writ of execution was issued on January 18, 2006. Petitioner filed a motion to amend the writ to include the NPC payment received by Tominoray. The Shari'a Court granted this in an October 2, 2006 Order, amending the partition to state that petitioner gets two and a half (2½) hectares or its purchase price, and directing Tominoray to deliver Php600,000.00 to petitioner. This was later amended on December 20, 2006, to reflect that Tominoray received Php450,580.00 and was directed to deliver the remaining unclaimed share of petitioner. A writ of execution was issued on March 7, 2007. Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion arguing the Shari'a Court had no jurisdiction over the Coloi Farmland as it was adjudicated to NPC and that the payment was already partitioned extra-judicially. The Shari'a Court granted this motion on June 18, 2007, recognizing the extra-judicial partition, closing the controversy, and terminating the case. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 19, 2007. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the September 26, 2007 Order denying his motion to fully implement the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution, and the November 12, 2007 Order denying his motion for reconsideration. He argued that the Shari'a Court gravely abused its discretion in setting aside earlier orders that had attained finality, and that the writ of execution remained outstanding.
Issue(s)
Whether the Shari'a Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the June 18, 2007 and July 19, 2007 Orders recognizing the extra-judicial partition of the proceeds from the Coloi Farmland, considering procedural defects. Whether the Shari'a Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the September 26, 2007 and November 12, 2007 Orders denying petitioner’s motion to fully implement and enforce the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution, and whether the action for partition remained unresolved.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Shari'a Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders and for failing to state all three material dates required for a petition for certiorari. On the merits, the Court found that the writ of execution dated March 7, 2007, had become functus officio because the subsequent Orders of June 18, 2007, and July 19, 2007, which recognized the extra-judicial partition and declared the controversy closed and terminated, had attained finality, and the petitioner failed to appeal them. The partition of the other properties remained unaffected.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding the June 18, 2007 and July 19, 2007 Orders, and procedural defects: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Shari'a Court's June 18, 2007 Order recognized the extra-judicial partition of the proceeds from the Coloi Farmland, declared the controversy closed and terminated, and set aside previous orders that had sought to enforce the NPC payment. The subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration on July 19, 2007, meant that these orders had attained finality. Petitioner's failure to appeal these final and executory orders, either through an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari, meant that they could no longer be assailed. His subsequent motion to enforce a writ of execution that was based on superseded orders was an improper attempt to revive a closed case. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Crucially, the petition must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed. In this case, the petitioner failed to attach the certified true copies of the assailed orders. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to state all three material dates required: the date of receipt of the June 18, 2007 Order, the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration, and the date of receipt of the denial thereof. These omissions are fatal to the petition for certiorari. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding the September 26, 2007 and November 12, 2007 Orders, and the contention that the action for partition remained unresolved: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Shari'a Court correctly denied the motion to fully implement and enforce the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution. This writ was issued to enforce the December 20, 2006 Order, which had already been superseded by the June 18, 2007 Order. Since the June 18, 2007 Order recognized the extra-judicial partition and closed the controversy, the writ of execution had become functus officio. There was nothing left to enforce concerning the Coloi Farmland, especially since the proceeds had already been distributed, and the petitioner himself admitted to receiving a portion of the payment. The Court emphasized that liberality in construing rules cannot be used to cure procedural maladies like failing to appeal a final order. The Court clarified that the Shari'a Court did not render the entire action for partition unresolved. The subsequent orders assailed by the petitioner pertained exclusively to the Coloi Farmland. The partition of the other properties, namely the Balagunun Farmland, Coba o Hadji, and Soiok estates, as approved in the May 6, 2005 Order, remained unaffected and was never at issue in the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the partition of these other properties was not left unresolved.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution becomes functus officio when the order it seeks to enforce has been superseded by subsequent orders that recognized an extra-judicial partition and declared the controversy closed and terminated, especially when the petitioner failed to appeal the superseding orders within the reglementary period.