June 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 147946 : June 04, 2008] ANTONIO MONTEZA, MARIANITA MONTEZA, FRANCISCO MONTEZA, AND CORAZON BATULA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SANTOS T. GIL, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, TACLOBAN CITY, CONCEPCION ESTRELLA, ELENA PAJARES, AND ERNESTO ESTRELLA, RESPONDENTS :
[G.R. No. 147946 : June 04, 2008]
ANTONIO MONTEZA, MARIANITA MONTEZA, FRANCISCO MONTEZA, AND CORAZON BATULA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SANTOS T. GIL, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, TACLOBAN CITY, CONCEPCION ESTRELLA, ELENA PAJARES, AND ERNESTO ESTRELLA, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated June 4, 2008:
G.R. No. 147946: ANTONIO MONTEZA, MARIANITA MONTEZA, FRANCISCO MONTEZA, and CORAZON BATULA, petitioners, versus HON. SANTOS T. GIL, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, CONCEPCION ESTRELLA, ELENA PAJARES, and ERNESTO ESTRELLA, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition fore review[1] of the 29 March 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60815. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Orders dated 17 May 2000 and 26 June 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Tacloban City, Branch 6. The trial court denied petitioners� motion to dismiss respondents� action partition, as well as the petitioners� motion fore reconsideration.
Petitioners Antonio Monteza, Marianita Monteza, Francisco Monteza and Corazon Batula and private respondents Elena Pajares and Ernesto Estrella are related to each other by consanguinity, their grandmothers being sisters. Private respondent Concepcion Estrella is a relative by affinity of petitioners and mother of the other private respondents.
In an action for quieting of title filed by petitioners� parents against Concepcion Estrella and her now deceased husband, respondents were declared owners to the extend of two-thirds portion of the land subject of this case. This decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R became final on 28 March 1983 after this Court dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioners� parents.
On 23 October 1998, respondents filed an action for �Recovery of Possession plus Damages� against petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte (MTC) involving the same parcel of land. The MTC dismissed the case without prejudice on 8 September 1999.
On 8 February 2000, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City an action for �Partition, Accounting and Damages� involving the same property.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that respondents were trying to enforce the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R which had become dormant for respondents� failure to have the same executed within the ten-year prescriptive period.
The trial court denied petitioners� motion to dismiss and their motion for reconsideration.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. In ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the Court of Appeals stated that the action for partition was not an enforcement of the final Court of Appeals� decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R. The Court of Appeals anchored its ruling on Rule 69 of the Rules of Court in relation to Articles 484,[3] 494,[4] and 496[5] of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals also stated that the Court of Appeals� final decision is in effect declaration of co-ownership. The Court of Appeals noted that no partition of the respective shares of the parties was ever made although the shares were clearly delineated. Since petitioners never repudiated the co-ownership of the subject property with respondents, the action for partition had no prescribed.
Hence, this petition.
The core issue in this case is whether, in instituting the action for partition, respondents were enforcing the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, which petitioners maintain is already dormant.
The petition lacks merit.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court�s denial of the petitioners� motion to dismiss.
Petitioners insist that respondents should have moved for the execution of the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R within five years from its finality. Thereafter, respondents should have enforced such judgment by filing an action within the next five years. Since respondents never sought the execution of the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, petitioners assert that such decision could no longer be enforced for being dormant. Citing Olega v. Rebueno,[6] petitioners claim that a dormant decision is inert and without any effect.
In the action to quiet title or CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, the dispositive portion of the final decision reads:
Clearly, the dispositive portion of the decision declared the rights of the parties to the subject land without any express command or prohibition which either party had comply with.[8] This decision merely stated the parties� respective shares in the property. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to one-third of the land while respondents have the right over two-thirds of the property.
Since respondents claim that they were already occupying two-thirds of the property when the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R became final, there was apparently no need for either party to vacate and deliver the possession of the specified portion of the property to the other party. Thus, respondents� inaction beyond the period for enforcement of final judgments cannot be taken against them. Significantly, in Olego,[9] this Court stated that a writ of execution would be required if the defeated party does not surrender the possession of the property.
Further, unlike in Olego,[10] where there was an imputation of fraud and mistake on the compromise agreement on which the dormant decisions was based, there was no such argument in this case. In fact, petitioners harp mainly on the dormancy of the judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R in assailing the denial of their motion to dismiss.
Moreover, the action for partition is based on respondents� right as co-owners of the property. Suffice it to state that respondents� alleged failure to enforce the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, declaring co-ownership, did not operate to extinguish their rights over the subject land.
As found by the Court of Appeals, while the shares of the parties have already been clearly delineated, there was no actual partition of the subject land. Therefore, respondents, as co-owners of the subject filed an action for partition based on Rule 69 of the Rules of the Court in relation to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. In which case, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party.[11]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 March 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 60815 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 147946: ANTONIO MONTEZA, MARIANITA MONTEZA, FRANCISCO MONTEZA, and CORAZON BATULA, petitioners, versus HON. SANTOS T. GIL, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, CONCEPCION ESTRELLA, ELENA PAJARES, and ERNESTO ESTRELLA, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition fore review[1] of the 29 March 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60815. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Orders dated 17 May 2000 and 26 June 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Tacloban City, Branch 6. The trial court denied petitioners� motion to dismiss respondents� action partition, as well as the petitioners� motion fore reconsideration.
Petitioners Antonio Monteza, Marianita Monteza, Francisco Monteza and Corazon Batula and private respondents Elena Pajares and Ernesto Estrella are related to each other by consanguinity, their grandmothers being sisters. Private respondent Concepcion Estrella is a relative by affinity of petitioners and mother of the other private respondents.
In an action for quieting of title filed by petitioners� parents against Concepcion Estrella and her now deceased husband, respondents were declared owners to the extend of two-thirds portion of the land subject of this case. This decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R became final on 28 March 1983 after this Court dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioners� parents.
On 23 October 1998, respondents filed an action for �Recovery of Possession plus Damages� against petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte (MTC) involving the same parcel of land. The MTC dismissed the case without prejudice on 8 September 1999.
On 8 February 2000, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City an action for �Partition, Accounting and Damages� involving the same property.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that respondents were trying to enforce the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R which had become dormant for respondents� failure to have the same executed within the ten-year prescriptive period.
The trial court denied petitioners� motion to dismiss and their motion for reconsideration.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. In ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the Court of Appeals stated that the action for partition was not an enforcement of the final Court of Appeals� decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R. The Court of Appeals anchored its ruling on Rule 69 of the Rules of Court in relation to Articles 484,[3] 494,[4] and 496[5] of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals also stated that the Court of Appeals� final decision is in effect declaration of co-ownership. The Court of Appeals noted that no partition of the respective shares of the parties was ever made although the shares were clearly delineated. Since petitioners never repudiated the co-ownership of the subject property with respondents, the action for partition had no prescribed.
Hence, this petition.
The core issue in this case is whether, in instituting the action for partition, respondents were enforcing the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, which petitioners maintain is already dormant.
The petition lacks merit.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court�s denial of the petitioners� motion to dismiss.
Petitioners insist that respondents should have moved for the execution of the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R within five years from its finality. Thereafter, respondents should have enforced such judgment by filing an action within the next five years. Since respondents never sought the execution of the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, petitioners assert that such decision could no longer be enforced for being dormant. Citing Olega v. Rebueno,[6] petitioners claim that a dormant decision is inert and without any effect.
In the action to quiet title or CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, the dispositive portion of the final decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed is hereby reversed and set aside, and another one entered declaring the defendant-appellants (respondents herein) owners to the extent of two-thirds (2/3) of the lot in Maliron, one-third (1/3) being the share of Clara Maallo and the other one-third (1/3) being the share of Valentina Maallo which was sold to Clara Maallo. Plaintiffs-Appellees� share is, therefore, one-third (1/3) of the property.[7]
Clearly, the dispositive portion of the decision declared the rights of the parties to the subject land without any express command or prohibition which either party had comply with.[8] This decision merely stated the parties� respective shares in the property. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to one-third of the land while respondents have the right over two-thirds of the property.
Since respondents claim that they were already occupying two-thirds of the property when the decision in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R became final, there was apparently no need for either party to vacate and deliver the possession of the specified portion of the property to the other party. Thus, respondents� inaction beyond the period for enforcement of final judgments cannot be taken against them. Significantly, in Olego,[9] this Court stated that a writ of execution would be required if the defeated party does not surrender the possession of the property.
Further, unlike in Olego,[10] where there was an imputation of fraud and mistake on the compromise agreement on which the dormant decisions was based, there was no such argument in this case. In fact, petitioners harp mainly on the dormancy of the judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R in assailing the denial of their motion to dismiss.
Moreover, the action for partition is based on respondents� right as co-owners of the property. Suffice it to state that respondents� alleged failure to enforce the final judgment in CA G.R. CV No. 67304-R, declaring co-ownership, did not operate to extinguish their rights over the subject land.
As found by the Court of Appeals, while the shares of the parties have already been clearly delineated, there was no actual partition of the subject land. Therefore, respondents, as co-owners of the subject filed an action for partition based on Rule 69 of the Rules of the Court in relation to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. In which case, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party.[11]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 March 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 60815 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of the Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 46-59. Penned by Associate Justice Jpsefina Guevarra-Salonga and concurred in by Associate
Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Teodoro P. Regino.
[3] Article 484 provides:
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
[4] Article 494 provides:
No co-owner shall be obliged to remain co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there by any partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owner or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
[5] Article 496 provides:
Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code.
[6] 160-A Phil. 592 (1975).
[7] Rollo, p. 47.
[8] See Olego v. Rebueno, supra. See also Ting v. Lirio (G.R. No. 168913, 14 March 2007, 518 SCRA 334) where the Court held that after the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration , no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
[9] Supra.
[10] Supra note 6.
[11] Section 11 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
