Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22277. May 19, 1966.]

ALBERTO, FRANCISCO II, DAVID, MAGNO, FLORENCIO, MERCEDES, all surnamed AÑONUEVO; FE, OSCAR, OSIAS, TEOTIMO, ALICIA and LETICIA, all surnamed ENCISO, Petitioners, v. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Albay, Branch III; AMANDO, FRANCISCO I, TEOFILA and BENITA, all surnamed AÑONUEVO, Respondents.

Tereso Ma. Montoya and Rolando F. Montoya, for Petitioners.

Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

Rafael R. Rañeses and Ramon A. Rañeses for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; PARTIAL EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL. — The trial court may not issue partial execution of its judgment after appeal therefrom had been perfected. Once the appeal is perfected the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. (Sec. 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court.) Execution of a judgment is a proceeding affecting the rights of the parties, involving the matter litigated by the appeal.

2. ID.; ID.; PARTIAL PARTITION PENDING APPEAL; EFFECT OF; CASE AT BAR. — Where, as in the present case, the decision calls for the partition of the whole, not part, of the lands involved the trial court is powerless to direct partial partition over the objection of the defendants. In partition, the whole of the real property subject thereof, is to be considered in the allocation of the share of the heir. This is so because each heir is entitled to express his preference as to the portion of the real estate to be set apart to him. Partial partition could be prejudicial to the rights of the defendants involved in the appeal.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Material to the present case 1 are the proceedings taken in Civil Case No. 1829 of the Court of First Instance of Albay (Amando Añonuevo, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. Alberto Añonuevo, Et Al., defendants) for partition, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On June 21, 1963, judgment was rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Directing the plaintiffs and the defendants to partition the 6 parcels of land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint and Lots 5705, 5765 and 5805 in the proportion indicated in the counterclaim of the defendants, that is 3/4 of these parcels of land and lots should pertain to the defendants and 1/4 to the plaintiffs;

"(b) Dismissing the counterclaim as regards Lots 4318, 5694, 5881, 5907, 5945 and 6242 (should be 7242); . . . 2

On August 13, 1963, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the judgment.

On August 23, 1963, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal from the judgment of June 21, 1963, and the order of August 13, 1963, "direct to the Supreme Court only on questions of law", and deposited their cash appeal bond.

On October 23, 1963, the Court approved plaintiffs’ amended Record on Appeal. The partition case has since been elevated to this court. 3

On October 28, 1963, plaintiffs moved for partial execution of the judgment as regards the six parcels of land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint.

On October 30, 1963, the motion was denied upon the ground that the trial court has lost jurisdiction over the case.

On November 20, 1963, the court, on plaintiffs’ motion, reconsidered its October 30 order, and directed the Deputy Clerk of Court "to partition the parcels of land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint." The reasons given by the court this time is that during the trial, counsel for the parties "manifested jointly" as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The parties will partition the parcels of land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint in accordance with the answer submitted by the defendants;

2. With respect to the parcels of land described in the counterclaim, the parties agree to set a day for the reception of the evidence in the event that the parties will not come to terms as to the manner of partitioning them."cralaw virtua1aw library

It was defendants’ turn, on November 30, 1963, to move for a reconsideration of the order of November 20. Their reasons are that: the partition required in the decision is total, not partial; plaintiffs’ notice of appeal is from the entire decision; and the court has lost its jurisdiction.

On December 17, 1963, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

The sole question now before this Court is whether or not the trial court may issue partial execution of its judgment after appeal therefrom had been perfected.

By statute, once the appeal is perfected, "the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal." 4 Execution of a judgment is a proceeding affecting the rights of the parties, involving the matter litigated by the appeal. Its purpose is not to preserve and protect the subject of the litigation. The lower court accordingly has lost its power to issue a writ of partial execution of the judgment herein. 5

It matters not that there is no apparent dispute as to the right to partition the 6 parcels of land set forth in paragraph 4 of the complaint. The decision calls for the partition of the whole, not part, of the lands involved; it directs the division not only of the 6 lots aforesaid but also of 3 other parcels of land, Lots 5705, 5765 and 5805. We cannot at this time foresee the result of plaintiffs’ appeal. Whether or not the last three — Lots 5705, 5765 and 5805 — or any one or two of them will eventually be amongst those to be divided is still unknown. In partition, the whole of the real property subject thereof is to be considered in the allocation of the share of each. And this because, each heir is entitled to express his preference as to the portion of the real estate to be set apart to him; comparative value thereof has to be determined; consideration must be taken as to which mode of partition will be more advantageous, taking into account the improvements, situation and qualify of the different parcels to be divided. Other matters, such as the advisability of assigning the property to one of the parties or the sale of part or all of the property, may conceivable crop up in the course of the partition. Indeed, partial division could be prejudicial to the rights of the defendants involved in the appeal. 6 It is because of all of these, that the decision of the trial court may not be considered partially final as to the uncontested parcels, to permit partial partition thereof. The trial court, therefore, is powerless to direct partial partition, over the objection of defendants, petitioners herein.

It results from the foregoing that the order of November 20, 1963, directing partial partition, was issued without jurisdiction and is therefore null and void. In consequence, the writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby granted. Costs against the respondents other than the respondent Judge. So ordered.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion and Barrera, JJ., concur in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.