Case Digest (G.R. No. 160786)
Facts:
Simplicia O. Abrigo and Demetrio Abrigo v. Jimmy F. Flores, et al., G.R. No. 160786, June 17, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Simplicia O. Abrigo and Demetrio Abrigo (defendants below) sought relief against respondents Jimmy F. Flores, Edna F. Flores, Danilo Flores, Belinda Flores, Hector Flores, Marites Flores, heirs of Maria F. Flores, Jacinto Faylona, Elisa Faylona Magpantay, Marietta Faylona Cartaciano, and heirs of Tomasa Banzuela vda. de Faylona (plaintiffs below), who were the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco Faylona.The dispute arose from a 402-square-meter residential parcel in Alaminos, Laguna that siblings Francisco and Gaudencia Faylona inherited. After Francisco’s death, his heirs (respondents here) filed a complaint for judicial partition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pablo City (Civil Case No. SP-3048) on July 22, 1988. In a decision dated November 20, 1989, the RTC partitioned the lot: the western half to the heirs of Francisco and the eastern half to the heirs of Gaudencia, and ordered the latter to pay rentals for use of portions of the western half. The RTC also required removal of improvements encroaching on the western half.
The heirs of Gaudencia (including petitioners) appealed to the Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 25347. The Supreme Court (Third Division) on December 28, 1995 affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the rental award; an Entry of Judgment was issued on June 3, 1996. Execution followed: the RTC appointed a geodetic engineer to survey and subdivide the property; on November 19, 1997 it ordered defendants to remove improvements encroaching on the western half. Petitioners sought extensions which the RTC denied (order of January 28, 1998), and a writ of execution issued February 6, 1998. The sheriff’s return of March 6, 1998 showed petitioners had not removed certain structures.
Respondents then moved for a special order of demolition (March 11, 1998). Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Resolution (March 19, 1998), alleging that on March 4, 1998 respondent Jimmy Flores sold to petitioner Simplicia a one-fourth undivided interest in the western half, which they claimed was a supervening event making execution inequitable. The RTC denied the motion to defer (May 13, 1998) and issued an alias writ of execution; a motion for reconsideration was denied (June 10, 1998). Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 48033), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on September 25, 2002 and directed the RTC to issue a special order of demolition to implement the final judgment. The CA denied reconsideration on October 6, 2003.
Petitioners filed a petition for revi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to defer resolution of the motion for demolition and in denying their motion for reconsideration?
- Did the purported sale by respondent Jimmy Flores on March 4, 1998 of his one-fourth undivided interest in the western half constitute a supervening event that rendered execution of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)