G.R. No. 114151 - Alejandrino vs. Court of Appeals

Parties, property and title
The late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos left an undivided 219-square-meter lot in Mambaling, Cebu City, identified as Lot No. 2798 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19658. Their six children were Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia (petitioner), Laurencia and Abundio. Each heir’s inchoate share, if partitioned equally, would be 36.50 sq. meters.
Several heirs purportedly sold portions of their hereditary rights to third parties. Petitioner Mauricia alleged she purchased portions of Gregorio’s, Ciriaco’s and Abundio’s shares, giving her about 97.43 sq. meters (including her own). Private respondent Licerio P. Nique purchased portions claimed to total 121.67 sq. meters from various heirs, mainly through transactions with Laurencia.

Trial court proceedings (Civil Case No. CEB-7038) and decision
Laurencia filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Nique, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-7038, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, presided by Judge Benigno G. Gaviola. On November 27, 1990, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of defendant Nique, declaring him owner in fee simple of the shares of Laurencia, Marcelino, Gregorio and Abundio, totaling about 146 sq. meters; ordered Laurencia to vacate and surrender that portion; awarded damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
Laurencia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA-G.R. CV No. 33433 but later withdrew her appeal; the CA considered the appeal withdrawn on April 13, 1992, making the RTC decision final and executory.

Subsequent related action (Civil Case No. CEB-11673) by petitioner
On May 5, 1992 petitioner Mauricia filed before RTC, Branch 7, a complaint for redemption and recovery of properties with damages against Nique (Civil Case No. CEB-11673), represented by counsel Adelino B. Sitoy (who previously represented Laurencia). The amended complaint (May 17, 1992) alleged lack of notice and preemptive rights denied to co-owners, sought to redeem the 121.67 sq. meters at P29,777.78, sought return of about 24.34 sq. meters, damages and attorney’s fees.
The RTC, Branch 7, admitted the amended complaint on August 2, 1993 and ordered defendant to file an amended answer.

Motion for segregation and orders in Civil Case No. CEB-7038
While CEB-11673 was pending, defendant Nique in CEB-7038 filed a motion to segregate the 146 sq. meters adjudged to him. On May 6, 1993 the RTC, Branch 9, granted the motion, ordering Nique to have the 146 sq. meters surveyed (at his expense) and segregated. The RTC relied on an extrajudicial settlement of estate dated June 10, 1983 (Exh. “16”), allegedly executed by Laurencia and Mauricia, which described Laurencia as owning 146 sq. meters in the frontage and Mauricia 73 sq. meters in the back portion.
The RTC explained the segregation as necessary to effectuate and clarify the dispositive portion of its earlier decision (order to vacate and surrender the shares to defendant), observing that the decision had become final and that the extrajudicial partition indicated the specific location of the shares.

Appellate challenges and procedural posture
Petitioner Mauricia sought relief via certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC’s segregation order. On August 25, 1993 the CA dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC did not exceed its jurisdiction and properly clarified/executed its final judgment by ordering segregation based on the extrajudicial settlement (Exh. “16”). The CA relied on the rule allowing clarification of ambiguities in a final judgment by reference to the body of the decision and pleadings (citing Republic Surety & Ins. Co. v. IAC).
Mauricia’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on February 15, 1994. She then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Jurisdictional and execution-related issue
Whether the trial court (RTC, Branch 9) acted in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by issuing an order for segregation (partition) of the 146 sq. meters after its judgment in CEB-7038 had become final and executory.

Validity and binding effect of transfers and extrajudicial settlement
Whether Laurencia, as an heir and co-owner of an undivided estate, validly sold specific portions of the undivided Lot No. 2798 to private respondent Nique prior to a formal court-ordered partition, and whether such sale (and the extrajudicial settlement evidencing partition between Laurencia and Mauricia) could bind petitioner or third parties despite lack of notarization/publication.
Whether an extrajudicial settlement not made a public instrument (not notarized/published) can effect partition or be relied upon to locate specific portions for execution of a final judgment.

Procedural and equitable defenses
Whether petitioner’s filing of Civil Case No. CEB-11673 (redemption and recovery) while the judgment in CEB-7038 was final constituted forum shopping or was barred by res judicata.
Whether petitioner (or her counsel) is estopped from challenging the final judgment or guilty of unethical conduct for participating in both related proceedings.