Case Digest (G.R. No. 114151)
Facts:
Mauricia Alejandrino v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Benigno G. Gaviola, Rtc-9, Cebu City, and Licerio P. Nique, G.R. No. 114151, September 17, 1998, the Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mauricia Alejandrino is one of six heirs of the late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos; private respondent Licerio P. Nique purchased portions of the undeclared, undivided Lot No. 2798 (219 sq. m.) in Mambaling, Cebu City; and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City (Hon. Benigno G. Gaviola) adjudicated related claims in Civil Case No. CEB-7038. The petition reached the Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) contesting a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed an RTC order allowing segregation of property after final judgment.After the spouses’ death, their six children were entitled to undivided shares (36.50 sq. m. each) but no formal probate/administration and partition in court occurred. Petitioner later allegedly purchased additional hereditary rights from some siblings; Nique purchased portions from Laurencia and others totaling 121.67 sq. m. Laurencia sued Nique in an action for quieting of title (CEB-7038). On November 27, 1990 the RTC (Branch 9) ruled for defendant Nique, declared him owner in fee simple of four shares totaling about 146 sq. m., ordered Laurencia to vacate and surrender the property, and awarded damages and costs. Laurencia appealed but later withdrew the appeal; the Court of Appeals treated the appeal as withdrawn on April 13, 1992.
While execution matters proceeded in CEB-7038, petitioner Mauricia filed a separate action for redemption and recovery (CEB-11673) against Nique on May 5, 1992 alleging lack of notice and asserting preemptive rights as co-owner. Meanwhile, in CEB-7038 Nique moved for segregation of the 146 sq. m. adjudged to him; on May 6, 1993 the RTC (Branch 9) granted the motion ordering Nique to have the 146 sq. m. surveyed and segregated, relying in part on an executed but unnotarized extrajudicial settlement of estate (Exh. 16) showing Laurencia owning the 146-sq. m. frontage and Mauricia 73 sq. m. at the back.
Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition relief from the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC’s segregation order; the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on August 25, 1993, holding the RTC did not exceed its jurisdiction because the segregation carried out execution of a final judgment and clarified the dispositive portion by reference to pleadings and the extrajudicial settlement (citing Republic Surety & Insurance Co. v. IAC). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on February 15, 1994....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court act in excess of jurisdiction when it ordered segregation of the 146-square-meter portion after its judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-7038 had become final?
- Can Laurencia, as an heir and co-owner of the undivided estate, validly sell specific portions of the undivided property before judicial partition, and is an extrajudicial settlement not notarized/published binding between the parties?
- Was petitioner guilty of forum shopping such that the separate actio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)