Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Anonuevo family and the Enciso family regarding the partition of several parcels of land. The petitioners consist of members of the Anonuevo family: Francisco II, David, Magno, Florencio, Mercedes, and others, while the respondents include Judge Roberto Zurbano of the Court of First Instance of Albay and the rest of the Anonuevo family, specifically Amando, Francisco I, Teofila, and Benita. The case originated from Civil Case No. 1829, wherein the Court of First Instance of Albay rendered judgment on June 21, 1963, directing the plaintiffs (the Encisos) and the defendants (the Anonuevos) to partition six parcels of land and additional lots (5705, 5765, and 5805), allocating three-fourths to the defendants and one-fourth to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied on August 13, 1963, and they subsequently noticed an appeal on August 23, 1963, indicating their intent to elevate the case solely on legal questi

...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• The dispute originated in Civil Case No. 1829 before the Court of First Instance of Albay concerning the partition of real property.
• The case involved multiple parties, with petitioners (including parties surnamed Anonuevo and Enciso) challenging respondents (including Hon. Roberto Zurbano in his judicial capacity and other Anonuevo family members).
• The judgment rendered on June 21, 1968, ordered the partition of six parcels of land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint and additional Lots 5705, 5765, and 5805, allotting three-fourths of these parcels to the defendants and one-fourth to the plaintiffs, while dismissing part of the counterclaim.

Post-Judgment Motions and Appellate Proceedings

• On August 13, 1963, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the June 21 judgment.
• On August 23, 1963, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal “direct to the Supreme Court only on questions of law,” perfecting the appeal by depositing a cash appeal bond.
• The Plaintiffs’ amended record on appeal was subsequently approved on October 23, 1963.

Motion for Partial Execution and Subsequent Lower Court Actions

• On October 18, 1963, the plaintiffs moved for the partial execution of the judgment pertaining to the six parcels of land described in the complaint.
• The trial court initially denied the motion on October 30, 1963, ruling that it had lost jurisdiction over the case once the appeal was perfected.
• On November 20, 1963, the trial court reconsidered its earlier order following a joint manifestation by the parties. The court then issued an order directing the Deputy Clerk of Court to partition the parcels, based on the understanding that:

- The parties would partition the parcel described in paragraph 4 in accordance with the defendant’s answer. - There would be a set day for the reception of evidence regarding the partition of the properties described in the counterclaim should the parties fail to agree on the manner of partition.

Defendants’ Reconsideration and the Court’s Final Lower Court Ruling

• On November 30, 1963, the defendants (petitioners in the present appeal) moved for a reconsideration of the November 20 order, contending that:

- The partition as decided was total, not partial. - The appeal filed covers the entire decision, and the trial court had already lost jurisdiction.

Central Controversy

• With the appeal perfected, the sole question before the Supreme Court became whether the trial court retains the power to issue an order for partial execution (i.e., a partial partition) of its judgment when the matter in dispute is still the subject of the appeal.
• The situation is complicated by the fact that the complete partition includes not only the six parcels described in the complaint but also other lots whose ultimate allocation remains uncertain, potentially affecting the rights and valuations of the parties involved.

Issue:

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to direct partial execution (partial partition) of its judgment after the appeal was perfected.

• Does the nature of a partition case, which directly affects the contested rights and valuation of the whole property, allow for a partial execution order by the trial court?
• How does the perfected appeal, which covers the entire decision, impact the trial court’s authority to act on a portion of the judgment?

Whether executing a partial partition would unjustly prejudice the rights of any party by dividing contested assets before the resolution of all issues on appeal.

• Would a partial partition undermine the comprehensive evaluation required in partition proceedings, especially given the unresolved status of additional lots (5705, 5765, and 5805)?
• Is the trial court's partial execution consistent with the statutory rule that restricts the court’s jurisdiction to orders solely for the preservation and protection of rights not involved in the appeal?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)