Case Digest (G.R. No. 177703)
Facts:
Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola v. John Nabor C. Arriola, G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Respondent John Nabor C. Arriola (son of decedent Fidel Arriola by his first wife) filed Special Civil Action No. 03‑0010 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 254, Las Piñas City, against petitioners Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola (the decedent’s second wife and their son) for judicial partition of the properties of the decedent Fidel. On February 16, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment partitioning the parcel covered by TCT No. 383714 into equal one‑third shares among the three heirs, awarded attorney’s fees and costs; the decision became final on March 15, 2004.
Because the parties could not agree on the physical division, respondent sought a public auction sale of the subject land; petitioners refused to include the house standing on the land (the subject house) in the auction. Respondent then filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt of Court (an unverified motion) praying that petitioners be declared in contempt for refusing to include the house in the auction. The RTC denied the motion by Order dated August 30, 2005, explaining that the house was not alleged in the complaint and therefore was not adjudicated, and the court cannot grant relief not pleaded; the RTC denied reconsideration on January 3, 2006.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to set aside the RTC orders and to compel the sheriff to proceed with public auction of the lot including the house. In a November 30, 2006 Decision, the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC orders and ordered the sheriff to proceed with the public auction of the lot “including the house constructed thereon.” The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its April 30, 2007 Resolution.
Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing the CA erred in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse in denying the contempt motion. The Supreme Court was presented with the p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC have jurisdiction to entertain respondent’s unverified Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt, or did the filing violate Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court?
- Is the house standing on the subject land part of the estate and therefore subject to partition among the heirs despite not being specifically alleged in the complaint?
- If the house is part of the estate, does the Family Code’s protection of the family home (Arts. 152, 153, 159) bar its immediate partition or public auction for ten years from the decedent’s de...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)