G.R. No. 178323 - People vs. Chingh y Parcia

A civil action for partition was filed by private respondents against petitioner Leonardo Lim de Mesa and his sister Leticia Lim de Mesa.
The dispute involved the partition of the estate of the deceased spouses Manuel de Mesa and Lucia Lim, which included a house and lot in Sta. Rosa Estate Subdivision, Laguna, and a funeral parlor known as Lim de Mesa Memorial Chapel.
Private respondents additionally sought an accounting of the income from the funeral parlor business and declared that one of the respondents, Rogelio Lim de Mesa, held a larger share due to assigned interests by co-heirs.

The partition of the real property with respective shares allotted to the heirs.
An accounting of the income from the funeral business to be rendered by petitioner Leonardo Lim de Mesa.
The execution of a deed of confirmation of an extrajudicial partition with sale and the reformation of instrument.
Payment of moral damages, reimbursement for attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.

Deleting the provisions compelling petitioner and Leticia Lim de Mesa (aside from plaintiff Wilson Lim de Mesa) to execute the deed of confirmation and reformation.
Removing the award for moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Filing and granting of a motion for execution by private respondents.
Issuance and subsequent return of a writ of execution as petitioners refused to comply.
Multiple orders regarding the furnishing of documents, resolution of related incidents, issuance of a writ of possession, and communications regarding delays in execution.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of certain orders (October 14 and November 25, 1992) was denied.
A petition for certiorari was filed by petitioner challenging the orders issued ex parte, specifically the writ of execution and the writ of possession.

The court erred in applying Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by deeming the judgment final and executory, and thereby mandating the issuance of a writ of execution.
The issuance of the three assailed orders (October 14, November 18, and November 25, 1992) was improper because they were rendered ex parte without prior notice or hearing.

The petition centered on the alleged nullity of the writ of execution due to its ex parte issuance and the compelled execution of an extrajudicial partition document prepared solely by the private respondents.

The first stage involved determining whether a co-ownership existed and if partition is proper.
At the conclusion of the first stage, a final judgment declaring partition and ordering an accounting is rendered and is appealable.

The trial court is then required to appoint commissioners (not more than three) to execute the partition and determine the precise allocation of the property.

In this case, despite further proceedings being required for actual partition, the portion of the judgment that did not require additional processes was already final and executory.

Whether the trial court, having rendered a final judgment ordering partition and accounting, could proceed with execution without giving prior notice or affording a hearing to the petitioner.

Does the final and executory nature of a partition judgment authorize the issuance of a writ of execution as a ministerial duty of the court?
Can the execution of a judgment that is deemed final occur even when further proceedings (such as the appointment of commissioners for the actual partition) are pending?

The order directing Atty. Luzod, Jr. to sign the deed of partition on behalf of petitioner.
The writ of possession directing the respondent Sheriff to effect possession of the property.
Were these orders improperly issued in excess of jurisdiction and against the petitioner’s constitutional right to be heard?

Whether compelling petitioner to sign an extrajudicial partition document prepared solely by private respondents is legally permissible.