Case Digest (G.R. No. 109387)
Facts:
Leonardo Lim de Mesa v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109387, April 25, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Private respondents (siblings) filed a complaint for partition and accounting in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna (Civil Case No. B-1942) against their eldest brother, Leonardo Lim de Mesa (petitioner), and sister Leticia Lim de Mesa, claiming ownership interests in the estate of Manuel de Mesa and Lucia Lim, which included Lot No. 329 in Sta. Rosa Estate Subdivision and a funeral parlor. The RTC rendered judgment ordering partition, specifying aliquot shares in the realty and in proceeds from the funeral business, directing petitioner to render an accounting from November 1980, and awarding amounts for damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications: it deleted the portions directing petitioner (and Leticia) and another named party to execute deeds confirming an extrajudicial partition and deleted awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. A subsequent petition to the Supreme Court was denied in a January 27, 1992 resolution and, upon entry on June 4, 1992, the judgment became final and executory.
Private respondents moved for execution in the RTC; a writ of execution issued but was returned unsatisfied on September 21, 1992 due to petitioner’s refusal to comply. The RTC granted a motion to enforce judgment (order dated October 14, 1992). Petitioner sought copies of basic pleadings and orders; the RTC ordered production of specified documents (order dated November 13, 1992). Thereafter the RTC issued orders dated November 18, 1992 (extension to render accounting with threat of contempt) and November 25, 1992 (granting writ of possession and delineation of property lines). Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the November orders on the ground they were issued ex parte in violation of Section 4, Rule 15, Rules of Court; the RTC denied reconsideration on December 23, 1992.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the October 14, November 18 and November 25, 1992 orders as void for lack of prior notice and hearing; in a March 4, 1993 resolution the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition. Petitioner then brought the matter to the Supreme Court,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the judgment in Civil Case No. B-1942 become final and executory and, if so, was execution of that judgment a matter of right requiring no prior notice or hearing to the judgment-debtor?
- Were the trial court orders dated October 14, 1992 and November 25, 1992 — directing counsel to sign a deed of partition for petitioner and issuing a writ of possession pursuant to an extrajudicial partition — valid, or were they issued in excess of jurisdiction because they b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)