Case Digest (G.R. No. 169536)
Facts:
Remigia Grageda, et al. v. Hon. Nimfa C. Gomez, G.R. No. 169536, September 21, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are heirs of Juan Navia Grageda (collectively Remigia Grageda, Clarita Grageda‑Imperial, Mosad‑Lino Grageda, Antonio Grageda, Merlin Grageda and heirs of Juan Morona Grageda, represented by Marcelita N. Grageda); respondents are Hon. Nimfa C. Gomez, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Camalig‑Jovellar, and private respondent Haudiny Grageda.Juan Navia Grageda died intestate in 1982, leaving several siblings and their descendants as heirs. In July 1998 two heirs (the heirs of Lauro Grageda) filed a complaint for partition of Lot No. 6386 and the house thereon in the MCTC of Camalig‑Jovellar (Civil Case No. C‑655), impleading the other heirs as defendants. Only some defendants filed an Answer and in that Answer alleged, among other things, that a third person now owned the property and that an extrajudicial partition had been executed after Juan’s death.
On 31 March 2000 the MCTC rendered judgment in C‑655 ordering partition of Lot No. 6386, including the house, into four equal shares among specified heirs, with costs and attorney’s fees. On 16 January 2001 the MCTC commissioned a geodetic engineer to effect the partition. In October 2001 the plaintiffs in C‑655 manifested partial compliance, showing segregation only of their one‑fourth share.
Separately, on 9 May 2002 private respondent Haudiny and his brother Hipolito filed a partition complaint (C‑691) to divide the one‑fourth share of their late father Amado Grageda among his children; that complaint was dismissed without prejudice on 9 September 2003 as premature because the larger partition ordered in C‑655 had not been fully carried out. On 15 December 2003 Haudiny filed a Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution in C‑655 seeking execution of the prior MCTC decision to partition the remaining three‑fourths.
The MCTC, by order dated 22 September 2004 and after denying reconsideration on 13 January 2005, directed the parties to submit a project of partition and directed the commissioned geodetic engineer to partition the remaining undivided three‑fourths in accordance with its 31 March 2000 decision. Petitioners sought relief by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi City (SCA Case No. 10440), which dismissed it on 15 March 2005. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 89563, dismissed pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals correct in finding that private respondent Haudiny Grageda’s claim in his Motion for Execution filed in Civil Case No. C‑655 is not a compulsory cross‑claim which he could enforce a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)