G.R. No. 114151 - Alejandrino vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114151)

Factual Background

The late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos owned a 219-square-meter lot identified as Lot No. 2798 covered by TCT No. 19658. Their six children were Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia Alejandrino, Laurencia and Abundio. Each heir’s undivided share would nominally be 36.50 square meters absent partition. The estate was not administered or partitioned in accordance with the Rules of Court before sales of portions of the property occurred.

Sales and Competing Claims

Mauricia Alejandrino allegedly purchased portions of her siblings’ shares aggregating 97.43 square meters including her own share. Licerio P. Nique purchased portions from Laurencia and from others through Laurencia, aggregating 121.67 square meters. Laurencia later filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Licerio P. Nique, which became Civil Case No. CEB-7038 in RTC, Branch 9.

Trial Court Decision in Civil Case No. CEB-7038

On November 27, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendant Licerio P. Nique, dismissed Laurencia’s complaint, and on defendant’s counterclaim declared defendant owner in fee simple of the shares of Laurencia, Marcelino, Gregorio and Abundio totaling approximately 146 square meters. The court ordered Laurencia to vacate and surrender the property to defendant and awarded damages and costs.

Appeal and Withdrawal

Laurencia appealed the November 27, 1990 decision to the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R. CV No. 33433. She subsequently withdrew the appeal. The Court of Appeals in due course considered the appeal withdrawn in accordance with Rule 50, Rules of Court on April 13, 1992, rendering the trial court’s decision final and executory.

Civil Case No. CEB-11673 Filed by Petitioner

On May 5, 1992, Mauricia Alejandrino filed Civil Case No. CEB-11673 in RTC, Branch 7, against Licerio P. Nique for redemption and recovery of properties with damages. The amended complaint alleged lack of notice to petitioner of Nique’s purchases, asserted petitioner’s right as co-owner to deposit PHP 29,777.78 to redeem the 121.67 square meters, and sought reconveyance of a 24.34-square-meter portion plus damages and attorneys’ fees.

Motion for Segregation and RTC Order of May 6, 1993

While Civil Case No. CEB-11673 proceeded, Licerio P. Nique filed in Civil Case No. CEB-7038 a motion to segregate the 146-square-meter portion adjudged to him. On May 6, 1993, the RTC granted the motion. The court relied on the dispositive portion of its judgment and on an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated June 10, 1983 (Exh. 16), which allocated 146 square meters to Laurencia in the frontage and 73 square meters to Mauricia in the back. The RTC ordered that Nique could proceed to have the 146 square meters surveyed and segregated.

Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Mauricia Alejandrino filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, charging that the RTC acted in excess of jurisdiction by ordering segregation after finality of the judgment and that partition could not be effected in the quieting of title case. The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated August 25, 1993, dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC order.

Court of Appeals' Rationale

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court merely ensured that execution conformed to the dispositive part of its final judgment. It found the extrajudicial settlement (Exh. 16) to be decisive in locating the 146 square meters sold by Laurencia to Nique. The court held that petitioner was estopped from disputing the extrajudicial settlement because she had been a signatory and because private respondent Nique personally knew of and witnessed the agreement and relied on it in purchasing the 146 square meters. The Court of Appeals invoked the rule permitting post-judgment clarification where ambiguity exists by reference to pleadings and the body of the decision, citing Republic Surety and Insurance Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court.

Supreme Court Petition and Principal Issues

In the present petition for review on certiorari, Mauricia Alejandrino challenged the Court of Appeals Decision and the RTC order, asserting that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering segregation not specifically decreed in the final judgment, that partition was improper in a quieting of title action, and that Exh. 16 was invalid for lack of notarization and publication and because petitioner was not a party to Civil Case No. CEB-7038. Licerio P. Nique defended the segregation order, asserted estoppel and res judicata, and raised a charge of forum shopping against petitioner.

Legal Framework on Co-ownership and Alienation

The Court reviewed the law of co-ownership. It cited Art. 1078, Civil Code declaring the estate owned in common before partition, and Art. 493, Civil Code, which permits a co-owner to alienate his part and provides that the effect of such alienation upon co-owners is limited to the portion allotted to the seller upon partition. The Court also cited Art. 1088, Civil Code, which permits co-heirs to subrogate themselves to a purchaser’s rights by reimbursing the purchase price within one month of written notice. The Court reiterated that a co-owner’s sale of his undivided share is valid but transfers only his rights, making the buyer a co-owner, and that the proper remedy is division of the common property rather than nullification of the sale, citing Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals.

Partition Procedure and Limits on Trial Court

The Court observed that partition of a decedent’s estate may be effected extrajudicially by the heirs, by a court in an ordinary action for partition or in administration proceedings, by the testator, or by a designee of the testator. The trial court may not order partition as part of a quieting of title action absent authority. Accordingly, the segregation sought effectively called for partition, which ordinarily must follow the statutory modalities.

Validity and Effect of the Extrajudicial Settlement (Exh. 16)

The Supreme Court examined the extrajudicial settlement executed by Mauricia and Laurencia. Petitioner admitted execution of the instrument, which explicitly allocated frontage and back portions. The Court held that notarization and publication are formalities necessary to bind third persons as against a public instrument, but that the absence of notarization does not negate the instrument’s validity between the parties. The Court relied on Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court, and Art. 1082, Civil Code, which deems any act intended to end indivision among co-heirs to be a partition. Tolentino’s commentary and Supreme Court precedents recognizing oral partitions and agreements among heirs were invoked to support the view that an extrajudicial settlement effectuated the partition between the two sisters.

Application of Extrajudicial Settlement to Segregation

Because the extrajudicial settlement evidenced the parties’ agreement dividing the property into a 146-square-meter frontage and a 73-square-meter back

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 114151)

Parties and Posture

MAURICIA ALEJANDRINO was the petitioner and one of six heirs of the late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos.
LICERIO P. NIQUE was the private respondent and purchaser of portions of the undivided Lot No. 2798 covered by TCT No. 19658.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS was the respondent in the present petition for certiorari reviewing the RTC's order for segregation.
The petition presented a review on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC order that authorized segregation of a 146-square-meter portion of the subject lot.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and assessed costs against petitioner.

Key Facts

The Alejandrino estate comprised a 219-square-meter lot identified as Lot No. 2798 covered by TCT No. 19658 that, among six heirs, yielded nominal shares of 36.50 square meters each.
Mauricia allegedly purchased portions of her siblings’ shares and thereby claimed a total of 97.43 square meters including her original share.
Nique allegedly purchased portions from Laurencia and others aggregating 121.67 square meters of the same lot.
Laurencia filed Civil Case No. CEB-7038 for quieting of title against Nique, and the RTC, Branch 9, rendered judgment on November 27, 1990 adjudging Nique owner in fee simple of four shares totaling about 146 square meters and ordering plaintiff to vacate and pay damages and costs.
Laurencia appealed but formally withdrew the appeal and the Court of Appeals treated the appeal as withdrawn on April 13, 1992 pursuant to Rule 50, Rules of Court.
Mauricia filed Civil Case No. CEB-11673 for redemption and recovery against Nique on May 5, 1992, and sought to redeem 121.67 square meters for P29,777.78 and recover an alleged 24.34-square-meter area with damages.
Nique moved for segregation of the 146-square-meter tract in CEB-7038, and the RTC issued an order on May 6, 1993 granting the motion and authorizing segregation to be surveyed at Nique's expense.
Mauricia sought certiorari and prohibition relief in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition on August 25, 1993 and denied reconsideration on February 15, 1994.
The Supreme Court resolved the present petition for review on certiorari by denying relief for lack of merit.

Procedural History

The RTC, Branch 9, decided Civil Case No. CEB-7038 in favor of defendant Nique on November 27, 1990, declaring ownership of 146 square meters and awarding monetary damages.
Laurencia appealed to the Court of Appeals but later withdrew the appeal and the appellate court considered the appeal withdrawn on April 13, 1992 under Rule 50.
Mauricia instituted Civil Case No. CEB-11673 in RTC, Branch 7, on May 5, 1992 seeking redemption and recovery of properties.
Nique filed a motion for segregation in CEB-7038, which the RTC granted by order dated May 6, 1993, relying on an executed extrajudicial partition (Exhibit 16).
Mauricia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before THE COURT OF APPEALS, which dismissed it on August 25, 1993 and denied reconsideration on February 15, 1994.
Mauricia petitioned the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari, which denied the petition and imposed costs against petitioner.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC acted in excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the segregation of the 146-square-meter portion after its judgment had become final and executory.
Whether Laurencia validly sold specific portions of the undivided lot before formal partition of the estate.
Whether the extrajudicial settlement of estate (Exhibit 16) was effective between the parties despite its lack of notarization and publication.
Whether Mauricia committed forum shopping by instituting Civil Case No. C