Case Summary (G.R. No. 114151)
Core Factual Background
The late spouses left six children who, absent partition, owned the 219-sq.-meter lot in common, with an inchoate share of 36.50 sq. meters each. No formal settlement or partition of the estate had been completed under the Rules of Court. Various heir-to-heir transfers and sales occurred: petitioner Mauricia asserted acquisitions giving her 97.43 sq. meters (including her original share), while private respondent Nique acquired portions aggregating 121.67 sq. meters from Laurencia, Gregorio (through Laurencia), Abundio (through Laurencia), and Marcelino.
Trial Court Proceedings (CEB-7038) and Judgment
Laurencia challenged sales to Nique in Civil Case No. CEB-7038 (quieting of title and damages). The RTC rendered judgment on November 27, 1990, dismissing Laurencia’s complaint and, on Nique’s counterclaim, declaring Nique owner in fee simple of Laurencia’s share and the shares of Marcelino, Gregorio and Abundio—totaling approximately 146 sq. meters—and ordering Laurencia to vacate, pay damages and costs.
Appeal and Withdrawal
Laurencia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 33433) but later withdrew the appeal. The Court of Appeals treated the appeal as withdrawn under Rule 50, and the RTC decision became final and executory.
Subsequent Case Filed by Petitioner (CEB-11673)
Mauricia filed Civil Case No. CEB-11673 (redemption and recovery of properties with damages) against Nique, alleging lack of notice and denial of preemptive rights as co-owner, offering to deposit the purchase price to redeem the portions acquired by Nique and claiming specific recovery of about 24.34 sq. meters plus damages and attorney’s fees.
Motion for Segregation and RTC Order
While CEB-11673 was pending, Nique moved in CEB-7038 for segregation of the 146 sq. meters declared his in the RTC judgment. On May 6, 1993 the trial court granted the motion, ordering Nique to have the 146 sq. meters surveyed at his expense and explaining that the dispositive portion of the judgment (ordering Laurencia to surrender the property to the extent of the four shares adjudged to defendant) authorized execution by segregating the portion. The RTC relied on an extrajudicial settlement of estate (dated June 10, 1983, Exhibit 16) between Laurencia and Mauricia that delineated Laurencia’s 146-sq.-meter frontage and Mauricia’s 73-sq.-meter back portion.
Court of Appeals Review and Ruling
Mauricia petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari/prohibition to enjoin the segregation order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition (Aug. 25, 1993), reasoning that the RTC was properly enforcing its final judgment by clarifying which portion had been sold to Nique, and that Exhibit 16 (the extrajudicial settlement) legitimately identified the location of Laurencia’s 146 sq. meters. The CA found Mauricia estopped from contesting the extrajudicial partition because she had executed and witnessed the document and because Nique relied upon it when he purchased. The CA also endorsed the proposition that a court may clarify ambiguities in a final judgment by reference to the pleadings and body of the decision.
Issues Raised by Petitioner on Review
Mauricia contended that the RTC exceeded jurisdiction in ordering segregation because partition was not decreed in the judgment and the judgment had become final; that partition cannot be effected in an action for quieting of title; that Exhibit 16 was not binding because it was not notarized or published and she was not a party to CEB-7038; and that segregation prejudiced her pending redemption action (CEB-11673).
Legal Principles Applied by the Court
- Co-ownership and inchoate succession rights: heirs own the estate in common before partition (Art. 1078; Art. 484 cited). A co-owner may alienate his pro indiviso share, but the alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon division (Art. 493). Article 1088 permits co-heirs to subrogate themselves to a purchaser’s rights by reimbursing the purchaser within one month of written notice.
- Partition modalities: partition may be effected extrajudicially by heirs, by court in an ordinary action for partition or during administration, by the testator, or by a designated third person; a court in an action for quieting of title generally may not effect partition unless it is exercising powers appropriate to administration/partition or the parties have effected partition extrajudicially.
- Evidentiary and formal considerations: an extrajudicial settlement need not be notarized to be valid inter partes; the public-instrument/formal requirement is primarily to render the instrument effective against third persons and for registration. Article 1082 recognizes acts intended to put an end to indivision as partitions regardless of their nominal form (sale, compromise, etc.). A court may resort to pleadings and the body of its decision to clarify ambiguities in the dispositive portion of a final judgment.
Court’s Analysis of Extrajudicial Settlement and Segregation
The Court accepted that Laurencia validly sold her pro indiviso rights to Nique; however, absent partition no particular portion of the land could initially be identified as the object of sale. The extrajudicial settlement executed by Laurencia and Mauricia evidenced an agreed physical division of the estate, specifying the frontage (146 sq. meters) to Laurencia and the rear (73 sq. meters) to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 114151)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported as 356 Phil. 851, Third Division, G.R. No. 114151, promulgated September 17, 1998.
- Petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld a trial court order permitting segregation of a portion of Lot No. 2798 after the trial court's judgment in an action for quieting of title had become final.
- Parties: Petitioner — Mauricia Alejandrino; Respondents — The Court of Appeals, Hon. Benigno G. Gaviola (trial judge, RTC Branch 9, Cebu City), and private respondent Licerio P. Nique.
- Final disposition at the Supreme Court: Petition denied for lack of merit; costs against petitioner; opinion authored by Justice Romero; Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Facts — Ownership Background and Physical Property
- The late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos left six children: Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciriaco, Mauricia (Mauricia/Mauricia spelled inconsistently in the record), Laurencia, and Abundio.
- The estate included a 219-square-meter lot in Mambaling, Cebu City, identified as Lot No. 2798 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19658.
- Upon intestacy the legal shares would entitle each of six children to 36.50 square meters (219 ÷ 6 = 36.50), but the estate was not formally settled following the Rules of Court.
Facts — Transfers, Purchases and Alleged Acquisitions
- Petitioner Mauricia allegedly purchased portions of siblings’ shares: 12.17 sq. m. of Gregorio’s share, 36.50 sq. m. of Ciriaco’s share, and 12.17 sq. m. of Abundio’s share, giving her a reported total of 97.43 sq. m. including her own 36.50 sq. m.
- Private respondent Licerio Nique allegedly purchased portions from other siblings: 36.50 sq. m. from Laurencia; 36.50 sq. m. from Gregorio “through Laurencia”; 12.17 sq. m. from Abundio “through Laurencia”; and 36.50 sq. m. from Marcelino — totalling 121.67 sq. m.
- Laurencia later challenged the sale to Nique by filing an action for quieting of title and damages (Civil Case No. CEB-7038, RTC Branch 9, Cebu City).
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-7038
- Trial court (Branch 9, Judge Benigno G. Gaviola) rendered judgment on November 27, 1990:
- Dismissed Laurencia’s complaint and ruled in favor of defendant (Nique) on his counterclaim.
- Declared defendant owner in fee simple of the share of Laurencia and the shares of Marcelino, Gregorio and Abundio — totaling four shares aggregating approximately 146 square meters.
- Ordered plaintiff (Laurencia) to vacate and surrender possession to defendant to the extent of the four shares.
- Awarded monetary reliefs against Laurencia: P15,000 as litigation/necessary expenses; P10,000 reimbursement for attorney’s fees; P10,000 moral damages; P10,000 exemplary damages; plus costs.
- Laurencia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 33433) but later withdrew the appeal; the Court of Appeals considered the appeal withdrawn on April 13, 1992 under Rule 50, Rules of Court.
Subsequent Proceeding — Petitioner's Civil Case No. CEB-11673
- Petitioner Mauricia filed, on May 5, 1992, a complaint for redemption and recovery of properties with damages against Nique, docketed Civil Case No. CEB-11673 (RTC, Branch VII, Cebu City).
- Pleadings and amended complaint (May 17, 1992):
- Alleged Nique did not notify Mauricia of the purchase of 121.67 sq. m. of Lot No. 2798 nor afford her the preemptive right as co-owner.
- Expressed willingness to deposit P29,777.78 (the alleged acquisition cost) to redeem the 121.67 sq. m.
- Alleged Nique had unduly claimed about 24.34 sq. m. which belonged to Mauricia.
- Prayer: enable redemption of 121.67 sq. m. for P29,777.78; order Nique to execute documents to effect transfer; return of the 24.34 sq. m.; damages of P115,000; and attorney’s fees of P30,000.
- The amended complaint was admitted and defendant ordered to file amended answer on August 2, 1993.
Motion for Segregation in Civil Case No. CEB-7038 and Trial Court Order (May 6, 1993)
- While CEB-7038 remained, defendant Nique filed a motion to order segregation of the 146 sq. m. adjudged to him.
- The trial court granted the motion by order dated May 6, 1993, reasoning in pertinent extracts:
- The decision declaring the shares in defendant’s favor had become final; plaintiff (oppositor) had admitted she possessed 146 sq. m. in complaint paragraph 4.
- The total lot area is 219 sq. m.; Mauricia’s share therefore only 73 sq. m. (note: document at times shows numerical inconsistencies such as 73 vs. 75; the court cited 73 sq. m.).
- An extrajudicial settlement of estate dated June 10, 1983 (Exh. 16/16a), executed by Mauricia and Laurencia, partitioned the land with Laurencia owning 146 sq. m. in the frontage and Mauricia owning 75/73 sq. m. in the back; it also granted reciprocal 2-meter rights of way.
- The extrajudicial partition, though not notarized, was valid as between the parties who signed it; Mauricia, being an immediate party, could not renege.
- Because the 146 sq. m. sold to Nique had a specifically known location (the frontage) under the extrajudicial settlement, the court allowed segregation and ordered Nique to have the portion surveyed at his expense.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and CA Decision (August 25, 1993)
- Petitioner Mauricia sought certiorari/prohibition in the Court of Appeals to annul the trial court’s segregation order.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court’s order, reasoning:
- The trial court ensured execution of a final judgment conforming to the dispositive part of its decision.
- The trial court properly examined the text of its earlier decision and Exhibit 16a (Extrajudicial Settlement, June 10, 1983), which described Laurencia’s 146 sq. m. frontage and Mauricia’s 73 sq. m. back portion; Exhibit 16a was duly signed by petitioner and witnessed by private respondent.
- When Laurencia sold to Nique via Deed of Absolute Sale (Oct. 29, 1986; Exhs. B and 10a), the sale referred to the 146 sq. m. front portion described in Exhibit 16a; Laurencia could not sell more nor less than that partitioned portion.
- Petitioner was estopped from denying the extrajudicial settlement because she participated in it and Nique relied on it, having witnessed it.
- The trial court’s order effectively clarified an ambiguity in the dispositive portion of its decision by referring to pleadings and the body of the decision (citing Republic Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. IAC, 152 SCRA 309) — thus permissible even after finality.
- Concluded that the trial court did not act in excess of jurisdiction and that certiorari/prohibition did not lie.
Appeal to the Supreme Court — Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Petitioner’s principal contentions in the Supreme Court petition: