G.R. No. 109387 - De Mesa vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109387)

Factual Background

Private respondents filed an action for partition and accounting against Leonardo Lim de Mesa and his sister Leticia Lim de Mesa, alleging entitlement to an undivided interest in properties left by their parents, Manuel de Mesa and Lucia Lim, consisting principally of Lot No. 329 of Sta. Rosa Estate Subdivision with a residential house and a funeral parlor known as Lim de Mesa Memorial Chapel. The complaint prayed for partition of the estate, an accounting of funeral parlor income from October 24, 1980, and declaration that private respondent Rogelio Lim de Mesa owned eight-tenths of the estate by virtue of assignments from co-heirs.

Pleadings and Parties’ Positions

In his answer, Leonardo Lim de Mesa admitted the house and lot but asserted sole ownership of the funeral parlor and alleged other properties and businesses remained in possession and management of two other plaintiffs. Private respondents maintained that partition and accounting were proper and that various co-heirs had assigned interests to Rogelio.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment ordering partition of the estate among the surviving heirs, specifying fractional shares in the realty and in the proceeds from the funeral business, ordering defendants to execute confirmations of extrajudicial instruments, directing Leonardo to render an accounting of the funeral business from November 1980 within thirty days after finality, and awarding P30,000 as moral damages and P20,000 as attorney’s fees, plus costs.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Supreme Court Appeal

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment with modifications by deleting the requirement that defendants execute a deed confirming the extrajudicial partition and the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees. Leonardo appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the appeal by resolution dated January 27, 1992, and the judgment of the lower court, as modified by the Court of Appeals, became final upon entry on June 4, 1992.

Execution and Incidents Post-Judgment

Private respondents moved for execution; a writ of execution issued but was returned unsatisfied on September 21, 1992 due to petitioner’s refusal to comply. The trial court granted a motion to enforce judgment on October 14, 1992. Subsequent incidents included a petition to furnish copies of pleadings, an order of November 13, 1992 directing Rogelio to furnish certain documents, an order dated November 18, 1992 concerning extension to render accounting and contempt, and an order dated November 25, 1992 granting a writ of possession with delineation of property lines. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on the ground that these orders were issued ex parte in violation of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court; the trial court denied reconsideration on December 23, 1992.

Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals assailing the orders of October 14, November 18, and November 25, 1992 on the grounds that they were issued without prior notice and hearing and thus were void. The Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition and ruled that execution of a final and executory judgment is ministerial and need not be preceded by notice or hearing.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner framed the principal errors as threefold: that the Court of Appeals wrongly applied Rule 39 and held the partition judgment final and executory as of June 4, 1992; that the assailed orders were issued as incidents of execution of a purportedly final judgment; and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that ex parte issuance of the challenged orders was immaterial because execution is a matter of right and requires no prior notice to the judgment debtor.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Finality and Execution

The Court examined the nature and stages of judicial partition and accounting under Rule 69 and reiterated long-established doctrine that an order declaring partition or adjudging the existence of co-ownership is a final and appealable determination on the right to partition, even though further proceedings to effect actual partition or to render and approve an accounting may remain. Citing prior jurisprudence including Miranda, et al. v. Court of Appeals, Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, et al., and Napilan, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., the Court explained that the first stage determines the existence of co-ownership and the right to partition; the second stage concerns the mechanics of dividing the property, including appointment of commissioners and the rendition and approval of accounting. The Court held that execution of that part of the judgment not requiring further proceedings is proper and that, once a judgment became final and executory on June 4, 1992, execution became a matter of right for private respondents and a ministerial duty of the court. The judgment debtor need not be given advance notice of the application for execution nor prior hearings on such motion.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Ex Parte Issuance of Orders

Applying the foregoing principles, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the failure to serve a copy of the motion for execution on petitioner was not fatal because execution followed a final and executory judgment. Nevertheless, the Court identified limits to execution measures and supervisory powers. The Court found that the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction when it directed Atty. Luzod, Jr. to sign a deed of partition on behalf of petitioner and when it issued a writ of possession pursuant to an extrajudicial partition prepared solely by private respondents. The Court explained that after judgment declaring partition and fixing fractional shares, actual partition must either be effected by mutual agreement through proper conveyances approved by the court or, if the parties cannot agree, by the court’s appointment of competent commi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 109387)

Parties and Procedural Posture

LEONARDO LIM DE MESA, PETITIONER sought certiorari to nullify three orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Binan, Laguna issued in Civil Case No. B-1942 and assailed the denial of due course by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29818.
Respondents included the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RODRIGO V. COSICO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINAN, LAGUNA, ROGELIO S. MOLINA, BRANCH SHERIFF, and several private respondents all surnamed LIM DE MESA.
The trial court rendered a judgment ordering partition and accounting which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, and this Court denied petitioner’s subsequent appeal making the judgment final and executory upon entry on June 4, 1992.
Execution proceedings followed in the trial court, producing the three contested orders dated October 14, 1992, November 18, 1992, and November 25, 1992, and petitioner thereafter filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals which denied due course by resolution dated March 4, 1993.

Key Factual Allegations

Private respondents instituted an action for partition against LEONARDO LIM DE MESA and Leticia Lim de Mesa, alleging co-ownership of a house and lot in Sta. Rosa Estate Subdivision, Laguna and a funeral parlor known as Lim de Mesa Memorial Chapel.
Private respondents prayed for partition of the estate, an accounting of funeral parlor income from October 24, 1980, and declaration that Rogelio Lim de Mesa owned eight-tenths of the estate by virtue of assignments.
Petitioner admitted the house and lot but denied co-ownership of the funeral parlor, asserting sole ownership of the funeral business and alleging other properties were in possession of other heirs.

Trial Court Judgment

The trial court ordered partition of Lot No. 329 and the residential house thereon and apportioned specified aliqout shares among the heirs, including numerical fractional shares for each heir as to the real property and to proceeds from the funeral business.
The trial court ordered Leonardo Lim de Mesa to render an accounting of the funeral business from November 1980 within thirty days, ordered execution of certain extrajudicial instruments (Exhibits “H” and “I”) by specified parties, and awarded moral damages in the amount of P30,000 and attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000, together with costs.

Appellate Proceedings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modifications by deleting the portions compelling execution of the extrajudicial partition and the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees.
This Court denied petitioner’s appeal by resolution dated January 27, 1992, and entry of judgment was made on June 4, 1992, rendering the judgment final and executory.

Post-judgment Proceedings

Private respondents filed a motion for execution which the trial court granted and a writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied on September 21, 1992 due to petitioner’s refusal to comply.
The trial court granted a motion to enforce judgment by order dated October 14, 1992, and directed other incidental acts including appointmen