REMEDIOS DE LA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 8TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 15, THRU HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, YOLANDA U. DAGANDAN, AND ERZON SONGAHID, RESPONDE…

De La Cruz versus Songahid

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Remedios De La Cruz against the Regional Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, presided over by Judge Yolanda Dagandan, and against the private respondent Erzon Songahid. Remedios was the defendant in a complaint for judicial partition over a parcel of land, and she asks the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's orders granting execution of the judgment of partition. The case matters because it gathers in one decision three lessons every remedial law candidate must carry: that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, that reference to commissioners in a partition is mandatory and not discretionary, and that the plaintiff in a partition must implead all the indispensable parties or the judgment is void.

Procedural History

The dispute began in the Municipal Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte, in an action for unlawful detainer filed by Erzon Songahid against Remedios De La Cruz. That court dismissed the complaint because there had been no proper delineation and partition of the property. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 of Burauen, Leyte, affirmed the dismissal and denied the prayer to evict Remedios.

Erzon then filed a complaint for partition with a prayer for a preliminary prohibitory injunction and a temporary restraining order, with damages. On May 25, 2012, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in his favor, ordering the partition of the property, setting aside 9.6 square meters for Remedios and awarding the remaining portion to Erzon after payment of estate taxes, with the partition to be executed so that Remedios would be least disturbed in her possession if possible. An entry of judgment was later issued certifying that the decision had become final and executory. On motion of Erzon, the trial court granted execution, and Remedios moved for reconsideration and for quashal of the writ, which the trial court denied. Remedios then went to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court entertained the petition in the broader interest of justice.

Facts

Sometime in the first quarter of 2004, Erzon Songahid sued Remedios De La Cruz for unlawful detainer, claiming that she had encroached on a 393.5 square meter portion of his property, a 403 square meter parcel identified as Lot 5115 of the Burauen Cadastre. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case because no proper delineation and partition had been made to determine the specific area owned by each of them, and the Regional Trial Court affirmed.

To settle the boundaries, Erzon filed a complaint for partition. On May 25, 2012, the trial court ruled in his favor, ordering that 9.6 square meters be set aside and awarded to Remedios, and that the remaining portion go to Erzon after payment of estate taxes. The decision became final and executory after fifteen days passed without a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from Remedios.

Erzon moved for execution, and the trial court granted the motion and issued a writ. Remedios moved for reconsideration and for quashal of the writ, raising three grounds: that the judgment could not be carried out without the appointment of commissioners under Rule 69; that the property was her family home and exempt from execution; and that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution of a judgment she claimed was not final. The trial court denied the motion, and Remedios elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders granting execution and denying the motion for reconsideration and quashal.
• Whether or not the May 25, 2012 judgment had already attained finality, making execution a ministerial duty of the court.
• Whether or not the trial court could execute the judgment of partition without first referring the partition to commissioners under Rule 69.
• Whether or not the failure of the private respondent to implead all the indispensable parties rendered the judgment and the subsequent orders null and void.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on execution as a matter of right, provides:

Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.

This is the general rule the Court applies, and it is the rule that makes execution a ministerial duty once the judgment is final.

Section 2 of Rule 69, on partition by agreement, provides:

If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate among all the parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by all the parties, and such partition, together with the order of the court confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated.

This is the first mode of partition, which requires the parties to attempt an amicable agreement before commissioners are appointed.

Section 3 of Rule 69, on commissioners, provides:

If the parties are unable to agree upon the partition, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to each party in interest such part and proportion of the property as the court shall direct.

This is the second mode, and the Court holds that reference to commissioners is a required procedural step and not a matter of discretion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy, because Remedios had lost her right to appeal when she failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal. A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Nevertheless, the Court relaxed the rule in the broader interest of justice, recognizing the exceptions: when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate, when the broader interest of justice so requires, when the writs issued are null and void, or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judgment had indeed become final and executory by operation of law upon the lapse of the fifteen-day period, and that execution then becomes a ministerial duty of the court. But the Court recognized exceptions to this rule: when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust, or when there is a change in the situation of the parties that may warrant injunctive relief. The Court found that executing the decision would cause injustice to Remedios and to indispensable parties not impleaded.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court deviated from Rule 69. The records did not show that the parties were required to submit a project of partition, and the trial court admitted that it deemed it unnecessary to refer the matter to commissioners. The Court ruled that reference to commissioners is required and not discretionary, and that in immediately dispensing with it the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that in a partition the plaintiff is mandated to implead all indispensable parties, and that the absence of one such party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. Remedios could not be faulted for failing to raise the matter in a motion to dismiss, and she did not waive the objection. Because of this omission, the judgment and the succeeding orders were null and void. With the orders annulled, the Court found the issue of the family home moot and did not discuss it.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, but the Court may relax the rule in the broader interest of justice, when public welfare dictates, when the writs are null and void, or when the order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

Once a judgment becomes final, execution issues as a matter of right under Section 1 of Rule 39, and it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ. The exceptions are when later facts render execution inequitable or unjust, or when there is a change in the situation of the parties.

In a partition, reference to not more than three competent and disinterested commissioners under Section 3 of Rule 69 is a mandatory procedural step, not a discretionary one, whenever the parties cannot agree under Section 2.

In an action for partition of real estate, the plaintiff must implead all the indispensable parties, and the failure to do so renders the judgment and all subsequent orders null and void for want of authority to act.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was granted, and the orders of September 4, 2012 and October 4, 2012 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 of Burauen, Leyte were set aside.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in partition proceedings, reference to commissioners is required as a procedural step and is not discretionary on the part of the court, and the plaintiff must implead all indispensable parties or the judgment is void. Examiners use this case on the mandatory appointment of commissioners under Rule 69, on the finality of judgments and the exceptions to execution as a matter of right, and on certiorari as no substitute for a lost appeal.