EUSEBIO QUIZON AND FLORDELIZA QUIZON, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTO CASTILLO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners seek the annulment of two orders of the Court of First Instance
of Batangas, issued on July 26 and August 18, 1944.

In the first one, the lower court, acting on a petition for the execution of
the decision in special proceeding No. 3906, intestate of Gregorio Mayo
Villapando, dated October 25, 1943, declaring all the parties therein heirs of
the deceased and dividing all the estate into three parts, one to each of three
sets of heirs, ordered petitioners to deliver one-third of the estate to Josefa
Mayo Villapando, unless they should post a bond in the amount of P2,000 pending
the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal interposed against the lower
court’s decision of the petition. Said order is as follows:

“Nang maisa-alang-alang ang munkahi ng manananggol Jose Mayo Librea,
kumakatawan kay Josefa Mayo Villapando, na ilagda ang utos na pagpapatupad ng
naging pasiya sa usap na ito at ang sagot doon ng manananggol Pedro M. Katigbak,
at dahilan sa ang mga pagaaring pinagtatalakayan ay nasa pagiiñgat nina Eusebio
at Flordeliza Quizon at ang mga ito din ang siyang nakikinabang sa mga iyon ay
iniuutos sa kina Eusebio at Flordeliza Quizon na ibigay sa naulit ng Josefa Mayo
Villapando ang ganang ikatlong bahagi ng mga nasabing pinakikinabang liban na
lamang kung ang mga ito ay makapaglagak ng halagang P2,000 ipinanagot doon
samantalang hindi na pasisiyahan ng Kataastaasang Hukumang pinaghahabulan ng
usaping ito.

“Siyang ipinagutos.

“Batañgan, Batañgan, Hulyo 26, 1944.

	“MODESTO CASTILLO
	“Hukom“

The order issued on August 18, 1944, amended the first one to the effect that
petitioners should deliver two-thirds of the estate to Josefa Mayo Villapando,
and Amando, Ciriaco, David and Jose Morada, unless they should file a bond in
the amount of P2,000, pending the decision of the Supreme Court, Said second
order is as follows:

“Matapos maisa-alang-alang ang kahiliñgan ng manananggol Federico A. Blay na
may bilang ika 2 ng kasalukuyan buwan at ang tutol doon ng manananggol Pedro M.
Katigbak, sa palagay ng Hukuma’y iyo’y may sapat na katwirang pinagbabatayan,
kaya’t binabago ang pasiyang inilagda noon ika 26 ng nakaraang buwan, at
iniuutos kina Eusebio at Flordeliza Quizon na ibigay sa kina Josefa Mayo
Villapando, Amando, Ciriaco, David at Jose Morada ang ganang dalawang-ikatlong
bahagui ng mga pinakikinabang sa mga lupang pinaguusapan liban na lamang kung
ang mga iyo’y, Eusebio at Flordeliza Quizon, makapaglagak ng halagang P2,000,
ipananagot doon samantalang hindi napasisiyahan ng Kataastaasang Hukuman
pinaghahabulan ng usaping ito.

“Ito ang ipinaguutos.—Batañgan, Batañgan, Agosto 18, 1944.

	“MODESTO CASTILLO
	“Hukom“

With supporting papers from special proceeding No. 3906, accompanying their
petition, petitioners allege under oath that, after being notified of the
decision of declaration of heirs dated October 25, 1943, they moved for new
trial and, upon denial, filed their notice of appeal, and, on December 4, 1942,
the record on appeal, with the petition to the court to approve the appeal bond
of P60. On December 6, respondent judge fixed the appeal bond at P2,000, and on
December 20, disapproved the record on appeal. On January 12, 1944, petitioners
filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, attacking the legality
of the appeal bond of P2,000. The Supreme Court declared said bond as excessive
and arbitrary.

Ten days before the decision became final, on May 9, Josefa Mayo filed a
motion for execution upon the ground that the appeal bond at P2,000 having been
rejected, her share in the fruits of the estate was left without guarantee. The
petition was filed without notice to petitioners. On May 19, petitioners filed
their amended record on appeal as well as the appeal bond of P60. On May 24,
Josefa Mayo filed a petition, also without notice to petitioners, praying that
the hearing on the amended record on appeal be suspended until after her motion
for execution be acted upon, and the lower court issued an order on the same
day, setting for hearing the motion for execution sometime after June 15. On
June 6, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the order of May 24, upon
the ground that the motion for execution should not have been acted upon as it
was filed without notice in violation of section 2 of Rule 39, besides having
been filed during the efficacy of the resolution of January 14, 1944, issued by
the Supreme Court, suspending all proceedings in the intestate of Gregorio Mayo
Villapando, case No. 3906, and that the amended record on appeal is, the only
valid pleading then pending and should be acted upon before anything else.

On July 3, the respondent judge issued an order setting for July 18 the
hearings on the motion for execution, on the amended record on appeal and on the
motion for reconsideration. On July 14, petitioners filed their opposition to
the motion for execution alleging, among other reasons, that the lower court had
no power or authority to order the execution during the time for perfecting the
appeal and that said decision, being declaratory in nature could not be
executed. On August 2, the Morada brothers presented a motion to amend the order
of July 26, which was opposed to by petitioners because, being in reality a
motion for execution, it was filed days after the amended record on appeal was
approved on July 31, and that the presentation of said motion was in violation
of section 2 of Rule 39.

The dispositive part of the decision of October 25, 1943, sought to be
executed through the orders of July 26 and August 18, 1944, complained of by
petitioners simply makes a declaration as to who are the heirs of Gregorio Mayo
Villapando, adding that Josefa Mayo is entitled to one-third, petitioners to
another third, and the Morada brothers to the last third.

The facts in this case show that the respondent judge acted in excess of its
jurisdiction when he issued the orders of July 26 and August 18, 1944. Said
orders, purportedly to execute the decision of October 25, 1943, provided for
the delivery, at first, of one-third of the estate to Josefa Mayo and later of
two-thirds of the estate to Josefa Mayo and to the Morada brothers, unless
petitioners should file bond in the amount of P2,000. No law nor legal authority
has been mentioned in respondent’s answer in support of said orders and none can
be cited. The decision of October 25, 1943, provided only for the declaration of
heirs and of the shares each set of heirs was entitled to. Nothing was provided
in said decision as to the delivery of shares from one person to another. The
orders of July 26, and August 18, provided for the execution of something
supposed to be executed by the decision of October 25, 1943, which in fact is
not provided therein.

Besides, it was premature to order the delivery of shares to the heirs, when
no project of partition has as yet been filed and approved.

The orders of respondent judge dated July 26 and August 18, 1944, are set
aside with costs against respondents.

Paras, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon,
Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.
Moran, C.J., and
Feria, J., concur in the result.