EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13557 April 25, 1960DONATO LAJOM, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and RAFAEL VIOLA, respondents.
M. Almario and J. T. Lajom for petitioner.
M. H. de Joya for respondents.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside certain orders, and reinstate another order, of respondent Judge.
The factual background of this case may be found in our decision in G. R. No. L-6457, entitled "Donato Lajom vs. Jose Viola, et al." (promulgated May 30, 1956), from which we quote:
Maximo Viola died on September 3, 1933. Judicial
proceedings of his testate estate were instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. 4741) and closed on March 17, 1937.
An agreement of partition and distribution (dated October 25, 1935) was
executed by and between Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola,
legitimate children of Maximo Viola and Juana Toura, whereby the
properties left by their father, Maximo Viola, were divided among
themselves. On March 17, 1939, Donato Lajom (plaintiff-appellee herein)
filed in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija a complaint, amended
on May 16, 1939, praying, among other things, that he be declared a
natural child of Maximo Viola, impliedly recognized and acknowledged in
accordance with the laws in force prior to the Civil Code, thereby being
a co-heir of Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola
(defendants-appellants); that the agreement of partition and
distribution executed in 1935 by these three legitimate children of
Maximo Viola be declaired null and void after collation, payment of
debts and accounting of fruits, anew partition be ordered adjusdication
one-seventh of the estate left by Maximo Viola by Donato Lajom and
two-seventh to each of the three appellants. The latter filed a demurrer
to the amended complaint which was sustained by the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of July 31, 1939, holding that the
allegation of the amended complaint called for the exercise of probate
jurisdication and that as the complaint showed that the will of the
deceased Maximo Viola had already been probated in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan which had first taken cognizance of the settlement
of his estate, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija could not
subsequently assume the same jurisdiction. Upon appeal to the Supreme
Court by the plaintiff-appellee, the order sustaining the demurrer was
reversed and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija for further proceeding.
On December 21, 1942, the defendants-appellants
accordingly filed an answer to the amended complaint containing specific
denials and setting up the affirmative defenses that the appellants are
the sole heirs of Maximo Viola; that corresponding judicial proceedings
of his testate estate were duly instituted and terminated in the Court
of First Instance of Bulacan, of which plaintiff-appellee was fully
aware; that the action was filed by the appellee two years after the
termination of said testate proceedings and almost six years after the
death of Maximo Viola, without having previously asserted any right
whatsoever to any part of said estate, and he is therefore now barred
from doing so; and that assuming the appellee to be an acknowledged
natural child of Maximo Viola, his right of action had prescribed. After
trial, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a decision
in favor of the plaintiff, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:
EN VISTA DE LAS CONSIDERACIONES ARRIBA EXPUESTAS, el
Juzgado falla este asunto a favor del demandante y contra de los
demandados, declarando al demandante, Donato Lajom, hijo natural,
implicita y tacitamente, reconocido por su padre, el difundo Dr. Maximo
Viola, de acuerdo con la Ley de Toro; se declara la particion y
distribucion hecha por los demandados "Convenio de Particion y
Adjudicacion de los Bienes Dejados por el Difundo Dr. Maximo Viola,
ilegal, nulo y de ningun valor; se ordena la colacion de los bienes en
cuestion, poniendo los mismos en manos de un administrador judicial; se
ordena a todos y cada uno de los aqui demandados a presentar una
liquidacion de los frutos y ptoductos provenientes de dichas propiedades
asignadas a cada uno de ellos desde el Octubre 25, 1935, con el fin de
una nueva distribucion; se ordena a los demandados Jose P. Viola y
Silvio Viola a someter una liquidacion de los frutos y productos de las
tres parcelas de terreno mencionadas en los parrafos 1 y 2 del Annex "A"
que han sido puestas bajo su administracion en el Procedimiento
Especial No. 4741 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Bulacan a partir
del 3 del Septembre de 1933; y finalmente, se ordena la particion y
adjudicacion a favor del demandante de una septima (¹/7) parte de dichas propiedades y productos; dos septimas (2/7)
parbes a cada uno de los aqui demandados, cuando todas esas
propiedadespertenecientes al finado Dr. Maximo Viola sean colados, todas
las deudas pagodas y los frutos rendidos. Con costas.
Said decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija was, on appeal, affirmed by this Court in said case No. L-6457 on
May 30, 1956.
When the decision of this Court became final, the
records were remanded to the lower court where plaintiff filed a motion
for the execution of the judgment, the collation of all properties of
the late Dr. Maximo Viola and the redistribution of his estate as
indicated in said judgment. Acting on the motion, respondent Judge
issued an order dated October 30, 1956, pertinent parts of which are of
the following tenor:
The decision annulled the partition entered into by
the defendants and ordered the "collation of all the properties in
question", placing the same in the hands of a judicial administrator.
What the properties in question are, do not clearly appear. In the
inventory attached to the original complaint, 75 parcels of land were
enumerated. In the agreement of partition which was annulled, the
inventory of the estate of the late Dr. Maximo Viola enumerates only 47
parcels of land. These 47 parcels, according to the agreement of
partition, were all conjugal. In the motion for execution, plaintiff now
enumerates 84 parcels of land. The decision did not state what
properties belonged to the late Dr. Maximo Viola, but it did provide for
the partition of all the estate belonging to the late Dr. Viola after
the same had been collated and all the debts paid and the fruits me
liquidated. It would he manifestly unfair to either party to consider
the 75 parcels of land enumerated in the inventory attached to the
amended complaint as the conjugal properties of the late Dr. Maximo
Viola and his deceased wife, or to limit the same to the 47 parcels
enumerated in the inventory of the estate of the late Dr. Maximo Viola
attached to the agreement of partition. As a starting point, however, ½
of the 47 parcels enumerated in the agreement of partition and marked,
as Exhibit F-1, which is Exhibit A of the deed of partition, are
undoubtedly the properties of the late Maximo Viola which must be
partitioned among the plaintiff and the defendants in accordance with
the decision. Accordingly, the defendants, who are in possession of each
and everyone of these 47 parcels, are hereby ordered to deliver the
same to the judicial administrator to be hereinafter appointed, for his
administration until the final partition in accordance with the decision
of this Court. As there is a disagreement among the parties with
respect to the other properties, the plaintiff is hereby ordered to
submit within 15 days upon receipt of this order a list of such other
properties which he believes belong to the late Dr. Maximo Viola. The
defendants shall file their opposition thereto within a like period
after which the same shall be set for hearing to determine whether or
not such properties belong to he late Dr. Maximo Viola and which should
be partitioned among his heir's.
The decision ordering the defendants to collate is
questioned by the defendants, first, on ground that what has been left
by will should not be collated, and second, that what has been left by
way of donation to some of the defendants should not also be collated.
The decision requires the defendants to collate all the properties of
the late Dr. Maximo viola so that they may be partitioned among the
heirs. That decision is now final, and it is not for this, Court to say
that the Court rendering the decision had committed an error. If error
there had been, it is now beyond the power of this Court or any Court to
correct the same. However, the will having completely omitted the
plaintiff who is a compulsory heir, and having disposed of all the
properties in favor of the defendants, it naturally encroached upon the
legitime of the plaintiff. Such testamentary dispositions may not impair
the legitimate (Art. 1037, Spanish Civil Code). In another sense, the
plaintiff, being a compulsory heir in the direct line, and having been
preterited, the institution is annulled in its entirety (Art. 814,
Spanish Civil Code now Art. 854, N.C.C., Neri vs. Akutin, 72 Phil., 322).
With respect to the properties donated by the late
Dr. Maximo Viola and his wife to some of the defendants, the same must
be collated, but the donation having been made jointly by the spouses,
only ½ thereof must be brought into collation in accordance with Article
1046 of the Spanish Civil Code. Moreover, the same things donated are
not to be brought to collation and partition, but only their value at
the time of the donation in accordance with Article 1045 also of the
Spanish Code.
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Mr.
Manuel V. Gallego, Jr. is hereby appointed administrator of the
properties herein collated and may take his oath and assume the
performance of his duties upon the filing of a bond in the sum of
P20,000.
In accordance with the dispositive part of the
decisions, the defendants Jose P. Viola and Silvio Viola are hereby
ordered to submit a liquidation of the fruits and products of the three
parcels of land mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex A. Each and
everyone of the defendants is hereby ordered to submit a liquidation of
the fruits and products of the properties assigned to each and everyone
of them from October 25, 1935, all within 15 days from the receipt of
this order.
When Rafael Viola filed the report required in this
order, Donato Lajom noticed that nothing was said in the aforementioned
report concerning the fruits of a riceland, with an area of 215
hectares, allegedly donated by Dr. Maximo Viola to said Rafael Viola.
So, Lajom asked that Rafael Viola be ordered to include the products of
said riceland in his report, in order that the property may be included
in the redistribution of the Viola Estate. Rafael Viola objected thereto
upon the ground that said property was not "mentioned or included in
the complaint filed in this case." The objection was sustained and the
petition was denied in an order dated October 30, 1957, stating that:
. . . In paragraph II of the amended complaint (p. 43
of the record) only the donation inter vivos in favor of the defendants
Jose Viola and Silvio Viola were questioned. The dispositive part of
the decision required the defendants to collate the properties in
question. The properties which were donated to Rafael Viola had not been
put in issue by the pleadings and they are not in question and,
therefore, cannot be deemed to have been embraced in the dispositive
part of the decision requiring the defendants to collate the properties
in question.
A motion for reconsideration of said order of October 30, 1957 was denied, on January 30, 1958, upon the ground that:
The decision required the defendants to collate the
properties in question. The properties donated to Rafael Viola and which
are sought to be collated by the plaintiff are not in question, not
having been put in issue by the pleadings. Neither are they mentioned in
the inventory of the 75 parcels which are annexed to the complaint. If
the court, in its previous orders, made mention of collation of all the
properties of the deceased, the court had committed an error, and,
therefore, corrects that error in accordance with this order and in the
order of October 30, 1957.
Thereupon Lajom instituted the present case for certiorari and mandamus, with the prayer:
. . . that the respondent Judge be ordered to set
aside his Order of October 30, 1957 and January 30, 1958 and reinstate
his original Order of October 30, 1956 requiring 'the defendants to
collate all the properties of the late Dr. Maxinio Viola so that they
may be partitioned among the heirs' and 'with respect to the property
donated by the late Dr. Maximo Viola and his wife to some of the
defendants the same must be collated.
Petitioner maintains that the riceland aforementioned
was involved in case G. R. No. L-6457, because respondents maintained
in their brief and in the motion for reconsideration filed by them in
the Supreme Court that the lower court had erred in ordering the
collation of all the properties of the deceased. Moreover, he
urges that the order of respondent Judge of October 30, 1956, had
already declared that all properties of the deceased, including those
donated by him, were subject to collation; that said order became final
and executory, no appeal having been taken therefrom; and that,
consequently, said order could not be validly modified or reversed by
the aforementioned orders of respondent Judge, dated October 30, 1957
and January 30, 1958.
We find no merit in this pretense. The decision
affirmed by this Court in G. R. No. L-6457 ordained the collation of the
"properties in question". The properties in question were described in
an inventory attached to petitioner's original complaint in case No.
8077 and did not include the aforementioned riceland, with an area of
215 hectares. Indeed, Lajom admits that he did not include, and could
not have included or mentioned it, in his complaint because, at the time
of its filing, he did not know of the existence of said property.
Hence, the same was not in question in case No. 8077, and was not
covered by the decision therein rendered and subsequently affirmed by
the Supreme Court in Case No. L-6457.
It is not accurate to say that the order of October
30, 1956, had directed the collation of all property of the deceased. It
did not even require the collation of 75 parcels of land enumerated in
the inventory already adverted to. It expressed the view that one-half
of the 47 parcels covered by the agreement of partition therein
nullified, should be delivered to the administrator to be hereinafter
appointed. Then it added:
. . . As there is a disagreement among the parties
with respect to the other properties, the plaintiff is hereby ordered to
submit within 15 days upon receipt of this order a list of such other
properties which he believes belong to the late Dr. Maximo Viola. The
defendants shall file their opposition thereto within a like period
after which the same shall be set for hearing to determine whether or
not such properties belong to the late Dr. Maximo Viola and which should
be partitioned among his heirs.
Thus, it left the question whether other properties
should be collated or not open for future determination. In any event,
respondent Judge was merely enforcing a decision that had already become
final. Any order directing what was not required in said decision — and
the same contained no pronouncement with respect to the riceland
adverted to above — would be in excess of his jurisdiction and
therefore, null and void.
It is next alleged that petitioner having been the
victim of preterition, the institution of heirs made by the deceased Dr.
Maximo Viola became ineffective, and that Civil Case No. 8077 was
thereby converted into an intestate proceedings for the settlement of
his estate. This contention is clearly untenable. There might have been
merit therein if we were dealing with a special proceedings for the
settlement of the testate estate of a deceased person, which, in
consequence of said preterition, would thereby acquire the character of a
proceeding for the settlement of an intestate estate, with jurisdiction
over any and all properties of the deceased. But, Civil Case No. 8077
is an ordinary civil action, and the authority of the court having
jurisdiction over the same is limited to the properties described in the
pleadings, which admittedly do not include the aforementioned riceland.
Without prejudice, therefore, to the institution of
the corresponding intestate proceedings by the proper party, the
petition herein should, therefore, be, as it is hereby, denied, with
costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
No comments:
Post a Comment