Lajom v. Leuterio and Rafael Viola G.R. No. L-13557; April 25, 1!" Facts: 1. This is a pet for writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside orders of Judge Leuterio in an ordinary action for the execution execution of judgment in G. R. No. L!#57, entitled $%onato Lajom v&. 'o&e Viola, et al.$ (promulgated ay !"# 1$%&' The ourt )uoted the facts and proceedings of said case: •
•
•
•
aximo aximo *iola *iola died died on +eptem +eptem,er ,er !# 1$!!. 1$!!. Judici Judicial al proceed proceeding ings s of his testate estate were instituted in the ourt of First -nstance. n agreement of partition and distri,ution was executed ,y and ,etween Jose /. *iola# 0afael *iola and +ilio *iola# legitimate children of aximo *iola and Juana Toura# Toura# where,y the properties left ,y their father# aximo *iola# were diided among themseles. 2onato Lajom 3led a complaint praying# among other things# that he ,e decl declar ared ed a natu natura rall chil child d of axi aximo mo *iola *iola## impli implied edly ly recogn ecogni4 i4ed ed and and ac5nowledged in accordance with the laws in force prior to the iil ode# there,y ,eing a co6heir of Jose /. *iola# 0afael *iola and +ilio *iola7 that the agreement of partition and distri,ution executed in 1$!% ,y these three legitimate children of aximo *iola ,e declared null and oid and that there ,e a new partition with 189 of the estate of aximo gien to him and 89 to each of the other heirs. F- of ;uea
. The The case case was was rema remand nded ed to lower lower cour courtt wher where e 2ona 2onato to 3led 3led a motio motion n for for execution of judgement. •
•
Judge Leuterio claimed it wasn>t clear what the properties of aximo are ,ecaus ,ecause e in the original original complaint complaint of 2onato 2onato## 9% parcel parcels s of land land were were enum enumer erat ated ed whil while e the the part partit itio ion n amon among g Jose Jose## 0afae 0afaell and and +il +ilio io only only enumerated ?9 parcels of land and now# 2onato enumerated @? parcels of land. s starting point# he said that undou,tedly A of the ?9 parcels ,elonged to aximo (since conjugal property' so Baccordingly# the defendants# who are in possession of each and eeryone of these ?9 parcels# are here,y ordered to delier the same to the judicial administrator to ,e hereinafter appointed# for his administration until the 3nal partition in accordance with the decision of this ourt.C
•
0afael 3led a report of what he receied under the partition. 2onato noticed that his report did not contain the fruits of a 0iceland with an area pf 1% hectares allegedly donated ,y aximo to 0afael. 2onato wanted 0afael to include (collate' said 0iceland to the o redistri,ution of estate. 0afael o,jected saying that the riceland *a& not mentioned or o in(luded in t+e (omplaint led in t+i& (a&e. 'ude Leuterio &ided *it+ Rafael &ain t+at onl t+e donation& to 'o&e and /ilvio *ere )ue&tioned in t+e (omplaint and t+e de(i&ion0& di&po&itive portion onl ordered t+o&e 2 to (ollate. ropertie& donated to Rafael +ad not een put into )ue&tioned and t+erefore (annot e deemed to +ave een emra(ed in t+e di&po&itive re)uirin (ollation.
2onato is now )uestioning said order of the Judge Leuterio.
//46 DE; properties not mentioned in the complaint of 2onato can ,e ordered to ,e collated ;E. DE; iil ase for annulment of partition ,ecame a special proceeding ;E. 0atio: 1. The decision a=rmed ,y this ourt in G. 0. ;o. L6&?%9 ordained the collation of the properties in )uestion. The properties in )uestion were descri,ed in an inentory attached to petitionerHs original complaint in case ;o. @"99 and did not in(lude t+e aforementioned ri(eland, *it+ an area of 215 +e(tare&. -ndeed# 2onato admits that he did not include# and could not hae included or mentioned it# in his complaint ,ecause# at the time of its 3ling# he did not 5now of the existence of said property. Ience# the same was not in )uestion in case ;o. @"99# and was not coered ,y the decision therein rendered and su,se)uently a=rmed ,y the +upreme ourt in ase ;o. L6&?%9. The decision of Judge Leuterio did not direct collation of all property ,ut rather as5ed 2onato to su,mit report to list properties which he ,eliees ,elong to aximo and that the other heirs can 3le and opposition thereto. +u&, it left t+e )ue&tion *+et+er ot+er propertie& &+ould e (ollated or not open for future determination. n an event, re&pondent 'ude *a& merel enfor(in a de(i&ion t+at +ad alread e(ome nal. ny order directing what was not re)uired in said decision and the same contained no pronouncement with respect to the riceland aderted to a,oe would ,e in excess of his jurisdiction and therefore# null and oid. . -t is next alleged that petitioner haing ,een the ictim of preterition# the institution of heirs made ,y the deceased 2r. aximo *iola ,ecame ineKectie# and that iil ase ;o. @"99 was there,y conerted into an intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate. This contention is clearly untena,le. +ere mi+t +ave een merit t+erein if *e *ere dealin *it+ a &pe(ial pro(eedin& for t+e &ettlement of t+e te&tate e&tate of a de(ea&ed
per&on, *+i(+, in (on&e)uen(e of &aid preterition, *ould t+ere a()uire t+e (+ara(ter of a pro(eedin for t+e &ettlement of an inte&tate e&tate, with jurisdiction oer any and all properties of the deceased. ut# 8ivil 8a&e No. 9"77 i& an ordinar (ivil a(tion, and t+e aut+orit of t+e (ourt +avin juri&di(tion over t+e &ame i& limited to t+e propertie& de&(ried in t+e pleadin&, *+i(+ admittedl do not in(lude t+e aforementioned ri(eland.