G.R. No. L-4158 June 29, 1951
EMILIA RODRIGUEZ DE HERRERA, petitioner, vs. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental and JOHN A. RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On April 2, 1946, Eduarda Arsin Vda. de Herrera and Consolacion Rodriguez Vda. de Velono filed an action (Civil Case No. 873) seeking the annulment of the sale of two parcels of land. John A. Rodriguez was allowed to intervene. The case was dismissed against Emilia Rodriguez Vda. de Herrera per the plaintiff’s wish, but the complaint in intervention continued as to her. A separate action (Civil Case No. 1137) was later filed by Eduarda against John A. Rodriguez for the annulment of a deed of donation involving the same properties. The cases were tried jointly, and the court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 873 and declaring the two parcels of land to be the property of the intervenor, John A. Rodriguez, subject to a usufruct in favor of plaintiff Eduarda during her lifetime. This decision became final on March 12, 1949. Eduarda later died. The intervenor filed a motion for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the value of a house owned by petitioner Emilia Rodriguez de Herrera (which was on one parcel) and the value of the lot, to exercise the option under Article 361 of the Civil Code to either buy the house or sell the land. The court granted the motion and appointed commissioners. Emilia moved to set aside the order, arguing the intervenor must assert his right in a separate action, but her motion was denied. The commissioners submitted their report. The court issued an order directing Emilia to sell her house to the intervenor for P710 within fifteen days or remove it within thirty days. Upon reconsideration, the court reiterated the order, giving her fifty days to remove the house, with a warning that failure would allow the intervenor to seek demolition. Before the period expired, Emilia hinted at appealing to the Supreme Court. The court then issued an order on September 9, 1950, directing her to immediately remove her house after the intervenor posted a bond. Emilia filed this petition for certiorari. After the petition was filed, the lower court reconsidered its September 9 order and instead gave the intervenor ten days to exercise his option to buy the house or sell the land, omitting the directive for Emilia to remove her house.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the intervenor’s motion for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the house and lot to exercise the option under Article 361 of the Civil Code, and in issuing the subsequent orders related thereto, after its decision on the main case had become final and executory.

RULING

Yes, the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated September 9, 1950, and October 7, 1950. The issue raised by the intervenor’s motion was not raised nor discussed in the main case and was not part of the dispositive portion of the final decision. The decision merely declared the intervenor as owner of the land subject to a usufruct in favor of his mother (who later died). The question of applying Article 361 of the Civil Code (regarding the option to buy or sell when land belongs to one and the building to another) was a contingency that occurred long after the decision became final and executory. After a final judgment, the court’s jurisdiction is generally exhausted except for enforcement of the judgment as rendered. The incident in question was not necessary to enforce the judgment nor in aid of the court’s authority over the principal matter. While courts may entertain motions to avoid multiplicity of suits when they are ancillary to the main case, this was not such a situation, as the issue was entirely divorced from the adjudicated matter. The writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court was made final.