G.R. No. 109387 April 25, 1994
LEONARDO LIM DE MESA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RODRIGO V. COSICO, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna; ROGELIO S. MOLINA, Branch Sheriff; and ALFREDO, NUMERIANO, ZENAIDA, ROGELIO, YOLANDA, OLIVIA, BENJAMIN, TERESITA and WILSON, all surnamed LIM DE MESA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents (siblings of petitioner) filed an action for partition against petitioner Leonardo Lim de Mesa and their sister Leticia Lim de Mesa regarding properties left by their deceased parents, consisting of a house and lot and a funeral parlor business. The trial court rendered a judgment ordering the partition of the estate, an accounting of the funeral business proceeds by petitioner, the execution of deeds confirming prior extrajudicial agreements, and the payment of damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with modifications, deleting the orders for petitioner and Leticia to execute the confirming deeds and the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court denied petitioner’s further appeal, and the judgment became final and executory on June 4, 1992. Private respondents filed a motion for execution, which was granted. A writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied due to petitioner’s refusal to comply. The trial court subsequently issued three orders: (1) an October 14, 1992 order designating a lawyer to sign the deed of partition for petitioner and ordering him to explain why he should not be cited for contempt; (2) a November 18, 1992 order giving petitioner an extension to render an accounting, with a warning of contempt for failure; and (3) a November 25, 1992 order granting a writ of possession and delineation of property lines. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing these orders were issued ex parte in violation of the rules. The motion was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied due course. Petitioner now assails the Court of Appeals’ resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s orders dated October 14, 1992, November 18, 1992, and November 25, 1992, issued ex parte in the execution of a final judgment in an action for partition, are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the resolution of the Court of Appeals. It held that a judgment ordering partition is final and appealable, and its execution is a matter of right. However, the execution must conform to the specific procedure outlined in Rule 69 for judicial partition. The Court set aside the orders dated October 14, 1992 and November 25, 1992. It ruled that the trial court erred in issuing a writ of possession and in ordering a lawyer to sign the deed of partition for the petitioner, as these acts pertained to the second stage of partition proceedings under Rule 69, which requires the appointment of commissioners to effect the partition when the parties cannot agree. The order of November 18, 1992, pertaining to the accounting, was not set aside as it was a proper enforcement of a ministerial duty under the final judgment. The trial court was directed to immediately appoint commissioners to expeditiously effect the partition in accordance with Rule 69.