G.R. No. 177703; January 28, 2008
Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola, petitioners, vs. John Nabor C. Arriola, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent John Nabor C. Arriola, son of the decedent Fidel Arriola with his first wife, filed an action for judicial partition against petitioners Vilma G. Arriola (Fidel’s second wife) and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola (Fidel’s son with Vilma). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the partition of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 383714 among the three heirs in equal one-third shares. The decision became final. As the parties could not agree on the partition, they consented to a public auction of the land.
The scheduled auction was disrupted when petitioners refused to include the house standing on the land in the sale. Respondent filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Contempt. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the house was not included in the final judgment for partition, as it was never alleged in the complaint or adjudicated by the court. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and ordering the public auction sale of the land to include the house constructed thereon.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the CA decision. The Court first clarified that the contempt proceeding was improperly initiated, as Rule 71 requires indirect contempt to be commenced by a verified petition, which respondent failed to file. Thus, the RTC correctly denied the motion.
On the substantive issue of partition, the Court held that the house, as an improvement, follows the ownership of the land by accession under Articles 440 and 445 of the Civil Code. Since the land was co-owned by the heirs, the house built thereon during the co-ownership also became part of the common property, absent proof that it was built solely with one heir’s separate funds. The final RTC partition order encompassed the entire property, including all improvements. Therefore, the house should be included in the public auction for partition.
However, the Court modified the CA’s directive for an immediate auction. Applying Article 159 of the Family Code, the conjugal partnership of gains between Fidel and Vilma was dissolved upon Fidel’s death, and the surviving spouse (Vilma) is entitled to administer the conjugal assets exclusively for two years from dissolution to settle the estate. The property, being conjugal, falls under this rule. Thus, the public auction was ordered suspended until after the expiration of this two-year administration period.