G.R. No. 70025 March 14, 1990
CONSOLACION NAPILAN, GLORIA NAPILAN-JAEN, DAVID NAPILAN and ELIAS NAPILAN, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. JULIAN Y EREÑO, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Region VI, Branch XXVII, LEON GOTERA, BENJAMIN NAPILAN, LYDIA TACELOSA, and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, ILOILO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners and private respondents, who are co-heirs, were involved in an action for partition, accounting, and damages. The parties reached an amicable settlement on the real property but proceeded to trial regarding the shares in personal property and the fruits of the lands from 1971 to 1977. The trial court initially rendered a judgment on September 11, 1981, ordering petitioners to render an accounting of the fruits and personal property and to deliver the corresponding shares. Upon plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, arguing the decision was interlocutory for requiring further court action on the accounting, the court amended its decision. The amended judgment, dated the same day, ordered petitioners to deliver to respondents their two-sevenths share of the net produce from the lands and their share in the personal property valued at P5,718.26, plus interest and attorney’s fees. No appeal was taken from this amended judgment, and it became final.

ISSUE

Whether the amended judgment was final and executory, and whether its execution by the sheriff, including the levy and sale of petitioners’ properties, was valid despite the unresolved accounting for the net produce of the lands.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the amended judgment was final and executory. The legal logic is that a judgment ordering partition with damages is final and appealable, even if it requires an accounting to ascertain the precise amounts due. The Court clarified that the requirement to account does not render a judgment interlocutory; it is merely a procedural step to liquidate damages, and the judgment on liability is definitive. However, the Court found the execution process gravely irregular. The writ of execution could not be fully implemented immediately concerning the shares in the net produce, as the specific cash value was contingent upon the accounting yet to be rendered. The sheriff acted without jurisdiction by proceeding to levy and sell petitioners’ 28 parcels of land for P60,000.00 instead of first accepting petitioners’ tender of payment for the liquidated amounts (the personal property value and attorney’s fees) and deferring execution on the unliquidated portion. Consequently, the sheriffs sale was annulled. The trial court was directed to require petitioners to render the ordered accounting to determine the precise value of the net produce shares, and to abate execution on that portion pending such determination.