G.R. No. L-19618. February 28, 1964. LEONARDO SANTOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ANGEL H. MOJICA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS

The case originated from an action for partition filed by the heirs of Apolonio Allanigue over a residential lot in Parañaque, Rizal. The Court of First Instance of Rizal ruled that the property, owned in common, should be partitioned among twelve heirs, each receiving a one-twelfth share. The decision became final. As the heirs failed to agree on an amicable partition, the court appointed commissioners. Lorenza Allanigue was awarded a specific 30-square-meter portion. However, as she owed rental arrears of P990.00, the court ordered this amount set off against her share, and upon her failure to pay, a writ of execution was issued against her and those deriving interest from her.
During the execution, the sheriff was notified by petitioner Leonardo Santos that the property subject to execution was his own and could not be included in the partition. The sheriff reported this third-party claim. The court required the plaintiffs to post an indemnity bond to proceed, which they did. Santos then filed a motion in the partition case to recall the writ, reiterating his claim of ownership. This motion was denied. The court subsequently ordered the occupants, including Lorenza Allanigue and petitioners Maria and Felicidad San Agustin, to vacate and set a hearing for the demolition of their houses. Their opposition and motion for reconsideration were overruled, prompting them to file the present petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders for execution and demolition, and whether the petitioners pursued the correct legal remedies.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. For Lorenza Allanigue and the San Agustin sisters, the partition decision had long become final and executory. They participated in the original case and had the opportunity to appeal the judgment or oppose the commissioners’ report but failed to do so. Their proper remedy was an appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari, as the orders merely enforced a final judgment.
For Leonardo Santos, his claim of ownership, allegedly acquired from his parents (including Lorenza Allanigue), was improperly raised. He was not a party to the partition case. The correct procedure for a third-party claimant like Santos was not to file a motion in the pending case but to institute a separate and independent action (a terceria) against the sheriff and the plaintiffs to vindicate his alleged title. By merely intervening through a motion and then joining the certiorari petition, he did not avail himself of the remedy sanctioned by law. The court’s duty to enforce its final order, once the plaintiffs posted the required indemnity bond, was ministerial and not subject to restraint via certiorari. Therefore, the petition was without merit.