G.R. No. L-37079 September 29, 1988
THE HEIRS OF ZOILO LLIDO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE PAULINO S. MARQUEZ, as Judge Branch I, CFI of Bohol, THE CLERK OF COURT, Branch I, Bohol, and the HEIRS OF FAUSTINA and CAMILA LLIDO as represented by DIONISIO LLIDO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the partition of properties inherited by the children of the late spouses Eugenio Llido and Catalina Galopo. The original parties were the seven children: Dionisio, Hilario, Pedro, Salome, Zoilo, Faustina, and Camila. An oral partition of the parental estate was allegedly made before the war. Upon the deaths of Faustina and Camila, who died without descendants, Zoilo and his son took possession of their shares, as recognized in a prior 1960 court decision. The respondents, representing the heirs of Faustina and Camila, sought a formal partition. After demands were ignored, they filed a complaint for partition in 1963, docketed as Civil Case No. 1644.
After trial, the respondent judge rendered a decision on January 23, 1973, ordering the partition of ten specific parcels of land and directing the parties to submit a project of partition within thirty days. The dispositive portion detailed each parcel and the co-owners entitled to shares in each. The petitioners failed to submit the required project of partition. The court granted an extension, which they also failed to meet. Consequently, on April 27, 1973, the judge issued an order appointing commissioners to effect the partition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing commissioners to partition the properties despite the alleged existence of a prior oral partition and without specifying the exact portions for each party in the appointment order.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent judge’s order. The legal logic is clear. First, the trial court’s decision of January 23, 1973, which ordered partition, had already become final as it was not appealed. That final decision expressly identified the properties and the co-owners entitled to shares in each, thereby establishing the proportions for partition. The subsequent appointment of commissioners was a procedural step under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court to implement this final judgment, necessitated by the petitioners’ repeated refusal to submit a project of partition despite court orders.
Second, the petitioners’ claim of a valid oral partition is unavailing. The trial court’s final decision, which ordered partition, inherently resolved any issues regarding the efficacy of the oral agreement. By not appealing that decision, the petitioners are bound by its findings. The appointment order did not need to reiterate the specific allotments, as these were already definitively stated in the final and executory decision. The commissioners’ duty was to physically effect the division according to the proportions established therein.
Finally, the Court emphasized the imperative of obeying lawful court orders. The petitioners’ disregard of the directives to submit a project of partition warranted the judicial appointment of commissioners. Errors in the exercise of jurisdiction, if any, are mere errors of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the petitioners did not appeal the underlying partition decision, they cannot collaterally attack the implementing orders. The rule of law requires compliance with final judgments, and parties cannot benefit from their own contumacy.