G.R. No. L-58849 October 27, 1983
ANGEL V. CAGUIOA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZONICA D. DORIA-DEL ROSARIO and RIZALINO D. DORIA, as Heirs of VALENTIN C. DORIA, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the partition of Lot 11 in Quezon City. Valentin C. Doria had a prior agreement with Vicente Manzon to equally divide the lot, with Doria paying half the price. However, after Manzon acquired title, he sold the entire lot to Angel V. Caguioa. Doria sued to recover his half share. The trial court, in a 1971 decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1977, ordered Caguioa to convey one-half of the lot to Doria upon payment of the balance due. Doria paid, and Caguioa executed the conveyance in 1977.
To end the co-ownership, the trial court ordered the lot surveyed and divided. A surveyor created a front lot (Lot 11-A) and an interior lot (Lot 11-B), with the interior lot given a three-meter access. At a hearing on July 20, 1978, with due notice to Caguioa, he failed to appear. The court then partitioned the lots by tossing a coin: heads for Doria to get the front lot, tails for Caguioa. The toss resulted in heads, and the court issued an order adjudicating the front lot to Doria. Caguioa later sold his share and, after Doria moved for a writ of possession in 1980, Caguioa filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in 1981, challenging the partition proceedings and the issuance of the writ.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Caguioa’s petition, which assailed the writ of possession and the underlying 1978 partition order.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the finality of judgments and laches. The Court found that Caguioa’s petition was not truly an attack on the 1981 writ of possession but a belated challenge to the July 20, 1978 partition order, which had long become final and executory. Caguioa received notice of the 1978 hearing but chose not to appear or appeal the resulting order. By waiting until 1981 to contest it, he was guilty of laches, an unreasonable delay prejudicial to the opposing party. The Court emphasized that final judgments must attain immutability to end litigation.
Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the substantive challenge. The partition method (coin toss) was a valid judicial recourse to allocate specific portions of the property after physical division, especially given Caguioa’s absence which forfeited his right to object to the procedure. The issuance of the writ of possession was a logical enforcement of the final and executed partition order. Thus, the Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petition for seeking to reopen a long-settled matter.